Quote:As somebody said, this Appeal will just go through the EVIDENCE presented in Court. It will not take in other stuff not presented in Court. Blame the Lawyer for the Prosecution. The Defence Lawyer won, in effect.
The last two sentences are rubbish. Yeas the High Court will look at the evidence and make an evaluation as to whether there was sufficient for a Jury to safely conclude the act which caused the death was accompanied by an intent to kill.
Quote:We ALL know that Gerard is as GUILTY as hell....
Well, because of the original decision by the Jury, yeas, he is guilty............of something....yet to be determined.
Quote:but ..... unfortunately, this Court Case is already affecting other Appeals by murderers ...
Really? Got any links?
Quote:.....noticed something earlier today .... can't recall which Newspaper or case .... but .... "precedence".
'Precedent,' (retired) Ophthalmologist.
Quote:I sincerely hope that he (GBC) gets to remain in the clink for a very long time ....
He will stay 'in the clink.'. Best case scenario for him is a conviction for manslaughter.
Quote:I think that in American Law he would ONLY get 2nd Degree Murder (Manslaughter) since it wasn't PRE-MEDITATED. Perhaps that is what this is all about?
Well, 'not premeditated' yeas, but more relevantly.....insufficient evidence which establishes that an intent to kill accompanied the act which caused her death.
Mind you, I've never agreed with the original decision that he killed her. He may well have, but......the evidence was inconclusive that he did it. Who else could have, is not a get out of jail card on that question.
But, that horse has bolted and even BC's lawyers let it loose. The Jury decided he did cause her death, but.....the burning question is.......at the time of the act of his which caused her death, what was
his intent?