Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #38

[alioop]

Thanks Alloop for your incites. I have some experience with administering estates and applying for probate in complex cases without the need for paying for legal advice. It can be a little confusing, however it is not out of the realms of possibility that untrained people can perform these duties. Mr Dickie seems like an intelligent man. Please don't assume that lay people necessarily need lots of professional help in these matters. I am sure Mr Dickie will balance up his need for professional help vs engaging an expensive lawyer.

BN, I think this estate administration will be very complex. I would find it difficult to work through even with my many years of experience of estate administration and litigation.

 

[alioop]

Just saw this online from the herald Sun "Mr Dickie's application cites sections of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which permit changes to estate administration when the "personal representative is no longer capable of acting in the administration".


That indicates to me that perhaps GBC had already obtained a grant of probate and Mr Dickie is seeking to have that grant withdrawn and a new grant made in his favour. I had thought previously that GBC would have been rushed to get a grant in the 2 months following Allison's death before he was arrested.

 

[Liadan]

First of all this is a VICTIM friendly forum. I cannot see any benefit in suggesting that GBC is an innocent. There is a maybe.001% chance that he didn't do the act but he is guilty as all hell of what happened to Allison.

What this was this supposed to be an accidental death - then call the ambulance first. And you are off the hook

Was this suicide? And she walked to Kholo creek to do that?

But poor Allison turns up at Kholo Creek with the only ones home the night of her murder being her husband and the girls. (as stated in the police reports)

Take GBC out of the equation - if GBC had been with TM that night of the murder what would have happened to Allison. I think ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! She wouldn't have left the hosue with 3 kids at home.

She hated walking so that was a furfy- and she supposedly walked in the morning if she did -GBC's timeline makes no sense. She was going to a conference the next day - like any busy mum she would have been getting ready after the hairdresser appointment.

Do you not think that this serial adulterer would have passwords on his iPhone? - there is no way in the world he would have told anyone these let alone Allison. Tm was not the only mistress so not even she would have been privy to that -I am sure.

Googling 'taking the 5th' is all we know - an American amendement to their constitution. It is commonly used topic of crime show episodes where the someone is not forced to testify (against themselves) even though their evidence may be crucial to the conviction. This is the extent of my working knowledge. But it was not a leap nor a difficult task to then find out that while we don't use America's Bill of Rights where the 5th amendment hails from - Australia does indeed have something similar. So on a stressed morning worried about saving my ARSE - I would have probably done a similar thing.
From Wikipedia - [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence"]Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties or forfeiture.[33]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]


Australia while it does not have a Bill of Rights - it does have something similar-
again Wikipedia - [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence"]Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia[/ame] has no constitutional protection for the right to silence, but it is broadly recognised by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right. In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to give evidence at trial. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to draw [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference"]Adverse inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] from a defendant's silence (Petty v R) but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence"]Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about (Weissensteiner v R). The right does not apply to corporations (EPA v Caltex).

There is no AMERICAN setting up dear old GBC - he was just in a panic and was more familiar with the crime show version of the law rather than what was available for him to hide behind in Australia. But he did find that if he shut up and didn't say anything - that was the best way to prevent incrimination against himself.

Apologies for the length of this post!:twocents::seeya:

 

[Aunty]

Aunty and Dr Watson,

I think you both have a point re devil's advocate of his innocence and also taking the fifth - that was a strange thing for him to do in my opinion; why not google Aussie law.

As someone who originally looked for alternatives and who did not want to believe that he would do this to Allison or their children, I have given way to the body of evidence that appears to be piled up against him. MOO

The Aussie public are savvy and are not taken in that easily IMO - what damns him in my mind the most is that video of him at his parent's house - he does not appear to be a man sincerely devastated by the loss of his wife, neither does his sister appear to look shocked or devastated. MOO
Also, what appears strange to me is why he has not declared his innocence, and neither has his sister. If I have missed something please fill me in but why has he not protested his innocence as loudly as one would think he would have been searching for his wife and going out of his mind with worry? IMO

I agree with you that he is innocent until proven guilty but what more is there left to find? He had two motivators; debt/money and sex. MOO

However, if you feel there are facts to support another argument, then go for it. IMO

Thanks and I agree totally with you.
Using the 1% objective, we need to sleuth All facts to dismiss it. I am interested in doing this simply to get rid of it.
It annoys me that it exists and I would like to work through all innocent scenarios to get rid of it.
I'm 100% sure that GBC did it, but 1% is jumping up and down saying you haven't sleuthed me.
So, why not? It can't hurt and we might stumble a cross something we missed.

 

[Aunty]

First of all this is a VICTIM friendly forum. I cannot see any benefit in suggesting that GBC is an innocent. There is a maybe.001% chance that he didn't do the act but he is guilty as all hell of what happened to Allison.

What this was this supposed to be an accidental death - then call the ambulance first. And you are off the hook

Was this suicide? And she walked to Kholo creek to do that?

But poor Allison turns up at Kholo Creek with the only ones home the night of her murder being her husband and the girls. (as stated in the police reports)

Take GBC out of the equation - if GBC had been with TM that night of the murder what would have happened to Allison. I think ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! She wouldn't have left the hosue with 3 kids at home.

She hated walking so that was a furfy- and she supposedly walked in the morning if she did -GBC's timeline makes no sense. She was going to a conference the next day - like any busy mum she would have been getting ready after the hairdresser appointment.

Do you not think that this serial adulterer would have passwords on his iPhone? - there is no way in the world he would have told anyone these let alone Allison. Tm was not the only mistress so not even she would have been privy to that -I am sure.

Googling 'taking the 5th' is all we know - an American amendement to their constitution. It is commonly used topic of crime show episodes where the someone is not forced to testify (against themselves) even though their evidence may be crucial to the conviction. This is the extent of my working knowledge. But it was not a leap nor a difficult task to then find out that while we don't use America's Bill of Rights where the 5th amendment hails from - Australia does indeed have something similar. So on a stressed morning worried about saving my ARSE - I would have probably done a similar thing.
From Wikipedia - Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties or forfeiture.[33]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]


Australia while it does not have a Bill of Rights - it does have something similar-
again Wikipedia - Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence, but it is broadly recognised by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right. In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to give evidence at trial. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to draw Adverse inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from a defendant's silence (Petty v R) but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about (Weissensteiner v R). The right does not apply to corporations (EPA v Caltex).

There is no AMERICAN setting up dear old GBC - he was just in a panic and was more familiar with the crime show version of the law rather than what was available for him to hide behind in Australia. But he did find that if he shut up and didn't say anything - that was the best way to prevent incrimination against himself.

Apologies for the length of this post!:twocents::seeya:

Look, I have helped to prove that the 1% chance that he is innocent takes us on a clear journey that ends with a rediculous outcome.
You have helped prove this. Thank you.
So, good job.
I hate the 1 % and am keen to sleuth every aspect of it and get rid of it once and for all.
If we don't , this 1% will hover for it is our Australian law. Until he pleads guilty or he is proven to be guilty , the 1% hovers.
I don't believe it, but it remains.
I believe he's 100% guilty but at this point our law says otherwise.
It has everything to do with supporting and wanting justice for Allison.

 

[marlywings]

September 05, 2012

THE father of Brookfield mother Allison Baden-Clay has been given an interim order to take control of her estate from her husband Gerard.
Justice Glenn Martin on Wednesday ordered Allison's father, Geoffrey James Dickie, be appointed as administrator of her estate until such time as Gerard is found either guilty or innocent of his wife's murder.

Justice Martin made the orders when lawyers acting for Mr Dickie applied to take over administration of his late daughter's estate, collect and protect her assets and pay the estate's debts.

Barrister Caite Brewer, for Mr Dickie, told the court the parties, including lawyers acting for Gerard, had reached an agreement regarding the granting of the interim order.

The decision means Mr Dickie will have to reapply to the court for a permanent order in the event Gerard is convicted of Alison's murder.

However, Gerard would be reinstated as executor of his late wife's estate in the event he is acquitted of the charges.

Mr Dickie and wife Priscilla are now raising their three granddaughters, aged 10, 8 and 5, whose mother went missing from their home at Brookfield on April 20.

Allison's body was found 10 days later in Kholo Creek, Anstead.

Gerard Baden-Clay was arrested by police and charged with his wife's murder on June 13.

He intends to fight all charges, his lawyers have said.

Mr Dickie's application cites the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, which permit changes to estate administration when the "personal representative is no longer capable of acting in the administration".

Baden-Clay is in Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre awaiting his next committal mention on September 24.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ntrol-her-estate/story-e6freon6-1226465022390

 

[alioop]

That's a good result and sounds to me like GBC did not oppose the order sought by Mr Dickie. Not that he really had much choice anyway.

 

[emirates1957]

I agree - have just googled 'taking the fifth' and it when to the U.S. definition.

 

[alioop]

Mr Dickie is applying for a grant of administration, it may be a grant of probate if he is named as an executor in the will. Either way that will be the official court order to administer the estate. It is not temporary. Once he has it then he can deal with insurance and super companies and debtors.

I got it wrong about not being a temporary order to administer the estate as that is was the judge ordered. It doesn't really matter as Mr Dickie will administer the estate until the results of a trial which is a long time away. We don't yet know if GBC had already got a grant of probate or if Mr Dickie was an alternate executor in the will. It doesn't sound like anyone appeared on behalf of GBC so it was an uncontested application with Mr Dickie's barrister Ms Brewer and probably her instructing solicitor there to request the order.

Well done Mr Dickie. Hopefully that will give the family some peace of mind in relation to Allison's estate being administered properly for whoever the ultimate beneficiaries are.

 

[Mystique75]

Personally, I like the 1% questioning. In my opinion, the best understanding is gained from having a good hard look at the 1% with an open mind. To me that means looking at it without emotion and a willingness to suspend disbelief for long enough to consider another option. It's a purely logical exercise that doesn't have to threaten the integrity of the victim, or anyone else for that matter as it doesn't involve emotions.

Some people seem to like the 1%, some don't, but are we not all coming from the same place? Seeking justice, even if only in our loungerooms and within our own little community of concerned citizens? I think the differing opinions are to be embraced or at least tolerated.

So my thoery, much like as has already been mentioned, isn't quite formed because the facts aren't clear. To me, because the information we have so far is circumstantial, there are a myriad possibilities as to what actually occurred. I think it's fairly obvious to most people what was most likely to have happened, but the idea that the 1% chance exists doesn't have to threaten any other assumtions or their particular weight in the argument. It's just a process of elimination. The two aren't mutually exclusive. IMO.

 

[Radster]

September 05, 2012

THE father of Brookfield mother Allison Baden-Clay has been given an interim order to take control of her estate from her husband Gerard.
Justice Glenn Martin on Wednesday ordered Allison's father, Geoffrey James Dickie, be appointed as administrator of her estate until such time as Gerard is found either guilty or innocent of his wife's murder.

Justice Martin made the orders when lawyers acting for Mr Dickie applied to take over administration of his late daughter's estate, collect and protect her assets and pay the estate's debts.

Barrister Caite Brewer, for Mr Dickie, told the court the parties, including lawyers acting for Gerard, had reached an agreement regarding the granting of the interim order.

The decision means Mr Dickie will have to reapply to the court for a permanent order in the event Gerard is convicted of Alison's murder.

However, Gerard would be reinstated as executor of his late wife's estate in the event he is acquitted of the charges.

Mr Dickie and wife Priscilla are now raising their three granddaughters, aged 10, 8 and 5, whose mother went missing from their home at Brookfield on April 20.

Allison's body was found 10 days later in Kholo Creek, Anstead.

Gerard Baden-Clay was arrested by police and charged with his wife's murder on June 13.

He intends to fight all charges, his lawyers have said.

Mr Dickie's application cites the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, which permit changes to estate administration when the "personal representative is no longer capable of acting in the administration".

Baden-Clay is in Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre awaiting his next committal mention on September 24.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ntrol-her-estate/story-e6freon6-1226465022390

Am I wrong in inferring from this that Gerard (and/or his team) is very confident of being acquitted; perhaps even keen to show his "innocence"?

And another question (because I am clueless about such matters): is it possible that there might be nothing left of the estate by the time this goes to trial? ie Can the Dickies (perhaps wisely) ensure that all monies and assets are reinvested into trusts/property etc for the girls such that in the event GBC is acquitted, there will be nothing left for him to contest? If so, that risk would perhaps nullify my first inference about this being a show of innocence.

Thoughts?

 

[BreakingNews]

BN, I think this estate administration will be very complex. I would find it difficult to work through even with my many years of experience of estate administration and litigation.

Thanks Alioop. I agree that it most likely will be a difficult estate to administer. I guess what I meant was that lay people can administer their own estates if they choose to.

 

[alioop]

Am I wrong in inferring from this that Gerard (and/or his team) is very confident of being acquitted; perhaps even keen to show his "innocence"?

And another question (because I am clueless about such matters): is it possible that there might be nothing left of the estate by the time this goes to trial? ie Can the Dickies (perhaps wisely) ensure that all monies and assets are reinvested into trusts/property etc for the girls such that in the event GBC is acquitted, there will be nothing left for him to contest? If so, that risk would perhaps nullify my first inference about this being a show of innocence.

Thoughts?

Radster, GBC and his lawyers will always say they are confident of an acquittal.What else can they say? Means diddly squat in reality. That will be up to a jury to decide and that decision is a long way off. They haven't even seen the forensic accounting yet or the remaining statements yet to be given to them.

Mr Dickie has responsibilities to the court now as the appointed administrator and can be held personally liable for failing to administer the estate properly and for the benefit of all possible beneficiaries, including GBC. Mr Dickie has shown himself to be a fine person and I find it very unlikely that he will do anything improper.

 

[alioop]

Thanks Alioop. I agree that it most likely will be a difficult estate to administer. I guess what I meant was that lay people can administer their own estates if they choose to.

Cool BN. You are right, people don't always need lawyers and accountants to help administer estates. My practice has always been to try to get the executors to attend to what they are able to do to save money. Some people want and need to be given something to do as helps give them focus while they are grieving. Other people just want the lawyer to do it all for them.

 

[Opinionsgalore]

Loving that AWESOME moment when you check the news during your lunch break and see the headline Geoff Dickie given control of late daughters estate


All MOO.

 

[bearbear]

does anyone know if allisons $900,000 insurance policy would have been paid out yet and would mr dickie have access to it. would he then have to pay all gbcs debts out of it? sorry if this has already been covered and explained.

 

[Strangeworld]

Such wonderful news today. I hope justice continues to be served.

In regards to the consideration of 'the 1%' - I think healthy debate is most definitely NOT against the victim-friendly nature of websleuths. I'm really surprised at the negativity been directed at those who raise alternative theories. After all, GBC's guilt is still a theory - nothing has been proven and we certainly do not have access to even a small amount of the evidence.

All I know is that I do have faith in the QPS, and hope that the court process and judgement (and possible sentencing) reflects the evidence the police have collected.

 

[alioop]

does anyone know if allisons $900,000 insurance policy would have been paid out yet and would mr dickie have access to it. would he then have to pay all gbcs debts out of it? sorry if this has already been covered and explained.

Here's the really good news, life insurance proceeds are immune from having to pay a deceased person's debts. See sec 205 Life Insurance Act

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1995144/s205.html

 

[usernamestaken]

Have there been any recent updates from insiders re: how <modsnip> is settling in now he's out of the prision medical section?

(Hi - long time lurker here... I forget that you're all familiar to me but not vice-versa! lol)

 

[bearbear]

Here's the really good news, life insurance proceeds are immune from having to pay a deceased person's debts. See sec 205 Life Insurance Act

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia1995144/s205.html

thats great news! so hopefully it can all go to allisons girls unless gbc is entitled to any of it, depending on allisons will if she had one i guess?