Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #38

[Aunty]

KTK - I didn't say it was done on the night after the murder. Please don't take me out of context or put words into my mouth. All I was doing was making the point - a valid one - that just because something is found on a computer doesn't mean that GBC put it there.

Let's just fantasize for a moment - let's just imagine somebody with a grudge against both GBC and Allison decided to set up GBC for the murder, and put stuff on his computer which would LATER prove incriminating. That could have happened quite some time before the murder. Who knows?

Of course, I'm just speculating, as we all are. but I'm just trying to raise OTHER possibilities (not probabilities) that COULD have occurred.

Heavens above - we don't even have a clue WHAT was found on the computer(s) or phone(s) do we?

Seem to be a few touchy folks in here - maybe it's just because I'm throwing up possibilities that don't necessarily fit in with current theories? If people are offended by the idea that GBC MIGHT be innocent, then I apologise for making you feel that way. But we really do have to try and be objective, surely?

Isn't that basically what almost everyone on here has been doing since April? Including me?

OK - enough from me tonight - I can see I'm stirring the beehive again. I'm off to do other things for a while.

I have been reading, and was jolted by your theory.
I hear you and agree with what your saying. I too believe that until All the evidence is made available, there sits a 1% chance that he is innocent. It just is logical and just.
I like the idea of discussing that 1% chance too. I like that you have posted a detailed possibility.
When I read (one of) your 1% innocent theories (highlighted red) the question we have all previously asked here , ( why google an American Law , Self incrimination) rose its ugly head again for me.
GBC GOOGLED SELF INCRIMINATION AND WENT ON TO READ TAKING THE FIFTH.
I question why an Australian Person GBC, would not have then moved on to google an Australian Law equivalent to taking the fifth.
If he's really dumb, he would have applied this American law as his protection against getting caught for murderor in Australia.

Ok. If that's the case, and he did the googling, then why , why, when the police arrived at his home, after his 000 call, he did talk to police and incriminate himself , by telling the police about the scratches and the affair and what he did that night.
It seems that it was only after he got legal advice that he shut up
So, I don't see that he acted on his google search, of self incrimination and taking the fifth.
So, did he google it, or, did someone else google it to set him up?

If as Dr Watson has theorized , that someone else may have done things to make it look like GBC murdered Allison, then that someone , I would theorize , has a strong link to America, ie, ideas, culture, background ,etc.
So, if he was setup, could the American law googling be the key to finding out "who set him up"
I ask you Dr Watson, what you think about GBC googling American Law and then clearly not acting on this law. I would be looking at all American links.
It just doesn't make sense?

 

[DrWatson]

I ask you Dr Watson, what you think about GBC googling American Law and then clearly not acting on this law. I would be looking at all American links.

Morning Aunty

Yes - it is a bit of a puzzle, that one. Either he has no idea at all, and didn't know that the search he did related to the American Constitution, OR it may not have been him. Or it may be totally unrelated to the murder - for example, it may have been something looked up in relation to something he watched on TV, like one of those interminable US crime shows. That's been suggested before, and to me, remains a possibility.

Just because I "investigoogle" (I quite like that new word) "methamphetamine side effects", for example, doesn't mean that I am taking the drug or have a problem with its side effects. Purely an example, of course...

Yes, I agree that discussing the 1% is something that needs to be done, no matter how much one believes that GBC is the culprit.

I'll be "off the air" for most of today - will check in tonight.

 

[Oz Jen]

Morning Aunty

Yes - it is a bit of a puzzle, that one. Either he has no idea at all, and didn't know that the search he did related to the American Constitution, OR it may not have been him. Or it may be totally unrelated to the murder - for example, it may have been something looked up in relation to something he watched on TV, like one of those interminable US crime shows. That's been suggested before, and to me, remains a possibility.

Just because I "investigoogle" (I quite like that new word) "methamphetamine side effects", for example, doesn't mean that I am taking the drug or have a problem with its side effects. Purely an example, of course...

Yes, I agree that discussing the 1% is something that needs to be done, no matter how much one believes that GBC is the culprit.

I'll be "off the air" for most of today - will check in tonight.

Wow! Thanks! This makes me wonder if when asked why he'd been googling 'taking the fifth' and 'self-incrimination' he panicked and said he was 'just curious' as he'd seen it on a TV show. Probably 'couldn't remember the name of the show' - which explains why QPS asked for tapes of TV shows from the stations at that time?

 

[Aunty]

Wow! Thanks! This makes me wonder if when asked why he'd been googling 'taking the fifth' and 'self-incrimination' he panicked and said he was 'just curious' as he'd seen it on a TV show. Probably 'couldn't remember the name of the show' - which explains why QPS asked for tapes of TV shows from the stations at that time?

Dr Watson is right. We need to sleuth the 1 %. ( being very protective of Allison at all times)
If we discuss the possibility of innocence, the 1% . ( let's call it that shall we)
We can join some more dots and find or discount some more pieces to this puzzle.
Good point Oz Jen , and I agree.

 

[enthralled]

Morning Aunty

Yes - it is a bit of a puzzle, that one. Either he has no idea at all, and didn't know that the search he did related to the American Constitution, OR it may not have been him. Or it may be totally unrelated to the murder - for example, it may have been something looked up in relation to something he watched on TV, like one of those interminable US crime shows. That's been suggested before, and to me, remains a possibility.

Just because I "investigoogle" (I quite like that new word) "methamphetamine side effects", for example, doesn't mean that I am taking the drug or have a problem with its side effects. Purely an example, of course...

Yes, I agree that discussing the 1% is something that needs to be done, no matter how much one believes that GBC is the culprit.

I'll be "off the air" for most of today - will check in tonight.

Doc, I love having you here and "stirring the pot" as you say. We do have to think of all possibilities. Thats what sleuths do isnt?

Enjoy your meth and keep up the good work :clap:

 

[McCoy]

I have been reading, and was jolted by your theory.
I hear you and agree with what your saying. I too believe that until All the evidence is made available, there sits a 1% chance that he is innocent. It just is logical and just.
I like the idea of discussing that 1% chance too. I like that you have posted a detailed possibility.
When I read (one of) your 1% innocent theories (highlighted red) the question we have all previously asked here , ( why google an American Law , Self incrimination) rose its ugly head again for me.
GBC GOOGLED SELF INCRIMINATION AND WENT ON TO READ TAKING THE FIFTH.
I question why an Australian Person GBC, would not have then moved on to google an Australian Law equivalent to taking the fifth.
If he's really dumb, he would have applied this American law as his protection against getting caught for murderor in Australia.

Ok. If that's the case, and he did the googling, then why , why, when the police arrived at his home, after his 000 call, he did talk to police and incriminate himself , by telling the police about the scratches and the affair and what he did that night.
It seems that it was only after he got legal advice that he shut up
So, I don't see that he acted on his google search, of self incrimination and taking the fifth.
So, did he google it, or, did someone else google it to set him up?

If as Dr Watson has theorized , that someone else may have done things to make it look like GBC murdered Allison, then that someone , I would theorize , has a strong link to America, ie, ideas, culture, background ,etc.
So, if he was setup, could the American law googling be the key to finding out "who set him up"
I ask you Dr Watson, what you think about GBC googling American Law and then clearly not acting on this law. I would be looking at all American links.
It just doesn't make sense?

I agree it doesn't make sense and we have to think of all the possibilities that the defence will raise (going back to our debating days). but if you look at the timeline
6.20am: Police allege Mr Baden-Clay sent a text message to Mrs Baden-Clay saying: "Good morning! Hope you slept well? Where are you? None of the girls are up yet! Love G"
6.41am: A second text message was reportedly sent saying "Al, getting concerned. Where are you? The app doesn't say either? [Two children] now up. I'm dressed and about to make lunches. Please just text me back or call! Love G".
7.09am: Police allege Mr Baden-Clay searched the term 'self incrimination' on the internet.
7.14am: It is alleged Mr Baden-Clay accessed the Queensland Police Service home page.
7.15am: Mr Baden-Clay called triple-0.
8.30am: Uniformed police arrive at the home in response to the triple-0 call
9.34am: Police allege Mr Baden-Clay searched 'psychiatrists Brisbane West' on his phone.

Gerard has admitted or volunteered that he made the 6.20 and 6.41 text messges and admitted he made the 000 call at 7.15am. the chances of some random American getting hold of his phone between those times and "setting him up" is a wild probability. He was under stress probably not thinking logically and clicked on the frist relevant link he saw. Often when I am gooling info I realise I have clicked on a US or UK link when I want an Australian one and an i-phone is lot smaller than a computer

 

[Mani]

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

 

[Bayside]

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

If Gerard was innocent it would not be "business as usual".

If Gerard was "setup" it would not be "business as usual".

 

[Oberammergau]

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

Pretty accurate

 

[alioop]

how quickly would Super pay out? Please tell me that's not in the bail/defense pot?

My experience with payouts by super companies is that if there is any hint of a family fight over the super, that they would only pay it to the person who has a court order to administer the estate which can be a Grant of Probate or a Grant of Administration. Their position is to pay it to the estate and then they are discharged from being involved further as the family can fight over it in the estate. Mostly I have seen this happen where the deceased person had a second spouse and children from a first marriage and they all ask the super company for the money. In Allison's estate, there is a huge concern because GBC has been charged with her murder. So I think and hope the super would be yet to be paid.

One question I would like to ask is in regard to the joint shares that Allison held with GBC, worth about $135,000. Apparently GBC withdrew $67,000 from this share portfolio prior to his arrest. How was he able to do this without Allison's approval? Would it be a case of either shareholder being entitled to withdraw funds without the consent of the other party?

One more question (I posted this yesterday but it got lost in the traffic). Will each of the 446 witnesses who have given a statement to police be expected to take the stand in the event of a trial? My assumption is that all of these statements are admissible evidence and the prosecution will be wanting these witnesses to state their evidence in front of the judge. Would this also be the case at a committal hearing where the prosecutor presents the case against the defendant and calls witnesses to obtain their evidence?

Re the $67,000, this fits with what I said last night . Normally jointly owned shares would automatically pass to the surviving joint owner. GBC appears to me to have been advised that as he was under suspicion at the time for involvement in Allison's death, he should only use half of any joint investments for his own purposes. He appears to have taken that advice.

Re the 446 witness statements, they do not necessarily all contain evidence of GBC's guilt. The prosecution has to hand over all evidence they have collected including evidence they obtained that may tend to show that he is not guilty of the charges. So for eg, there may be statements from a tyre expert stating that neither of the BC's car tyres matched tyre marks found at the scene. Or there may be a statement from a neighbour saying they did not hear or see the BC's cars leave the house that night.

At the committal it is up to the prosecution to call the witnesses they want. The defence can then cross examine them. The prosecution may for eg only call the most important witnesses, say 20 or whatever they think they need to call to convince the magistrate that there is sufficient evidence to commit for trial.

I find it interesting that the application is made at this particular time (ie before the forensic accountant's report has been handed over by the prosecution to the defence team).

In my view this could mean one of two things. Either the Dickies have this information and it is a tactical move to try and make the claim on behalf of the girls as relevant claimants to the estate. Or there is a concern that it may be unclear if in fact some of the debts and loans taken out by GBC could in fact still be regarded as debts and loans against the estate depending on the nature of the financial involvement of Allison in the business and the Dickies want to ensure that the money is only used for Allison's component of the debts not for the totality of the debt.

For all these reasons and just the normal situation that an estate needs to be dealt with, someone needs to be appointed administrator of Allison's estate. The sooner the better. Hopefully that will happen today.

I know from our own company that it can be set up to protect family so that in the event of something going wrong e.g. the company being sued, the family is protected. The company structure may well have been set up this way to protect the family (including Gerard) in the event things went 'belly-up'. If so, then Allison's personal assets may be protected. Perhaps Alioop can comment on this?

It doesn't sound like they actually had much in the way of assets left. So when the tangle of companies and trusts is unraveled I think they are going to be just debt. The debts and loans wouldn't have been so big if they did have substantial assets in my opinion. Allison's estate assets I think will be mainly insurance and super and the remaining half of the $67,000 shares.

Isn't the intention of the Dickies at this point in time to pay out debts and protect the assets for the time being until such a time as probate is finally granted most likely after the proceedings against GBC have concluded? To me it seems prudent to appoint someone responsible such as Mr Dickie to administer the funds to debtors and protect the balance. If, by chance, the assets [cash] were misappropriated say used for the criminal proceedings currently in play then it would be mighty difficult to get that money back even if the court ordered same. Once it's spent, it's spent and there's buckleys anyone can do anything about it.

I'm also thinking that perhaps the Dickies have been approached by debtors already, e.g. children's ballet instructors wanting payment for term fees, etc and Mr Dickie is trying to do the right thing by everyone. Wages still need to be paid regardless of how charitable people wish to be in this situation.

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. As I have said it won't be an easy estate to administer and he will need lots of professional help. Hopefully the Dickies are getting some family tax benefits for the girls and that with the raised funds are helping to pay for the girls living expenses.

 

[Mani]

If Gerard was innocent it would not be "business as usual".

If Gerard was "setup" it would not be "business as usual".

I agree Bay, this family does not appear to be a family who takes things lying down - so why have they not been up in arms, shouting about their son's innocence? MOO
I have not heard one story from a local or otherwise that would suggest they have been hurt by this - instead what we have seen is them hunkered down and silent. IMO

Alioop might be able to enlighten us about why they have chosen silence (from a legal perspective) and Doc - you are a local, have you heard it said that the BCs are proclaiming his innocence around the traps? MOO

 

[Ippygal]

Long time lurker here, I've been around since day one but usually keep quiet I just read that Allisons dad is seeking control of her estate because GBCs parents won't let them have any of the furniture etc saying it all belongs to GBC. Wonder how true that is??
Love checking in every day and seeing everyone's thoughts

 

[alioop]

We have Murder, and Manslaughter. Murder meaning it's premeditated, and carries a mandantory life sentence, which ususally means no possible parole for at least 15 years, I believe.

I just want to add that murder does not have to be premeditated or an intention to cause death. The definition of murder is in Sec 304 criminal code. See link below

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html

 

[alioop]

Alioop might be able to enlighten us about why they have chosen silence (from a legal perspective) and Doc - you are a local, have you heard it said that the BCs are proclaiming his innocence around the traps? MOO

In my opinion they are silent because there is nothing for them to say that will be helpful to their situation.

I just read that Allisons dad is seeking control of her estate because GBCs parents won't let them have any of the furniture etc saying it all belongs to GBC. Wonder how true that is??

I think the furniture stuff, whilst most annoying for the Dickies not to have for the children, is in a legal sense, insignificant in the big scheme of Allison's estate administration.

 

[Radster]

Long time lurker here, I've been around since day one but usually keep quiet I just read that Allisons dad is seeking control of her estate because GBCs parents won't let them have any of the furniture etc saying it all belongs to GBC. Wonder how true that is??
Love checking in every day and seeing everyone's thoughts

I have also heard from a local source that the BCs regard the Dickies' taking care of the girls from the moment of arrest as "kidnapping". That word has been used apparently. Not reported, sorry, so read as you will.

 

[Aunty]

Morning Aunty

Yes - it is a bit of a puzzle, that one. Either he has no idea at all, and didn't know that the search he did related to the American Constitution, OR it may not have been him. Or it may be totally unrelated to the murder - for example, it may have been something looked up in relation to something he watched on TV, like one of those interminable US crime shows. That's been suggested before, and to me, remains a possibility.

Just because I "investigoogle" (I quite like that new word) "methamphetamine side effects", for example, doesn't mean that I am taking the drug or have a problem with its side effects. Purely an example, of course...

Yes, I agree that discussing the 1% is something that needs to be done, no matter how much one believes that GBC is the culprit.

I'll be "off the air" for most of today - will check in tonight.

Thanks Doc, But he did google it the morning the police arrived. So I think we can rule out a setup involving the google searches. Hmmm.

( His curiosity for more information , should have been all consuming , from that 1st google time forward, but he waited again till the morning the police arrived to google it again. This was a major mistake and points to him also making the previous searches. It helps prove that No one set him up, concerning the googling, that's for sure and it clearly relates to Allison's disappearance , not a TV show the second time he did it.

Where else in the evidence , could he have been setup Dr Watson?
I can't think of anything else.
That 1% is getting smaller.

 

[Ippygal]

Thats crazy isnt it??!!! Wouldn't surprise me though! They sure don't appear to be very nice people do they???

 

[Ippygal]

I have also heard from a local source that the BCs regard the Dickies' taking care of the girls from the moment of arrest as "kidnapping". That word has been used apparently. Not reported, sorry, so read as you will.

Oops forgot to "quote" what I was commenting on

 

[Amee]

I agree it doesn't make sense and we have to think of all the possibilities that the defence will raise (going back to our debating days). but if you look at the timeline
6.20am: Police allege Mr Baden-Clay sent a text message to Mrs Baden-Clay saying: "Good morning! Hope you slept well? Where are you? None of the girls are up yet! Love G"
6.41am: A second text message was reportedly sent saying "Al, getting concerned. Where are you? The app doesn't say either? [Two children] now up. I'm dressed and about to make lunches. Please just text me back or call! Love G".
7.09am: Police allege Mr Baden-Clay searched the term 'self incrimination' on the internet.
7.14am: It is alleged Mr Baden-Clay accessed the Queensland Police Service home page.
7.15am: Mr Baden-Clay called triple-0.
8.30am: Uniformed police arrive at the home in response to the triple-0 call
9.34am: Police allege Mr Baden-Clay searched 'psychiatrists Brisbane West' on his phone.

Gerard has admitted or volunteered that he made the 6.20 and 6.41 text messges and admitted he made the 000 call at 7.15am. the chances of some random American getting hold of his phone between those times and "setting him up" is a wild probability. He was under stress probably not thinking logically and clicked on the frist relevant link he saw. Often when I am gooling info I realise I have clicked on a US or UK link when I want an Australian one and an i-phone is lot smaller than a computer

Thanks McCoy, This is exactly what I tried to say yesterday only not as clear as you have today :woohoo:

 

[BreakingNews]

My experience with payouts by super companies is that if there is any hint of a family fight over the super, that they would only pay it to the person who has a court order to administer the estate which can be a Grant of Probate or a Grant of Administration. Their position is to pay it to the estate and then they are discharged from being involved further as the family can fight over it in the estate. Mostly I have seen this happen where the deceased person had a second spouse and children from a first marriage and they all ask the super company for the money. In Allison's estate, there is a huge concern because GBC has been charged with her murder. So I think and hope the super would be yet to be paid.




Re the $67,000, this fits with what I said last night . Normally jointly owned shares would automatically pass to the surviving joint owner. GBC appears to me to have been advised that as he was under suspicion at the time for involvement in Allison's death, he should only use half of any joint investments for his own purposes. He appears to have taken that advice.

Re the 446 witness statements, they do not necessarily all contain evidence of GBC's guilt. The prosecution has to hand over all evidence they have collected including evidence they obtained that may tend to show that he is not guilty of the charges. So for eg, there may be statements from a tyre expert stating that neither of the BC's car tyres matched tyre marks found at the scene. Or there may be a statement from a neighbour saying they did not hear or see the BC's cars leave the house that night.

At the committal it is up to the prosecution to call the witnesses they want. The defence can then cross examine them. The prosecution may for eg only call the most important witnesses, say 20 or whatever they think they need to call to convince the magistrate that there is sufficient evidence to commit for trial.




For all these reasons and just the normal situation that an estate needs to be dealt with, someone needs to be appointed administrator of Allison's estate. The sooner the better. Hopefully that will happen today.



It doesn't sound like they actually had much in the way of assets left. So when the tangle of companies and trusts is unraveled I think they are going to be just debt. The debts and loans wouldn't have been so big if they did have substantial assets in my opinion. Allison's estate assets I think will be mainly insurance and super and the remaining half of the $67,000 shares.



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. As I have said it won't be an easy estate to administer and he will need lots of professional help. Hopefully the Dickies are getting some family tax benefits for the girls and that with the raised funds are helping to pay for the girls living expenses.

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.