I am gratified that the Court of Appeal has quashed Gordon Wood's conviction upon much the same grounds that I argued in your Blog thread of 21 November 2008 "Verdict in an Interesting Case".
Many people are seduced by Trial by Media, and it is impossible for dopey members of any jury not to have exposure to the media frenzy that surrounds any celebrity trial.
Who knows, maybe a killer has been freed because of abject mismanagement of the trial. As I said in the 2008 thread:
My personal opinion is that the prosecution badly stuffed this case, and as a result, GW will walk on appeal, never, ever to be tried again."
Others called me ignorant for defending such a monster. I was merely defending the rule of Law, and it would appear that my views have been vindicated.
Kae, I have to agree with Kaboom on this. Trial by media sucks. The only people who are in a position to make a valid assessment of how a trial should turn out are those who have a sound knowledge of law, and have seen all the evidence. And even that well-informed assessment is still only an opinion when it appears in the media. By the time we media-consumers see that opinion, sub-editors may have edited it to a point where it means exactly the opposite of what was originally intended. Another serious shortcoming of trial by media is that journalists do not have to abide by the Rules of Evidence.
Kaboom Where have you been? I agree, trial by media is wrong and I should have an open mind and abide by the decision of the court, for without that due process we'd all be guilty until proven innocent.
Though I'm still shocked.
Heard thismorning that he'll possibly go for a million dollars in damages.
Hi Skeeter Pleased you did't wash away last night!
So chaps, what about the other GW? Kaboom, with your background have you been able to deduce anything about the other GW acquitted this week?
Onthe other GW case, I need to read the precise reasoning why some elements of circumstantial evidence was excluded by the trial Judge.
Maybe the criminal law is different in Alabama, but I would think that evidence of a five-fold increase in life insurance on a 24(?) year old, and a video of him removing flowers from his wife's grave, would be admissible circumstantial evidence in Queensland.
After all, there are no fingerprints, there is no murder weapon (apart, perhaps, from turning off the air supply, and turning it on again when you knew that the over-weighted diver would sink to the bottom).
However, we have motive, means and opportunity.
We have someone who was initially charged with murder in Queensland, but who entered into a plea-bargain to nod for manslaughter with 18 months and deportation.
At this stage, Kaboom does not have a firm opinion - this could change overthe coming weeks.
I often wonder about what a jury hears and sees, and what they understand - how it is explained to the lay person (are they baffled with bullshit?), to come to their conclusion.
I'm disappointed that the Judge didn't see fit to let the other GW case go before a jury.
Is it normal for the police in a different country to be slagged off as being biased and backward?
Just askin'
(I know that this is what Australians do when an Aussie is arrested overseas for some crime!)
Thanks, Kae. Our mighty stream overflowed its banks this morning for the 4th time in 2012, but we are safe and dry. No sign of cattle on the island now, so they must have moved to safer ground during the night. As a forecaster he is worthless, but as a drought-breaker, Flim-Flan deserves more money.
I have not been watching the case closely but I am pretty sure I saw the judge say that (at least some of) the prosecution's evidence about the insurance policy was disallowed because it was hearsay. If that is true, it makes you wonder what other screw-ups they made.
There are many interesting dynamics at play, upon which I lack sufficient data to comment.
(1) Alabama is a death penalty state. The jury decides the penalty (as far as I know) rather than the judge, as is the case in Australia.
(2) As a result, jurors are reluctant to convict when they might be putting someone to death. This normally only happens when someone is on video murdering a party, in the presence of witnesses.
(3) Juries are therefore unlikely to convict on purely "circumstantial" evidence.
(4) The whole concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been totally corrupted in recent time. Now it seems that if you can raise any other stupid scenario as a remote possibility (I didn't murder my baby, I just left it unaccompanied in a tent and a dingo took it away!) and just because there is some alternative scenario this immediately makes the prime "beyond reasonable doubt" allegation falsified.
(5) The Alabama police involvement, I think, was the background investigation of the insurance and the flowers, which evidence was excluded for some reason.
(6) The only other involvement would be by tradition, that they would have taken the Queensland coppers on the piss and to all the girly bars, as a professional courtesy.
(7) The evidence at the trial would therefore only have been based on Queensland police investigations, and in the absence of a confession (despite how amazingly adept the Queensland police are at extracting confessions), no witnesses, no weapon, and only a dead body, it was obviously insufficient to meet a capital case.
As I say, when I investigate the transcripts of the case further, I shall be in more of a position to comment knowledgably.
However, I think you are incorrect in the dingo case, and also in some SIDs cases - people can and do suddenly die, there are conditions which cause sudden death without any signs and they're just discovering some of them now. There's a heart condition which gives no sign of being present until the person drops dead. I realise that some people kill babies and blame SIDs, but usually there is evidence to show that the child did not die from SIDs. The case was not a capital case as the Aus mob got a promise that there would be no death penalty..
I wonder that as he was a certified rescue diver why couldn't he rescue his wife.
The dingo case. When this happened we had a policeman friend (NSW Police), who implied that Lindy/someone had murdered the baby. After hearing the debacle which was the result of the forensic investigation where it seems that Lindy had to be proven to have killed her baby, with the tests for fetal blood showing that the sound dampener in the car (or whateve it was) was fetal blood, and after the death of the 9 year old on Fraser Island by dingo attack, and knowing stories of how game dingoes are when they're used to humans, I have little doubt that Azaria was taken by a dingo. I thought that Lindy had killed the baby or something, but now I don't. What part of the investigation proved to you that Lindy (or one of the boys, which is the other scenario outlined) killed the baby?
17 comments:
I am gratified that the Court of Appeal has quashed Gordon Wood's conviction upon much the same grounds that I argued in your Blog thread of 21 November 2008 "Verdict in an Interesting Case".
Many people are seduced by Trial by Media, and it is impossible for dopey members of any jury not to have exposure to the media frenzy that surrounds any celebrity trial.
Who knows, maybe a killer has been freed because of abject mismanagement of the trial. As I said in the 2008 thread:
My personal opinion is that the prosecution badly stuffed this case, and as a result, GW will walk on appeal, never, ever to be tried again."
Others called me ignorant for defending such a monster. I was merely defending the rule of Law, and it would appear that my views have been vindicated.
Kae, I have to agree with Kaboom on this. Trial by media sucks.
The only people who are in a position to make a valid assessment of how a trial should turn out are those who have a sound knowledge of law, and have seen all the evidence.
And even that well-informed assessment is still only an opinion when it appears in the media.
By the time we media-consumers see that opinion, sub-editors may have edited it to a point where it means exactly the opposite of what was originally intended.
Another serious shortcoming of trial by media is that journalists do not have to abide by the Rules of Evidence.
Kaboom
Where have you been?
I agree, trial by media is wrong and I should have an open mind and abide by the decision of the court, for without that due process we'd all be guilty until proven innocent.
Though I'm still shocked.
Heard thismorning that he'll possibly go for a million dollars in damages.
Hi Skeeter
Pleased you did't wash away last night!
So chaps, what about the other GW? Kaboom, with your background have you been able to deduce anything about the other GW acquitted this week?
Hi, Kae!
Onthe other GW case, I need to read the precise reasoning why some elements of circumstantial evidence was excluded by the trial Judge.
Maybe the criminal law is different in Alabama, but I would think that evidence of a five-fold increase in life insurance on a 24(?) year old, and a video of him removing flowers from his wife's grave, would be admissible circumstantial evidence in Queensland.
After all, there are no fingerprints, there is no murder weapon (apart, perhaps, from turning off the air supply, and turning it on again when you knew that the over-weighted diver would sink to the bottom).
However, we have motive, means and opportunity.
We have someone who was initially charged with murder in Queensland, but who entered into a plea-bargain to nod for manslaughter with 18 months and deportation.
At this stage, Kaboom does not have a firm opinion - this could change overthe coming weeks.
Thanks Kaboom
I often wonder about what a jury hears and sees, and what they understand - how it is explained to the lay person (are they baffled with bullshit?), to come to their conclusion.
I'm disappointed that the Judge didn't see fit to let the other GW case go before a jury.
Is it normal for the police in a different country to be slagged off as being biased and backward?
Just askin'
(I know that this is what Australians do when an Aussie is arrested overseas for some crime!)
Thanks, Kae. Our mighty stream overflowed its banks this morning for the 4th time in 2012, but we are safe and dry. No sign of cattle on the island now, so they must have moved to safer ground during the night.
As a forecaster he is worthless, but as a drought-breaker, Flim-Flan deserves more money.
I have not been watching the case closely but I am pretty sure I saw the judge say that (at least some of) the prosecution's evidence about the insurance policy was disallowed because it was hearsay. If that is true, it makes you wonder what other screw-ups they made.
Skeeter
I'm curious as to how winter will be this year - wet or dry? Warm or cold?
I can't wait!
There are many interesting dynamics at play, upon which I lack sufficient data to comment.
(1) Alabama is a death penalty state. The jury decides the penalty (as far as I know) rather than the judge, as is the case in Australia.
(2) As a result, jurors are reluctant to convict when they might be putting someone to death. This normally only happens when someone is on video murdering a party, in the presence of witnesses.
(3) Juries are therefore unlikely to convict on purely "circumstantial" evidence.
(4) The whole concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been totally corrupted in recent time. Now it seems that if you can raise any other stupid scenario as a remote possibility (I didn't murder my baby, I just left it unaccompanied in a tent and a dingo took it away!) and just because there is some alternative scenario this immediately makes the prime "beyond reasonable doubt" allegation falsified.
(5) The Alabama police involvement, I think, was the background investigation of the insurance and the flowers, which evidence was excluded for some reason.
(6) The only other involvement would be by tradition, that they would have taken the Queensland coppers on the piss and to all the girly bars, as a professional courtesy.
(7) The evidence at the trial would therefore only have been based on Queensland police investigations, and in the absence of a confession (despite how amazingly adept the Queensland police are at extracting confessions), no witnesses, no weapon, and only a dead body, it was obviously insufficient to meet a capital case.
As I say, when I investigate the transcripts of the case further, I shall be in more of a position to comment knowledgably.
Okay, K, I get it.
However, I think you are incorrect in the dingo case, and also in some SIDs cases - people can and do suddenly die, there are conditions which cause sudden death without any signs and they're just discovering some of them now. There's a heart condition which gives no sign of being present until the person drops dead.
I realise that some people kill babies and blame SIDs, but usually there is evidence to show that the child did not die from SIDs.
The case was not a capital case as the Aus mob got a promise that there would be no death penalty..
I wonder that as he was a certified rescue diver why couldn't he rescue his wife.
Hah! The rate of SIDS has only dropped off since people started watching the CSI series.
Not because of "Red Nose Day".
Not because of placing a baby face up. (Any parent knows that the little bastards squirm around almost straight away)
No - SIDS has gone down because potential murderers realise that they might get caught.......
And as for that other case........ whitewash #4 coming up.
The dingo case.
When this happened we had a policeman friend (NSW Police), who implied that Lindy/someone had murdered the baby.
After hearing the debacle which was the result of the forensic investigation where it seems that Lindy had to be proven to have killed her baby, with the tests for fetal blood showing that the sound dampener in the car (or whateve it was) was fetal blood, and after the death of the 9 year old on Fraser Island by dingo attack, and knowing stories of how game dingoes are when they're used to humans, I have little doubt that Azaria was taken by a dingo.
I thought that Lindy had killed the baby or something, but now I don't.
What part of the investigation proved to you that Lindy (or one of the boys, which is the other scenario outlined) killed the baby?
Kae,
What I suggest is a separate thread for the dingo case, once the political whitewash concludes that a dingo killed Azaria Chamberlain.
At the moment, we have several open Coronial verdicts.
In the due course of time it will be an interesting thread on its own.
Kaboom
I'll do that, just remind me when the coast is clear!
FFS Kae!
The "dingo case" was 32 years ago!
Big changes since then, but I'll stick my neck out eventualy.
Let's do it properly when whitewash #4 is finalised.
FFS Kaboom
I only asked some questions.
32 years old or not there are still questions that some people have.
And what about the Leahy/Arnold case?
Ahh, that really gets to the centre of things.
A mate of mine in Mareeba took me out to the actual site.
That in itself is worth its own thread...
So when you going to spill about that one?
I love a good murder mystery.
Post a Comment