Monday, 7th July, 2014.
The jury will retire this week to consider their verdict
OUR REPORTS ARE IN DETAIL, UPDATED AS IT HAPPENS, FROM OTHER DIRECT SOURCES
Court resumes today with the Crown and Defence giving Closing Arguments along with Justice John Byrne giving his summation,
with specific instructions on howthe jury should reach a verdict.
The jury, of five women and seven men, will deliberate.
“I just wanted sex” – Gerard Baden-Clay
“I didn’t love my mistress” – Gerard Baden-Clay
“Murder Claims are absurd” – Gerard Baden-Clay
CLOSING ARGUMENT – MICHAEL BYRNE, QC, DEFENCE.
Byrne, “I have prepared some powerpoints to assist the jury.”
01. The jury might think it has been a who dunnit play, a media circus or a soap opera, it is not so. The jury shouldn’t be caught up in media hype. GBC has been charged with murder, the most serious crime one can be charged with. He has been charged with murdering his wife of 14 years, the person he had three daughters with. GBC is accused of somehow violently ending her life in the home he shared with her and their three daughters.
GBC has not ever been seen to be violent or argue with his wife. One of the first witnesses, a police sergeant, regarded Gerard as one of the nicest guys in the world. The jury has seen what GBC has done in the community. This case is about the evidence, not about what the media has said. GBC was confronted by an angry and abusive Toni McHugh, he didn’t become angry or violent on that occasion. Once the jury has carefully considered all the evidence, they should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not about feeling sorry for anyone, it’s about looking at the evidence. In every trial, the prosecution must prove a number of things beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove Allison is deceased, that Gerard killed her. The first point is not in contention, the second point is.
A third element – intent must be proved to be satisfied of murder. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove GBC’s guilt. That means Gerard has nothing to prove, he does not need to give evidence or call evidence. He does not have to prove anything to you, particularly his innocence. He is, as is anyone, presumed to be innocent. The burden is on the prosecution, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If the jury has reasonable doubt, their duty is to acquit.
The prosecution case is a circumstantial one. That means that isn’t any direct evidence that Gerard Baden-Clay killed Allison. There aren’t any eye witnesses, no admissions. The case relies on circumstances.
An example is that GBC was the last person to see Allison alive. Does that mean he killed her? No.
COURT – Slide being shown. Slide states, “Jury has to believe Crown case is only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstances.”
Byrne, “A jury has to believe there is real and substantial evidence linking the aspects of the circumstantial case. One fact is that Allison’s blood was found in the car. The jury has to believe that the only rational reason for it being there is GBC transporting Allison’s body.
There wasn’t any blood found anywhere else in the carport, garage, side of the house, back patio, inside the house. The blood in the car cannot be aged.
The jury’s task is complex and important.
COURT – Slide of the end of GBC’s cross examination where he was asked if he killed his wife.
Byrne is highlighting certain words that the prosecution used, such as, “either” and “perhaps”.
Byrne, “It is not on the balance of probabilities, you have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
We will now work through aspects of the evidence.
How did Gerard kill his wife? How did she die? What caused her death?
How can the Crown say that Allison was violently murdered? Does the evidence even reveal how she in fact died?
The jury should think of the evidence of pathologist Dr Nathan Milne.
The pathologist examined Allison’s brain, organs, and could not establish a cause of death. A precision 3D CT scan was conducted and could find no definite injuries to Allison’s body. It is alleged that there was a violent intentional murder. No injuries were found. Dr Milne went over Allison’s clothing. Her singlet, her bra, pants all properly in place. Jumper over her head. The sneakers tied up, over the socks, everything in place.
There wasn’t any evidence of fractures, there wasn’t any injuries to the larynx, hyoid bone. There isn’t any evidence of crushing fractures, that is the uncontradicted evidence from the pathologist. There was something on the ribs on the left hand side that was a possible bruise. Dr Milne had seen thousands of CT scans and could see no defects. He called a radiologist who could not see anything. Allison was 43, with a history of asthma and a long term diagnosis of depression. Allison had alcohol in her system, at least half, possibly all, due to decomposition.
Neither the pathologist nor associated experts could come up with a cause of death. The pathologist looked at causes that could not be excluded. Alcohol, and medication were one, although unlikely. Drowning, a fall, could not be excluded, although unlikely. The pathologist could not determine a place of death. They couldn’t exclude the body being moved after death, by tide or person.”
Byrne points to Gerard.
“This person is facing the murder of that woman. We don’t have a cause of death. I remind you again that you need to make your decision, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Allison had a chip on her tooth which couldn’t be aged. No other injuries, no cracking to the tooth, no damage to the jaw. The prosecution has to prove murderous intent – there aren’t any detectable injuries, there isn’t anything whatsoever. The prosecution has to exclude all other reasonable explanations.
The causes of death left open are alcohol, sertraline toxicity, drowning, and falling from a height.
The body was located under a bridge.
The judge is giving the jury periodic breaks to help their concentratiion on closing arguments. The judge advised the jury to return when they feel comfortable.
Byrne, “There wasn’t a crime scene at the house. I will take you through the police’s evidence.
01. First response officer Constable Ash saw marks on Gerard’s face and thought perhaps domestic violence. Constable Ash was doing his job. The officer looked around the house, he didn’t find any sign of a struggle. He didn’t find any blood. At 8am, Constable Ash didn’t find any signs of violence. What was alleged was that a violent killing had occurred in the house. The police didn’t find anything. They searched the carport, there wasn’t anything to look like blood.
Police completed chemical screening for blood in the carport and garage areas, they didn’t find anything. It is one thing to say that there was blood in the Captiva, therefore it was used. There wasn’t blood anywhere else.
A crime scene warrant was taken out. It is an important tool for the police. This allowed the police to seize possession of the house and land, 20th April, 2012. The warrant lasted seven days. The police had seven days to thoroughly examine and search the house and property. Police had the SES conducting a shoulder to shoulder search of the grounds of the property.
The only thing they found was a black NAB pen, that is how carefully they searched.
Do not look at media grabs or sensational headlines, look at the evidence.
EVIDENCE OF SENIOR SERGEANT EWEN TAYLOR, forensic co-ordinator.
There were scientific examinations o the house and vehicle. No blood was found in the residence. There wasn’t any obvious indication of a clean-up inside the house. The Crown allege that there was a violent killing, with the body driven to the creek. There isn’t any mess or blood, there isn’t any damage, nothing has been found.
Gerard is an accountant working as a real estate agent, he doesn’t know how to clean up a murder scene.
Edit – oh rubbish, remember, GBC claimed he did up to 90% of the work and that he cleans up rental properties, the defence went too far with the above comment.
Gerard and Allison aren’t alone in the house, they had their three young children with them. You, the jurors, have been through the house, you have walked through it. The girls had called out through the house, they would have heard it. The house isn’t sound proofed in any way.
Edit – except he may have killed her in the Captiva.
The three girls were taken by police on 20th April and asked what they heard. The eldest said the last time she saw her mum was the night before, she said it was like any other night. The eldest awoke to get a glass of water. Her mother was on the couch in her pyjamas.
Edit – Where are the pyjamas?
The eldest girl was asked whether mum and dad had been having any fights, she said no. The eldest girl asked if she heard anything, any car noises, she said no.
The Crown will say she had cross country, would have been tired and slept through it. If they say it really quickly, it might make sense.
INTERVIEW WITH SECOND DAUGHTER.
Girl is asked whether mum and dad are good friends. She said yes, and when asked why, she said that they “never fight”. These are the words of an innocent. Friends and employees never heard a fight. They’re just not that kind of couple.
The second girl was asked whether her mum and dad had had a fight the night before. The girl shakes her head.”
Byrne, “From the mouths of babes.”
Byrne, “The second girl also was asked about car noises. She didn’t hear anything. That is not one child tired from cross country, that is two now. The youngest daughter said the same. No fighting, no car noises.
Again, it is important not to take grabs, or headlines. Take all the evidence. From three girls, there is no argument. Nobody heard a car start up in the carport. The scream evidence just vanished into thin air, with the evidence of Stephanie Apps.
Mrs Apps gave her evidence that her daughter screamed when she ran into a spiderweb. The evidence just falls away. Mrs Apps watched the six o’clock news about screams in the night and came forward.
The Crown theory must be that the killing occurred some time after 9pm, it is equally critical that after Gerard violently killed his wife, he transported her body to Kholo Creek.
If the evidence doesn’t prove that, the Crown case starts to collapse. It does collapse here. The Crown case is that after he somehow caused her death, leaving no signs in the house or carport, he loads the body. He then takes the body to Kholo Creek and dumps her under the bridge. Is that what the evidence shows? We knew Allison is seen by her daughter on the couch watching TV.
Somewhere between 9pm 19th April and when the body was found, we had a change from pyjamas to walking gear.
Byrne, “How does that happen? Is the Crown theory that Gerard somehow dresses a dead body? Have you ever had to dress and undress a child who has fallen asleep? Allison was not a child.
Had Gerard thought to put a jumper on a dead body because it was cold in April? Perhaps the Crown believes he waited until morning, killed her and drove of before the children woke up.
Do any of these theories completely satisfy a jury of being the only way that it could have happened?
There wasn’t any blood in the carport area. There wasn’t any blood in the house. There was only blood in the car. Sure, it is Allison’s blood in the ar. It can’t be aged.”
Edit – car was a few months old.
Byrne, “If the body was dragged or carried through the foliage, where are the leaves in the car? Only crepe myrtle was in the car, it is very common in Brisbane.”
Edit – ONLY IF PLANTED .
Byrne, “How does all this movement go undetected by the three girls? The girls would have been left alone for up to 40 minutes while Gerard disposed unceremoniously of the body of his wife.
The Crown case is that Gerard got the body out of the back of the car, carried or dragged it through the grass. Gerard climbs back up, through the grass and mud and drives home.
Do you, the jury, think such a scenario is even possible, let alone one they are satisfied of, beyond a reasonable doubt? The jury has ventured down that ridge.
PHOTOGRAPH – Kholo Creek bridge area. The mud and grass areas can be seen.
Byrne, “Bear in mind how police described it. One officer said he tried to touch down after being winched but the mud was thick.”
Edit – we had torrential rain AFTER ALLISON DISAPPEARED, not when she disappeared, i.e. the area wasn’t soaked at that time.
Byrne, “One officer said that the mud was at the top of his gum boots when he tried to stand.
Byrne, “When the jury visited the creek, it was a dry day, the clay still stuck to your shoes. When we went to the house afterwards, mud was tracked onto the carpet. The interior of the Captiva was examined for evidence of clean ups. There wasn’t any obvious clean ups.
How do you carry a body down an embankment at night when a police officer had trouble during the day? How was there not any mud anywhere? This is a circumstantial case alleging murder. The evidence clearly shows the transporting/dumping of the body did not happen.
It is the absence of those things which loom large in this. Some earlier unremarkable incident caused Allison’s blood to be in the car.”
Edit – what is it then?
Byrne, “The evidence is key. You do not ignore evidence. You do not make excuses for the absence of any link between Kholo Creek and the house. The jury cannot make excuses because Allison is dead and someone should pay.
Gerard gave police access to the house and cars, his conduct was consistent with a man who wanted his wife found. It is completely at odds with a man attempting to conceal a crime scene. This is because there was no crime scene at the house. The jury should not have sympathy for Gerard, for Allison or her family or for Gerard’s family. They should dispassionately look at the evidence. Gerard and Allison had been married for 14 years, their life had been unmarked by any signs of violence.”
edit – yes reported violence.
Byrne, “Together they had gone through years of Allison’ depressive illness. It was not a passionate relationship, there had not been any intimacy for years. All relationships are different, nothing wrong with that. The sexual passion was gone, they had a companionable relationship. One or more of the jury might find it abhorrent that someone in a marriage is unfaithful.
Some of the jury might think less of Gerard because he was not faithful to Allison. Gerard was unfaithful not once, but more than once. Maybe the jury will find his morals despicable. That is a fair cry though from labelling him a murderer. The Crown alleged motive – he wanted to leave his wife and be with Toni. Like the screams and bumps in the night, the Crown worded it as a circumstance.
When the jury scrutinises the evidence, they will see that wasn’t the case. Gerard did not want to be with Toni. Even Toni knew in her heart that that was not the case. Toni agreed that her relationship with Gerard was up and down all the time year after year.
Toni was convinced their relationship was over after Allison found out. Gerard contacted Toni again after three months. Whatever the jury thinks of Gerard’s morals, they can’t convict him on his morals. Gerard made promises to Toni, but in Toni’s words, “again nothing happened.” Gerard’s affair didn’t occur on the weekends, he’s married, he was with his family. It was a pattern of promises, no action. It had been going on for years, Toni agreed with that. Toni said that Gerard was good at making promises, nothing ever came of them.
Gerard wasn’t even faithful to Toni. To be brutal, he was not sexually faithful. Toni wasn’t the only woman Gerard was going to leave his wife and children for. Gerard gave Toni a date when he would leave his wife, his wife’s birthday. This does not mean he is guilty of murder. Toni did not believe this date. If Toni didn’t believe, why should the jury?
Gerard’s email to Toni, “Leave things to me now.” Toni always left things to Gerard, nothing ever happened. Gerard and Toni would communicate during the week, on 19th April they spoke of the conference the next day. Gerard did not hide the fact that Allison would be at the same conference as Toni. Toni described it as “I just felt like I was being played again.”
Byrne, “Gerard didn’t have any intention of leaving his wife and children for Toni McHugh, there wasn’t any reason to.
Does he kill his wife to be with Toni McHugh? Not likely. On 20th April, Toni asked him what happened. Had their been an argument? Gerard said no. Gerard told Toni to tell the truth. Gerard was not hiding anything, he was trying to find his wife.
When the three year affair was revealed, Gerard confessed. If there was going to be a trigger, an explosion, it would have been when Allison found out. There were tears, without raised voices. It was talked about calmly. Gerard was not one to explode. He went to see Toni and told her it was over. Gerard didn’t lose his temper, he went to work, called if staff individually and told them what had happened.
That is the type of temperament that the evidence shows you that Gerard Baden-Clay has.
Todd Fuller vigorously put questions to Gerard and he still remained calm. The only emotion was when he was “reliving” parts of his life with Allison and the shock o her going missing. They might think premeditated murder is absurd on the evidence presented. They might think spontaneous murder with a background of t he Footy Show is just as unbelievable.
Is financial pressure a reason for killing your wife of 14 years? Gerard is an accountant with accountant mates. They don’t say this was financial pressure “bearing down on him”.”
Byrne is discussing GBC’s finances and shows a table of Gerards financial balance sheet. Gerard’s finances were structured personal versus business., Byrne claims the figures are healthy as the assets exceed the liabilities.”
Edit – what assets?
Byrne, “Gerard had substantial personal assets at the time. Gerard had confidence that he could find the money to pay for the rental side of the business. If you look at the evidence, Gerard wasn’t under financial pressure.
Gerard’s accountant friend Rob Cheesman went through the business accounts, along with two other friends. The friends believed Gerard was optimistic about how the business was going. There really was a positive balance of about half a million dollars.
The friends testified that Gerard could have let those businesses go broke and walk away, there wasn’t any personal risk to Gerard. This was the opinion of Gerard’s close friend Rob Cheesman. Gerard’s other friend Stuart Christ also went through the financial records. The third friend was Peter Cranna. All three were happy to lend money to Gerard after going through his documentation.
Adjourning for lunch until 2.30pm
Byrne is discussing Sue Heath’s evidence.
Byrne, “Gerard spoke, distressed to Sue, saying that he needed money from her friend, Bruce Flegg. Dr Flegg’s evidence was that when he spoke with Gerard, Gerard had “moved on’. Gerard was by then speaking to other people about sourcing money and was ‘confident’ about that.”
Byrne is now discussing the insurance policies. Both Gerard and Allison both had policies.
Byrne, “I would like to remind the jury of the evidence of Nigel Baden-Clay, who has a background in the insurance injury. It was only prudent that they had two policies in place, being a young family with young children. there was contact with the insurer after the discovery of Allison’s body. Nigel arranged Allison’s life insurance policy, he had a background in the insurance industry. Nigel told Gerard it was his obligation to notify the insurance company of Allison’s death, following the discovery of the body. Nigel filled out the paperwork on behalf of his son and Gerard signed it. There isn’t anything untoward, you might think, about that approach.”
Toni McHugh new Nigel and he had suggested she take out life insurance. Byrne said the claim on the lie insurance should not sway the jury.
Byrne is talking about the plants and leaves found on Allisn’s body and whether they link her death to the house. The leaves were not in the Captiva. Byrne is discussing the evidence of the botanist, who went to the creek, walked the streets and surveyed plants growing in the area. One of the plants found in Allison’s hair was a Cat’s Claw Creeper. Byrne said it is a pest and found everywhere.
Edit, I haven’t seen this in our area, or on acreage in our street:
Fishbone fern – was a mixture of fallen and fresh leaves, same with the Cat’s Claw Creeper. Byrne asked the botanist whether the plants and leaves float down rivers. The botanist agreed.
Edit: Allison wasn’t in the water. Torrential rain fell just before her body was found.
Baden-Clay – back of home. Notice the Fishbone fern underneath the Crepe Myrtle – come on, the defence really is pushing it:
Byrne said that the botanist, Dr Gordon Guymer, didn’t do a study on how much debris was moving up and down the creek.
Byrne, “It is one thing to say you went to Kholo Creek and you didn’t see certain types of plants. The jury needs to look at the catchment area of the creek and the tidal flows. The real and perhaps only explanation on how fresh and old leaves were found on the body ten days later is from the water.
Some of Allison’s family leave the courtroom while photographs of her body are shown to the jury by the defence.
Byrne, “This is Allison’s hair where he says leaves could have been caught up. It pains me to say it but just bear that image in mind.
COURT – Time lapse video of the tidal flows in Kholo Creek again.
Byrne points to the area where, “You might think that the body probably was here. Watch how much water rose to that level.”
Byrne plays the footage again and points out the areas where debris are deposited on the bank and taken away again.
Byrne, “The pathologist described the plant material ass being stuck within Allison’s hair. Initially, police at the scene, talked about getting to Allison’s body before the tide rose.”
Byrne is referring to evidence from an engineer who looked at the tide charts. The engineer said that he couldn’t tell if the body was below the high tide mark.
Byrne, “The best evidence is what the jury can see for themselves.”
Byrne, “Gerard didn’t give any other explanation except the marks on his face were shaving cuts. Gerard called the police to his home that day and the marks where there for all to see. Gerard told everyone what happened to his face in an open and candid fashion. Even when the police said that they don’t look like shaving cuts, he didn’t change his story. Clearly Gerard Baden-Clay was not concerned about those marks.
Gerard even demonstrated to the jury using a highlighter to demonstrate how he cut himself.”
Edit – oh pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase.
Byrne, “If they are not shaving scrapes, what is their significance in this trial?”
Byrne discusses the forensic experts who looked at the scratches on Gerard’s face.
Byrne, talking to the jury, he isn’t going to go through the statements again, “You have the transcripts.”
Byrne, “The first expert, Dr Margaret Stark, could not 100% say the marks were caused by fingernails. I don’t shirk from the fact that Dr Stark said that she believed that the scratches are from fingernails. It is important to remember that there were limitations on just looking at photographs.
THE JURY HAS BEEN SENT OUT FOR A SHORT BREAK
The judge wants the jury to have short breaks every 45 minutes to help them concentrate.
Byrne is discussing Dr Margaret Stark’s evidence.
Byrne, “Dr Stark was careful in her report not to say that they were fingernail scratches, just that they were typical of them. Dr Stark said that there could be another explanation, although it is difficult to interpret just from the photos.:
Byrne is now discussing evidence of the GP, Dr Candice Beaven.
Dr Beaven consulted with Gerard and examined his injuries when he attended her clinic. Dr Beaven had experience with shave biopsies and said that they look similar.
Byrne is discussing evidence from Dr Renu Kumar, a GP who consulted with Gerard.
Dr Kumar was not 100% sure what caused the injuries, Gerard told her it was a “rushed jjob”.
Byrne, “The jury should use common sense as much as science when assessing the evidence. “
Byrne is now discussing evidence from Dr Robert Hoskins.
Dr Hoskins said it is impossible to say the marks were caused by fingers.
Byrne, “Dr Hoskins said the marks were consistent with fingernails and that is as far as he would go.”
Byrne is discussing evidence from Dr Leslie Griffiths.
Dr Griffiths agreed that any sharp object dragged across skin could cause marks. Dr Griffiths also believed that they were fingernail scratches; however, he agreed that interpretation of photographs is imprecise.
Byrne is discussing Dr David Wells, who examined the photographs of the scratches.
Byrne said that Dr Wells said that he had “considerable difficulty” reconciling scratches from a razor.
Byrne, “Dr Wells believed it could have been fingernails, that it could have been a number of other different things. Gerard told the doctor that he was in a rush, his wife was missing, that he was shaving in an agitated state.
Byrne is now giving a summary from Scratch Experts.
Byrne, “Dr Stark said the only person who knows how the injuries are caused are the people who were present. Tragically, we only have one person to tell us. Gerard has told us under oath how the scratches were caused. The jury might think the injuries were caused by something other than a razor blade. That is not your roll.”
Edit: One lie, always lies.
Byrne, “The Crown has to exclude the razor and they cannot. The jury must bear in mind that the scratches themselves do not convict Gerard. You cannot leave out that there isn’t any supporting evidence as to how he could have killed her. You cannot forget the lack of evidence in dressing Allison, transporting her body, and leaving the children alone.
The experts could not agree on what the marks on Gerard’s chest were. Some said bruises, others said abrasions.”
Byrne is now discussing the evidence on mental health issues.
Byrne, “This is not done to demean Allison and the seriousness of her condition. It is very important factual background. The defence is that he does not know what happened to Allison. Allison was in her pyjamas watching the Footy Show when Gerard went to bed that night. Allison’s illness went on for a long time and kept coming back. Stress and pregnancy triggers kept bringing the depression back.”
Byrne is discussing evidence from Dr Tom George.
Allison consulted with him for anxiety and panic attacks.
Byrne, “In September, 2005, Allison reported guilt, anxiety and worry, teariness and low moods. I’m not here to criticise her.
Michael Byrne, QC
Byrne,”Dr George first consulted with Allison when she was 26 weeks pregnant and had a two year old daughter. Dr George said that she had a reduced sense of worth, negative view of the future, prone to transient suicidal thoughts at that time.
When put in context, sure, she did have a strong maternal attachment, but that doesn’t mean she could control her illness. The anxiety returned with Allison’s third pregnancy. Dr George said Gerard contacted him during Allison’s third pregnancy as they were having a girl. Gerard contacted the doctor as he was worried that Allison would be disappointed that they were having another girl. People can hide suicidal thoughts, even from professionals. They do not and cannot say what happened to Allison that night. It is important that the jury listen to the assessments of various professionals on her mental state.
Byrne is now discussing evidence from Dr Nicholas Bourke
Byrne, “Dr Bourke’s patient notes show Allison was suffering from bad pre-menstrual mood swings and her Zoloft dose was increased.”
Byrne discussing evidence from Dr Rosemund Nutting.
Allison told the doctor that she was a bad wife, that she was struggling with three children. Allison discussed “flashbacks’ with Dr Nutting of “Gerard’s girlfriend’s car at the gym’.
Byrne, “Dr Nutting didn’t want to discuss flashbacks with Allison and Gerard together, as she thought it would be bad for her.”
Byrne is talking about evidence of Relationship’s Australia consellor Carmel Ritchie.
Ms Ritchie described Allison as a conflict avoider. Ms Ritchie didn’t make enquiries about any diagnosis that Allison had. Ms Ritchie didn’t make enquiries with regard to Allison having a major, recurring depressive disorder.
Edit – lies..
Ms Ritchie didn’t make any enquiries with regard to medication, or flashbacks. Allison defined her problem with Gerard as feeling ‘inadequate’ and ‘not good enough’. Against that background, she recommended that Gerard and Allison speak for 10 to 15 minutes every second night. Ms Ritchie said Gerard’s role should have been to listen and listen only. Ms Ritchie said that she did not see it as a question and answer session. Ms Ritchie did not think it would be helpful ‘in the early stages’ for Allison to question Gerard re intimate details. Ms Ritchie said it would have been extremely uncomfortable for Allison to hear intimate details of the affair. Medical, psychological and psychiatric evidence showed that Allison was a conflict avoider, her meds had been increased. This is t he picture of where Allison was, at least psychologically. Gerard Baden-Clay told you how much Allison wanted a male child to continue the family name. He specifically contacted Dr George to point out his fear of Allison’s disappointment.
The “venting” session turned into a question and answer about the affair. After the question and answer session on 18th April, Gerard and Allison return home to news that Gerard’s brother has had a baby son. Gerard, Allison, Nigel and Elaine, who’d been looking after the children, discussed the birth and Allison went to bed. The next day Allison had a hair appointment. The hairdresser said that Allison was “a bit stressed” when she sat down.
Edit, the people at work said that Allison was fine. Perhaps Allison was a bit irritated as she had to return quite a few times to get her hair right.
The hairdresser asked whether Allison was still sick. Allison said she was and it wasn’t going away.
Byrne is discussing evidence given about sertraline, an antidepressant, which itself can cause anxiety.
Byrne is discussing the Seratonin Syndrome, where the body has to deal with a different amount of the chemical in the brain.
The defence has no onus of proof. They can ask a jury to consider possibilities.
Byrne, “Please consider the evidence from Allison’s mother, Gerard and Nigel Baden-Clay that she always wanted a son. Gerard’s brother’s newborn son was the first male grandson. Allison, after finding out about the birth, shortly after, went to bed. Allison was able to take up to 100mg of Zoloft a day if she was feeling down. The medication kicks in after about six hours. When she was at the hairdressers she was ‘slumped’. The hair appointment clashed with a parent teacher interview. Why would a mother do that?
Edit – scum.
Byrne, “After leaving Allison on the couch watching the Footy Show, we don’t know what happened. It is possible that she stayed up thinking about what had happened between her and Gerard, the rawness had been opened up.”
Byrne is reading from Allison’s journal.
“I don’t want to be alone”. He said that she is up late, thinkng.
“Byrne, “What if she decides to go for a walk to clear her head. What if she decides to take a Zoloft?
She leaves the house, after first placing Gerard’s phone on the charger. What if she goes on her normal walk, decides to walk a bit further. Maybe the Zoloft is absorbed, maybe we have Seratonin syndrome. Maybe, somehow, she ends up in the river. Could have rendered her unconscious, maybe she drowned in the river (edit – not possible according to Autopsy).
That is just one scenario. The jury may reject it. You could reject that Gerard, for no apparent reason, with no apparent means, violently killed his wife.
ADJOURNED UNTIL 10:00 AM TOMORROW
Any possible copyrighted material included is property of their rightful owners, no copyright infringement is intended.