Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #44

[Eclair]

I have just watched the interview with OW outside the Kenmore house yesterday and it is an edited version. However the commentator says that OW claims the prosecution was selective in the evidence they presented, I presume she means at the committal. We don't hear her say this but if she did in the full version, then that to me indicates she has no understanding of the process at the committal. It was not the prosecution who were selective, it was the defence as the only witnesses cross examined were those selected by the defence. The prosecution really just introduced them, asked a few questions but the reason why they were on the stand was for the defence to cross examine.

As I said, if she did say this then perhaps she has been kept out the loop with the defence lawyers and/or can't grasp the committal process. Does anyone who saw her trying to communicate with her brother, get the impression that the defence were annoyed with her at all. I did get this impression from one comment from someone who was there but it may have just been one occasion, something to do with her pulling up a chair and sitting near the defence?

Alioop, do you have a link for this interview? I haven't seen it.

 

[LadyBird1]

There were two things , at the committal hearing, that fascinated me.

I was always going to be more interested in the questions Davis asked, than the answers given... the statements of the witnesses called were already laid down, and there was no reason to believe they would deviate from them, .. which they didnt,...


But Davis surprised me in the angle of his questions on two matters, and he spent a lot of time, considering time wasnt exactly infinite.. not only a lot of time, but 4 witnesses, wait, I think it was 5.......

He wanted to know who had told Toni of the other women in Gerards life.. 2 witnesses, and I think about 50 mins on that..

And... Who told Gerard not to join in the search.. 3 witnesses on that and a fair bit of time..

Davis is instructed by Gerard.. this is how it works. Davis isnt running this thing, Gerard is, Gerard is paying Davis to be his advocate, and thats what Davis does.. he isnt a free agent...

So why were these two matters, seemingly utterly irrelevant on the face of things , important to Gerard?

Who told Toni of the other women in Gerard's life?
Gerard liked to be in control, always. Control Freak. IMO.
Gerard is an habitual blame shifter IMO.

Bit like focusing on who told Allison about TM. Big fuss was made over the tuckshop teller of tales.
Shoot the messenger scenario.

The message however was written by GBC himself. Authored and played out in person.
Who tells the story is inconsequential IMO.
There comes a time when blame shifting doesn't work. But If the cap fits, wear it.
It is also my opinion that this person is a Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath.

 

[Trooper]

thankyou for that addition of the hairdressers statement, alioop..

interesting that there is CCTV in the salon....

 

[Sleuthilicious]

We have to remember that TM is not on trial. A few were saying yesterday how it seems that GBC may be instructing his legal team to lead the questioning to point the finger at TM and put a reasonable doubt on his own guilt.

For us to focus on what she has done wrong here could be exactly what GBC wants... playing right into his hands.

luckily, that doesnt apply to me, as I am focusing on what Davis asked, and why....


Both Toni and Gerard agree there is a killer.. read her statements.. and obviously, she spoke with her ex husband, and he made a statement to the police that Toni theorised about the Rafting ground route the killer would take. . Toni says so in her statement.

How the QPS found out about Ms Hammond I dont know, but Phillip Broome, in his statement outlines the situation between Jacki Crane and Gerard, and how that evolved, and possibly why Toni went , unexpectedly to Phillip, to the Sydney conference.. So lots of people, one could reasonably assume knew about the other women , as well as Toni, in Gerards life as he actually discussed this with them.... he wasnt a bit shy about it.

Its just odd to me, that Gerard would be wanting Davis to ask why the police 'told Toni'.. which they didnt. they enquired if she was aware of other women.....

Every question Davis asks, at the committal... and in the future in court re BadenClay matter is crucial, significant and no waste of time trying to unravel.. in contrast to what he says outside the courtroom, re the progress of the matter.. that is irrelevant..

Sorry to be a pest, I can't re-find the link to the Statements etc. Could we perhaps have them pinned at the intro of the threads? Please? :seeya:

 

[LadyBird1]

It is also my opinion that this person is a Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath.

Interesting read here. Not sure if it's off topic or frighteningly on topic.
Behaviour of the serial bully: attention seeker, wannabe, guru and ...
www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htmThe Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath

Also known as the corporate psychopath, workplace psychopath, industrial psychopath and administrative psychopath.

Motivation: power, gratification, personal gain, survival
Mindset: manipulation, deception, evil
Malice: high to very high; when held accountable, off the scale
•Jekyll & Hyde personality
•always charming and beguilingly plausible, especially to those who are capable of protecting or enhancing the sociopath's position
•excels at deception (this must never be underestimated, but always is)
•excels at evasion of accountability
•is extremely and successfully manipulative of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt and anger)
•silver-tongued, has an extreme verbal facility and can outwit anybody (including a top barrister) in verbal conflict
•will often engineer himself or herself into a position of authority as gatekeeper of the organisation and thus the person through whom all information must flow, and the person to whom all requests for services must be referred - which he or she then takes delight in denying
•is adept at offering weak and inadequate people the positions of power, control, security, influence or respect that they crave but who lack the necessary competencies to achieve - such people are unaware that their consequent dependence on the sociopath makes them permanent manipulatees, pawns and expendable agents of harassment
•identifies those essential to the sociopath's survival and manipulates their perceptions them by making them feel special and thus obligated to reciprocate with support and protection
•manipulates others into making fools of themselves in situations where they cannot back down or from which they cannot withdraw - these people become increasingly susceptible to further manipulation and are then trapped as pawns in the sociopath's game
•is likely to be surrounded by people who, having been subjected to control, manipulation and punishment by the sociopath, look wretched and who start to exhibit behaviour best described as disordered, dysfunctional, sullen, aggressive, defensive, hostile, retaliatory, counterproductive or cult-like and for whom disbelief, disavowal and denial are instinctive responses
•creates an environment where levels of denial are so great that those involved are oblivious of the foolishness and self-evident absurdity of their denials when presented with the facts, with the result that non-involved observers are led to question whether such levels of denial merit psychiatric intervention
•is contemptuous of disrepute to their organisation and of collateral damage and of the destructive consequences for all direct and indirect parties
•is always surrounded by and leaves behind a trail of dysfunctional organisations, destroyed businesses, ruined careers, stress breakdowns and unexplained suicides
•despite a trail of devastation to individuals, organisations, families and communities, the actions of a socialised psychopath may go undetected or unrecognised for years
•a history of conducting frivolous, vexatious and malicious legal actions, especially (but not exclusively) against anyone who can recognise the sociopath for what he is
•only after the sociopath is exposed and relieved of position, or they move on, can the full depth of their destructive behaviour be fathomed and the consequences calculated
•is skilled at identifying, undermining, discrediting, neutralising and destroying anyone who can see through the sociopath's mask of sanity
•at all times restricts the actions and rights of others (especially those holding the sociopath accountable) whilst aggressively protecting his or her right to do anything without being hampered by social norms or legal requirements
•pursues endless vindictive vendettas against anyone perceived as a threat or who attempts, knowingly or unknowingly, to identify or reveal or expose the sociopath, or who makes efforts to hold the sociopath accountable
•is adept at appropriating rules, regulations, procedures and law to manipulate, control and punish accusers regardless of relevance, logic, facts or consequences
•persists in and pursues vindictive vendettas using self-evidently false evidence or information, even after this is brought to the attention of the sociopath
•will often manipulate minor bullies of the Wannabe type (who on their own might or would not merit the label 'serial bully') into acting as agents of harassment and as unwitting or unwilling conductors of vendettas
•is adept at placing people in situations where the sociopath can tap into each person's instinctive urge to retaliate in order to use them as his or her instruments or agents of harassment
•gains gratification from provoking others into engaging in adversarial conflict
•once conflict has been initiated, the sociopath gains increased gratification by exploiting human beings' instinctive need to retaliate - this is achieved by encouraging and escalating peoples' adversarial conflicts into mutually assured destruction
•revels in the gratification gained from seeing or causing other people's distress
•when faced with accountability or unwelcome attention which might lead to others discerning the sociopath's true nature, responds with repeated and escalating attempts to control, manipulate and punish
•is adept at reflecting all accusations and attempts at accountability back onto their accusers
•is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise pool negative information about the sociopath
•has no limits on his or her vindictiveness
•the need to control, manipulate and punish develops into an obsession with many of the hallmarks of an addiction
•is skilled at mimicry and can plausibly and spontaneously regurgitate all the latest management jargon
•exhibits minimal professional skill level and competency
•exploits his or her intelligence to excel at talentless mediocrity
• is always identifying the behaviours and strategies to which other people respond with the desired effect
•is able to anticipate and credibly say what people want to hear
•is easily able to win people over before betraying them or deceiving them or ripping them off
•easily manipulates and bewitches an immature or naive or vulnerable or emotionally needy person to be their spokesperson or agent of aggression
•exploits anyone who has a vulnerability
•is pushy and extremely persuasive
•is sexually inadequate and sexually abusive
•is likely to protect anyone accused of or suspected of sexual abuse of pedophile activity, and will frustrate or obstruct investigations into that person
•maybe associating with, or actively involved in, abuse or pedophile activity
•has no emotions, no emotional processing capability and no ability to understand other's emotions
•is incapable of understanding, initiating or sustaining intimacy
•the male sociopath has often convinced a string of women to feel they are in love with him and despite being treated abominably they blindly continue to be loyal to him and minister willingly to his every demand
•may start projects with apparent enthusiasm and energy but quickly loses interest
•frequently takes unnecessary and uncalculated risks but takes no account of consequences
•is reckless and untrustworthy with money
•is likely to be illegally diverting or siphoning off significant sums of money to his or her own budget, project, account or cause
•is unreliable and untrustworthy in every facet of life
•is likely to be leaking confidential information or secrets to third parties
•is likely to have committed or be committing criminal or near-criminal offences, eg fraud, embezzlement, deception
•is likely to have committed or be committing breaches of harassment and discrimination law, employment law, contract law, etc
•disregards rules, regulations, Health and Safety requirements, professional standards, codes of conduct and legal requirements, etc
•cannot comprehend the deeper semantic meaning of language and is thus unable to understand or appreciate metaphor, hyperbole, irony, satire etc (these elicit either zero response or a hostile response)
•likes, seeks, enjoys and relies on procedure, ritual and ritualistic practices
•through arrogant overconfidence takes increasingly risky chances and eventually overplays their hand or makes a mistake which leads to the sociopath revealing him or herself
•exhibits parasitical behaviour, takes everything and gives nothing
•grabs headline credit for minimal, flukey or other peoples' success whilst surviving off the backs of manipulatees who are exclusively blamed for all failures
•rarely blinks, may have stary scary eyes that cut right through you, or may avoid eye contact completely
•is callous, cold and calculating
•is devious, clever and cunning
•is ruthless in the extreme
•regards people as objects and playthings to be discarded when surplus to requirements
•displays zero empathy
•completely without conscience, remorse and guilt
•malicious and evil

 

[linette]

LADYBIRD... I think it is frighteningly ON topic. Ticks every box it seems.

 

[Amee]

Sorry to be a pest, I can't re-find the link to the Statements etc. Could we perhaps have them pinned at the intro of the threads? Please? :seeya:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202113"]Bail Hearing Documents *No Discussion* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[alioop]

Alioop, do you have a link for this interview? I haven't seen it.

Eclair its just 2 pages back , Page 3 post #63 by curiousasacat

 

[Trooper]

From Toni's statement, number 4.

Sunday, April 27th. Gerard rings Toni..

in the conversation,

'Gerard then told me he loved me. He said, he didnt know what went wrong there, but he believed the police would find the killer and bring them to justice..
further down that statement, number 4....

'I have been asked about a comment I made to Robert MacKay Woods about whoever did kill Allison ,I did make a comment along those lines because it appeared common sense that whoever did this to Allison would have gone thru Rafting Ground road to get to Anstead. .I just think that anyone who did not want to be seen would have gone the back way, because there would have been less likelihood they would have been seen..

So both Gerard and Toni agree there is a killer, or killers, they, or it, will be bought to justice, and they most likely took the Rafting Ground Road to get to Anstead..

 

[Trooper]

so while Olivia is telling us Allison had depression of such depth she probably left her kids and went for a long wallk, Gerard and Toni are discussing Killer, or Killers. Toni is discussing with her exhusband what route this killler, or killers most likely took.

* raised eyebrow*

 

[alioop]

Hi strangeworld, I posted the info previously but here it is again for you.

The link Marly gave you is for the bail application supreme court file.
It lists each affidavit filed but not individual docs that make up the exhibit filed with the affidavit. You can call the search and copy counter at the court registry on 07 32474364 and ask them for more info and they are happy to tell you more details.

For eg document no 17 by P Negerevich filed on behalf of the respondent (being the prosecution in the bail application) has a short affidavit which lists exhibit A. Though not stated as separate documents as they are contained in the exhibit, they are 500 pages of witness statements and reports including the ones I have now posted. So until the sleuther ordered doc 17 which cost about $50 for the photocopying and postage of the 500 pages ( the docs themselves are free) she didn't know exactly what would be in them but it was the one I suggested be ordered as it would have the evidence they wanted presented to the judge to request bail be refused.

Another sleuther ordered doc 13 affidavit of Gerard Baden Clay and exhibit GBC1. In this affidavit he explains why he googled self incrimination and exhibits all his and his family's mobile phone records which have been posted by Makara.

If I had to choose the one to order next it would be doc no 20 affidavit by P Negerevich as it is the second document filed by the prosecution and would be the one that could have more of the witness statements in it. I wouldn't bother with any filed for the defence, they are just likely from family and friends offering accommodation and surety for bail.

To then place an order for them, the easiest way is to email the search and copy counter at SDC.SearchandCopyCounter@justice.qld.gov.au . You need to quote the case number 11307/12 Baden-Clay Bail application. They are very helpful and just email you back with a photocopy and postage fee and there is a phone number you can call to ask questions about the docs you want and to pay with credit card.

 

[Curiousasacat]

Thanks for the latest Ali. Strange. The hairdresser has a remarkable memory.
Allison didn't seem to sound very happy. I wonder if there had been an arguement earlier? Perhaps on the phone?

 

[Champagne4lulu]

I have just watched the interview with OW outside the Kenmore house yesterday and it is an edited version. However the commentator says that OW claims the prosecution was selective in the evidence they presented, I presume she means at the committal. We don't hear her say this but if she did in the full version, then that to me indicates she has no understanding of the process at the committal. It was not the prosecution who were selective, it was the defence as the only witnesses cross examined were those selected by the defence. The prosecution really just introduced them, asked a few questions but the reason why they were on the stand was for the defence to cross examine.

As I said, if she did say this then perhaps she has been kept out the loop with the defence lawyers and/or can't grasp the committal process. Does anyone who saw her trying to communicate with her brother, get the impression that the defence were annoyed with her at all. I did get this impression from one comment from someone who was there but it may have just been one occasion, something to do with her pulling up a chair and sitting near the defence?

I'm so glad you said this - I thought that's what you had said previously but when I saw the interview I thought I'd misunderstood.

AND

If the truth will come out, why did it not come out at the committal or either of the bail hearings? Wtf is going on? Isn't that the perfect opportunity for them to say what happened? Why on earth would they wait for trial. I'm desperately trying to keep an open mind, innocent until proven guilty, but these guys are doing my head in. They aren't making any sense and it makes me feel very suspicious of them.

#openmindopenmindopenmind

 

[Jaguar88]

If GBC is an innocent man and there is information or circumstances suggesting this as OW implies, then why would he not do everything he could to bring it into the light of day? By not doing so he is inflicting unbelievable pain on his daughters and Allison’s family, and subjecting his family, friends and lovers to public humiliation and vilification, not to mention financial ruin. Is he leading them all over the abyss to perdition just so he can have the world’s biggest GOTCHA in the supreme court?

On the other hand, if he’s not innocent he’s still doing all of the above to everyone around him – it’s time he either comes clean with any exculpatory information he has, or does the honourable thing and pleads guilty, if only for his 3 daughter’s sakes.

You’ve gotta know when hold ‘em, know when to fold’em etc...... as Joel Barlow did

 

[Champagne4lulu]

I agree Linette, we have seen no evidence that anyone other than GBC was involved before, during or after Allison was murdered. Becoming aware of the truth after the fact which may or may not be the case does not make that recipient of that knowledge an accessory.

Is it possible the police didn't know and were bluffing? "Do you know if gbc was having another affair?" It sounds like she was very unsure of where she stood anyway so most likely would jump to the conclusion easily. Call gbc and bingo - he thinks she knows so spills.

???

 

[LadyBird1]

N was there, G said "Hey Dad, I'm going to be held up here. I was meant to be cleaning this house going in the market today. Could you do it for me? Here, take my vacuum and hose."!

Am interested in the answer to this question:
Is there one real estate agent in Australia who does home handyman work or cleaning duties? Including changing a light-bulb. On other people's properties. Just One.

 

[Fuskier]

From Toni's statement, number 4.

Sunday, April 27th. Gerard rings Toni..

in the conversation,

'Gerard then told me he loved me. He said, he didnt know what went wrong there, but he believed the police would find the killer and bring them to justice..
further down that statement, number 4....

'I have been asked about a comment I made to Robert MacKay Woods about whoever did kill Allison ,I did make a comment along those lines because it appeared common sense that whoever did this to Allison would have gone thru Rafting Ground road to get to Anstead. .I just think that anyone who did not want to be seen would have gone the back way, because there would have been less likelihood they would have been seen..

So both Gerard and Toni agree there is a killer, or killers, they, or it, will be bought to justice, and they most likely took the Rafting Ground Road to get to Anstead..

Gold! Thanks Trooper. hwow:

 

[Amee]

Hi strangeworld, I posted the info previously but here it is again for you.

The link Marly gave you is for the bail application supreme court file.
It lists each affidavit filed but not individual docs that make up the exhibit filed with the affidavit. You can call the search and copy counter at the court registry on 07 32474364 and ask them for more info and they are happy to tell you more details.

For eg document no 17 by P Negerevich filed on behalf of the respondent (being the prosecution in the bail application) has a short affidavit which lists exhibit A. Though not stated as separate documents as they are contained in the exhibit, they are 500 pages of witness statements and reports including the ones I have now posted. So until the sleuther ordered doc 17 which cost about $50 for the photocopying and postage of the 500 pages ( the docs themselves are free) she didn't know exactly what would be in them but it was the one I suggested be ordered as it would have the evidence they wanted presented to the judge to request bail be refused.

Another sleuther ordered doc 13 affidavit of Gerard Baden Clay and exhibit GBC1. In this affidavit he explains why he googled self incrimination and exhibits all his and his family's mobile phone records which have been posted by Makara.

If I had to choose the one to order next it would be doc no 20 affidavit by P Negerevich as it is the second document filed by the prosecution and would be the one that could have more of the witness statements in it. I wouldn't bother with any filed for the defence, they are just likely from family and friends offering accommodation and surety for bail.

To then place an order for them, the easiest way is to email the search and copy counter at SDC.SearchandCopyCounter@justice.qld.gov.au . You need to quote the case number 11307/12 Baden-Clay Bail application. They are very helpful and just email you back with a photocopy and postage fee and there is a phone number you can call to ask questions about the docs you want and to pay with credit card.

Thanks Ali for the info. If I wasnt going away on holidays Id have purchased them.

 

[Trooper]

Gold! Thanks Trooper.

I meant to put in my original post, that the bolding words were my bolds, not anyone elses, certainly not Toni's or the police.. merely my own.

 

[Fuskier]

If GBC is an innocent man and there is information or circumstances suggesting this as OW implies, then why would he not do everything he could to bring it into the light of day? By not doing so he is inflicting unbelievable pain on his daughters and Allison’s family, and subjecting his family, friends and lovers to public humiliation and vilification, not to mention financial ruin. Is he leading them all over the abyss to perdition just so he can have the world’s biggest GOTCHA in the supreme court?

On the other hand, if he’s not innocent he’s still doing all of the above to everyone around him – it’s time he either comes clean with any exculpatory information he has, or does the honourable thing and pleads guilty, if only for his 3 daughter’s sakes.

You’ve gotta know when hold ‘em, know when to fold’em etc...... as Joel Barlow did

Well said Jaguar. :cheers: