03-04-2024, 01:42 PM
I wish I was more well-read or familiar with the kind of law practiced in your country.
I briefly scanned the judgement, and I understand that - from my layman's perspective, it was almost "stereotypically-framed" as a case of: angry or disaffected spouses, sudden death, and "must have been the spouse 'cause he has a believable motive" style murder charge.
It looked like they lacked convincing physical evidence of the murder itself... and even the judge was willing to forego a murder charge, if necessary, and entertain a manslaughter charge instead, to secure a conviction.
Presumably there is something socio-political in the considerations since they "opted" for a non-jury trial... which seems weird to me for a capital case... but I don't know how the law is in Australia, let alone how it is practiced. Pretty much as the British do, yes?
What was considered exculpatory in this case?
I briefly scanned the judgement, and I understand that - from my layman's perspective, it was almost "stereotypically-framed" as a case of: angry or disaffected spouses, sudden death, and "must have been the spouse 'cause he has a believable motive" style murder charge.
It looked like they lacked convincing physical evidence of the murder itself... and even the judge was willing to forego a murder charge, if necessary, and entertain a manslaughter charge instead, to secure a conviction.
Presumably there is something socio-political in the considerations since they "opted" for a non-jury trial... which seems weird to me for a capital case... but I don't know how the law is in Australia, let alone how it is practiced. Pretty much as the British do, yes?
What was considered exculpatory in this case?
