Gerard Baden-Clay Murder Trial Day 18 – Justice Byrne’s Summation – 10th July, 2014 (New Posters Welcome)

Day 18

Thursday, 10th July, 2014.

Justice Byrne’s Summations of the Lawyer’s Closing Arguments

 

A short delay due to legal discussion.  Jury is yet to enter the courtroom.

Gerard is immaculately groomed, with a checked shirt, dark suit,  blue and white tie, hair freshly cut and face cleanly shaven.

The jury is entering the courtroom, Justice John Byrne will  then begin his summation of the lawyers’ closing arguments, beginning with the defence.

 

————

 

Byrne, “The defence case is that friends, family, and the children had not ever seen Gerard and Allison argue, let alone any violence.  The defence’s case is that the Crown have not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that you must not find Gerard guilty.

The defence case is that the jury must not speculate.

The defence and crown cases are all about perhaps or what probably happened.

The defence stated that no-one can prove how the deceased died.”

The judge is summarising the defence’s discussions on the pathologist’s report.

Judge, “The defence said a thorough search of the house was completed by police and nothing of relevance was discovered.   The defence said that the three children heard nothing at all on the night of 19th April, 2012.

The defence said that if Gerard killed his wife that night, he must have dressed her in the walking clothes she was found in.  The defence asked why had she bled only in the Captiva?  They asked if Allison was dragged through the garden foliage, why did leaves that stuck into her hair, were also not found in the car?  They asked why there wasn’t any mud or grasses found in the car from Kholo Creek if Gerard dragged his wife’s body down.  They said that there weren’t any obvious signs of a cleanup in the car.  They said if there isn’t any proof of disposal of the body, the Crown case collapses.

The defence said that Gerard is lacking in morals, although that doesn’t mean he is a murderer.  The defence denied that Gerard was going to leave his wife for Toni, that he was good at making promises but nothing ever happened.  Gerard wasn’t faithful to Toni, either.  She was not the love of his life.  Their case is that Gerard did not want to be with Toni, so no need to kill his wife to be with her.

The defence pointed out that Gerard remained calm during cross examination, that he does not have a violent temper.  They disputed Gerard was  under financial pressure.  They said that Gerard was confident the business was on the up and he had been able to pay for the rental arm.

Gerard’s father advised him to make a claim on the life insurance.   The defence case is that the leaves could have washed into Allison’s hair by the creek.  They state that Gerard didn’t ever attempt to conceal any marks on his face, that he told everyone who asked that the marks on his face were from shaving.  The defence said that none of the experts could be 100% sure what caused the marks on Gerard’s face.

The defence gave the possible causes of death which were:  falling from a height, seratonin syndrome leaning to drowning or Sertraline toxicity.

The defence discussed Allison’s mental health history,  her Zoloft use, her sessions with psychologists.

The defence discussed advice from the marriage counsellor, which was given to her a few days before she disappeared.

The defence’s case is that discussions of an affair in the counsellor advised sessions would have caused a relapse in Allison’s depression.  They stated that Allison was stressed at the hairdressers on 19th April, 2012, they told the jury to consider Allison was upset after hearing of the birth of a nephew.  They claim that she always wanted a son.

The defence asked why Allison missed a parent teacher interview for a hairdressing appointment.

The defence’s case is that Allison stayed up late, thinking about the affair, and that she possibly went for a walk to clear her head.  Allison plugged her husband’s phone into charge at 1:48am, she took some Sertraline and went for a walk.  They suggested that she walked to Kholo Creek and ended up at the creek.

The defence said that Gerard did not have to give evidence, but he did.

JUSTICE BYRNE IS NOW SUMMING UP THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

Justice Byrne, “The Crown said that Gerard and Allison appeared to be the perfect couple, but they weren’t.  The Crown said that Gerard had pressures from many angles in April, 2012.  The Crown case is that Allison would not have been upset about the birth of her nephew.  It had been six years since she had given birth.

The Crown said that Allison was a reluctant exerciser, she would not have walked 13km, and no-one saw her walking.

The Crown showed the rainfall records, the creek would not have been muddy at the time.  The area leading down to the creek was vegetated.  The Crown said that Allison had been rolled or pushed from the ledge above.  The Crow said that there wasn’t any evidence that Allison was drug effected.

They said that post mortem changes showed that Allison’s body had not oved.

The Crown’s case is that drowning is not a reasonable suggestion, as there isn’t any evidence of it.  The Crown case is that Allison’s body was dumped to avoid it being found.  There isn’t any evidence of recent Sertraline ingestion, that drug toxicity as a cause of death is excluded by the evidence.

The Crown case is that Allison was not depressed, the evidence from those who saw her that day, is that she was “great.”

The Crown pointed out that the baby monitor in Gerard and Allison’s room as evidence that sound did not travel well in the house.

They discussed the six leaves of the plant species found in Allison’s hair, which were all found in the garden, only two of these species were found at the creek.

The Crown said that Allison was injured that night and bled in the car.  

They said that Gerard had to explain the scratches on his face, that he couldn’t hide them.  Gerard shaved over the scratches to make smaller cuts over the top.

The Crown said that the abrasions near Gerard’s armpit are consistent with Allison’s pulling on his clothing during the struggle.  The scratches occurred after the last time the girls saw their mother and before they woke up to find her gone.

The Crown said that there were three pressures on Gerard at the time:

Financial

Wife

Mistress

The Crown said that Gerard played up his wife’s depression in the hope that the jury would consider that she committed suicide.

The Crown pointed out that Gerard didn’t ever tell police about his conversations with Toni McHugh on the Thursday night.

The Crown said that Allison was sharing his passions with the business while Gerard was out resuming his affair.

The Crown case is that Gerard was in love with Toni.  Toni had demanded that he tell Allison both women would be at the same conference the next day.

Gerard had mounting debts that needed to be paid.

Gerard made up a story to explain why he said in emails that he loved Toni.

Allison told people that she was happy about the birth of her nephew.

Gerard told Toni that he was going to sell the business and be with her.

At the conference, Allison could have found out that he’d continued the affair, with catastrophic results.

Gerard told police that he had not seen any signs of depression in his wife, which is a contrast to his actual testimony.

The Crown said that Gerard had an opportunity to kill, that he lied about scratches on his cheek and that he had discussions with his mistress that night.

The Crown said that it is highly unusual for all those plant species to be in the hair, cuts on his face, her blood in the car, if not murder.

JUSTICE BYRNE HAS COMPLETED HIS SUMMATION OF THE CROWN CASE.

 

Justice Byrne is giving the jury instructions should they need help with anything.

Justice Byrne is addressing the jury,

  1. “You must answer the associate when you return with your verdict.
  2.  You must speak in  unison when asked whether you have reached a verdict.

  3.  An associate will ask whether you have found Gerard guilty or not guilty of murder, the foreman will answer.

  4.  If not guilty, you will be asked the same of manslaughter.

Thank you to the three reserve jurors, you are discharged.  Thank you for the dedication in which you approached your task. ”

The associate is now swearing in the bailiff as the jury’s keeper.

The jury have now retired to consider and reach a verdict.

 

Breaking News

 

Jurors have returned to court – and are receiving direction from the judge as a juror downloaded a document on jury deliberations from an overseas commentator.

Justice Byrne, “You must not make enquiries outside the trial, the advice needs to come from this court, you must not do this, it was wrong.”

The court has given them a jury guide, the jury requested a copy of Justice Byrne’s summation of closing addresses. Request denied.   Justice Byrne instructs the jury, if they so wish,  to write out a written request for his summation to be read aloud in open court.

 

The jury have been excused.

 

The jury have been sent home.  Tomorrow, at 9:00am, they will reconvene to continue their deliberations.

 

=======================================================================================================================================

  Any possible copyrighted material included is property of their rightful owners, no copyright infringement is intended.

 2014 All Rights Reserved
Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Gerard Baden-Clay Murder Trial Day 18 – Justice Byrne’s Summation – 10th July, 2014 (New Posters Welcome)

  1. Justice Byrne, “The defence gave the possible causes of death which were: falling from a height, seratonin syndrome leaning to drowning or Sertraline toxicity.

    Like

  2. Oh Dear, this is just awful reading right now, I have tears rolling :”'( How can these people live with themselves? So glad Mr Fuller’s case is coming and Allsion’s family can finish on a higher note 🙂

    Your doing amazing once again Moonlight, THANK YOU SO SO SO MUCH!!!!

    Karma 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Justice Byrne, “The Crown discussed the six leaves of the plant species found in Allison’s hair, which were all found in the garden, only two of these species were found at the creek.

    The Crown said that Allison was injured that night and bled in the car. “

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Justice Byrne is giving the jury instructions should they need help with anything.

    Justice Byrne is addressing the jury,

    1. “You must answer the associate when you return with your verdict.
    2. You must speak in unison when asked whether you have reached a verdict.

    3. An associate will ask whether you have found Gerard guilty or not guilty of murder, the foreman will answer.

    4. If not guilty, you will be asked the same of manslaughter.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks so much for all your hard work over the past weeks and months Moonlight. It must’ve been emotionally draining to say the least.

    Karma asked earlier what the sentences were for murder and manslaughter in Queensland and I think I got it wrong when I guessed earlier what they were.

    Justice Byrne said in court “If found guilty of murder Mr Baden-Clay faces at least 15 years’ in jail without parole, while there is no fixed minimum non-parole period for manslaughter.” So no parole for murder, but it doesn’t say what the jail term is for manslaughter, and it seems that parole is optional?

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Update:

    Jurors have returned to court – and are receiving direction from the judge as a juror downloaded a document on jury deliberations from an overseas commentator.

    Justice Byrne, “You must not make enquiries outside the trial, the advice needs to come from this court, you must not do this, it was wrong.”

    The court has given them a jury guide, the jury requested a copy of Justice Byrne’s summation of closing addresses. Request denied. Justice Byrne instructs the jury, if they so wish, to write out a written request for his summation to be read aloud in open court.

    The jury have been excused.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hi Moonlight,

      Thank you so very much for today! I do hope you took some R&R this afternoon?

      A few things have happen unexpectedly with the Jury today I see. Wow!

      1. Your writings above

      “Jurors have returned to court – and are receiving direction from the judge as a juror downloaded a document on jury deliberations from an overseas commentator”

      I simply cannot fathom this has happened and it does concern me given Justice Byrne’s instructions several times to not let outside influences sway them. I am sure they received a copy of the booklet below for Jurors and deliberations? Quiet concise if you have a squiz?

      http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/93813/sd-brochure-jurors-guide-deliberations.pdf

      1. Jurors have asked Justice Byrne the difference between murder and manslaughter. This is a good sign? I take this to mean they are tossing up between the two? Obviously murder would be the ultimate and most just, an aquittal would be dismal, manslaughter is not justice, however just a little tiny bit.
      2. I was unaware that QPS dropped the charges against GBC on interferring with a corpse, so no 2 years extra here as I mentioned in a previous post 😦

      http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/badenclay-trial-the-disappearance-20140609-zs1z9.html

      On the home stretch to get Allison some justice, oh please do not let her down Jurors, pretty pleeeeease!

      Apparently this movie (90 mins) on YouTube is a brilliant watch on Jury deliberations. I am yet to watch it, however I shall tomorrow. Given where the trial is at right now it might give insight on what goes on in a Jury room.

      I wonder what GBC is thinking about in his “office” this evening? I do hope his conscious is getting to him? Actually silly statement, as GBC does not seem to have one. Sad 😦

      I wonder how long the jury will be in deliberation? I hope its tomorrow and they see it as clear cut as we do. What are your thoughts All?

      Have a wonderful evening.

      In love and light,
      Karma

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Oh dear. Clearly there is at least one Brisbane village that is missing its idiot.

    What a shame said idiot is needed for a unanimous verdict.

    How absolutely bizarre.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. God Help Us if we have a Luke Shaw on THIS jury.

    (Posters younger than me – likely to be everyone! – may need to google “Luke Shaw Jury”. And then weep copious tears).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Why does the juror have access to the internet? They are supposed to be sequestered aren’t they? One would imagine that means no phones, no outside communication, nothing until they reach a verdict.

      Yes I remember Luke Shaw. And the farce that was the JBP trial.

      Brisvegas is a small town in this sense and I guess in a situation like this it is always a challenge to find a group of people who have not already formed an opinion. The judge did tell them though that they must consider the evidence. I have confidence that it has been presented in such a way as to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. My fingers are crossed that no more mishaps occur during this process.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I think it’s interesting that Justice Byrne is giving the jury the option of manslaughter. Is this the way it normally works? To me it indicates that he’s giving them the option (does the Judge believe he’s guilty?) of the lesser charge if they can’t agree to intent, which equals murder.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hello Dear SFA,

      After reading the Criminal Code sections on this (see below) and given the case the Crown put forward, I cannot see how the Jury could come up with manslaughter?

      Manslaughter

      Section 303 provides that a person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter. A person who is guilty of Manslaughter under section 310 is liable to a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life.

      GBC has denied he was involved in any way shape or form so I would think “unlawfully kills another” negates this option?

      CRIMINAL CODE – SECT 310

      310 Punishment of manslaughter
      Any person who commits the crime of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life.

      Murder
      Section 302 sets out the circumstances which a person who unlawfully kills will be guilty of murder.

      If the offender intends to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the person killed or some other person;
      If the death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose and the act is of a nature likely to endanger human life;
      If the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit such a crime. The crime must be such that the offender may be arrested without warrant;
      If death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (3);
      If death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of the listed purposes.

      This has GBC written all over it and is what the Crown put forward.

      I have a little more hope for a guilty verdict after reading this 🙂

      Now to find out if its manslaughter who decides how long GBC would get, I presume it would be the Judge? He could then possibly pose the maximum sentence as stated above.

      Your thoughts?

      In love and light,
      Karma

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thanks for researching this Karma. I didn’t realise the penalty for manslaughter was imprisonment ‘for life’ so perhaps that also means 15 years (the same as for murder.) This was changed to 20 years a few months after Allison’s death. I do believe the Judge decides the penalty once the verdict is reached, so it’s possible the sentence would be the same for either murder or manslaughter? I wish I knew more about the law!

        Like

  10. Hi All …grrrrrrrr ………. we are not speaking of computers , well after this lil rant I’m not … mine decided to have a hissy fit and no amount of coaxing would get it to even start , so I used Diane’s laptop and immediately it realized I was using it and it did the same … enter one kind son , move over ol man he said and after an hour he gave up on both , but being a wise young bloke he’d brought a tower of his and a laptop , so he lent them to us and off he went.
    I plugged them in and away they went , only a minor problem , these ol things were both running Windows XP which they stopped supporting in April , a few hours later with no anti virus they started doing some weird n wonderful things .
    Finally I remembered a bloke I was told about and contacted him , then loaded mine along with Diane’s laptop aboard the car and took them to him some 80kms away , 3 hrs later , all fixed .. so here I am …. ( fixed for a mere $100.00 the pair)

    I’d like to thank Moonlight for keeping me informed and posting for me for the last week , and the court reports which were well written , precise and factual and above all a great read.

    So here we are waiting for the Jury to make their decision, don’t be surprised if there’s either a hung jury or the Deaf Mug who failed to listen to instructions doesn’t do something to cause a mistrial.
    Rumors of Idiots , the lies GBC told under oath and Grand Wizardry abound …. who knows ?

    Liked by 2 people

Please respond here:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s