Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #45

[Strangeworld]

GBC knew (and does know) how to present himself to others - he has enough insight to know how he SHOULD act, but does not really care about others. It is all about how do I need to act to get the most out of this situation. I imagine this is how he lived his life in his marriage, his social life, his work life, his cheating life, and his 'community leader/aspiring political' life. This can get very tiring, and can lead to escalation of antisocial behaviour over time. IMO

This combination in a person can be extremely dangerous - cares too much about own needs, and no care for other's needs. And danger doesn't just come in extremes - it can be dangerous to encounter these people in financial situations/partnerships, in the workplace, when balance of power is at play, etc. IMO

GBC has shown to be someone who can play the game. Intelligence is not always a protective factor from these types of people. Even emotional intelligence is not always a protective factor. If people like GBC can identify your weakness, you are almost certainly a goner (not literally). Look at the trail of destruction in his life. He has managed to fool people from all walks of life. And he can keep people dangling - at his beck and call. He can distance people when the heat is on, but still keep them on side. UNTIL others start to piece it all together, or the personal level of damage and cost reaches a limit that means they have to distance themselves from him.

Some people can also be attracted to the traits people like GBC show. They can be perceived as mysterious, powerful, intriguing.

This is all IMO.

 

[Strangeworld]

I can't imagine the BC's have any explanation for what happened to Allison, whether they know about her death or not. If OW does believe in GBC's innonence (which I doubt), her claims of the truth coming out are probably more related to hope that another explanation will emerge. They wouldn't have anything significant at the moment, or it would have come out already. Grasping at straws....

 

[Happygolucky]

Respectfully snipped to not fill the page...
But I have got to answer this. Firstly, please, it's Allison - two lls.
Secondly, how about you balance the "Gerard telling the world how wonderful Gerard is" with Allison's diary entries where he mocked her - told her that she smelled and laughed at her undies.
How about you balance that with a workmate who tells of his rigid control of those children and how they seemed abnormally well behaved. You know what, I grew up abnormally well behaved too - you know why, because either I or my mother would cop it later when the doors were shut. Reading about this family rings all kinds of alarm bells and shivers of recognition and yes, the veneer is all lovely isn't it? Guess it depends on who's telling the story.
Yes Gerard was so wonderful that he'd shag other women in the back of a 4WD in a secluded street. So wonderful that he had more than one woman on the side.. Bloody marvellous father figure...:sick:
One holiday with his brother doesn't make him an angel and quite frankly, it's easy to spend time with young children who are slightly scared of you... would have been interesting to see how the teenage years would have gone.

Thanks for your reply Anonthemouse
I was not trying to convey that Gerard was "totally Mr Nice Guy" who could do no wrong. He certainly did plenty of wrong by Allison and he certainly had numerous faults. Many men, unfortunately cheat on their wives but still treat their children decently.

In reality, we have only got glimpses of what has gone one behind closed doors. I was just trying to point out that not all the glimpses were negative and I find it very hard to imagine that someone who loved their children would murder their mother while they were home. I too was extremely well behaved as a child, not because I was beaten or abused, just because I was shy and a relatively quiet personality in my childhood.

I am not really sure what to make of Phil Brooms statement, he was a one time "friend" who suffered because of Gerards financial managment and felt cheated by Gerard (probably with good reason). I think we also need to get a picture from Alisons friends and family who may have seen more interaction to decide if there was definitely "rigid control" and if the "field signals" contributed to this.

It is also interesting to note in Phil's statement how infrequently he saw Allison but other more personal gathering included Gerard, Phil, Phils wife and the girls. I again get the glimpse that Gerard was quite involved with his girls. Allison was certainly unhappy in her marriage but seemed to want to stay and try and make it work and yes, I have read her diary entries and I felt very sad for her. Gerard did not come up smelling like roses from what I read. I got the feel of a lot a regret and unhappiness in Alison's diaries. It is unfortunate that she did not make the decision to leave Gerard a lot earlier.

 

[Strangeworld]

I've often wondered about when Allison met GBC. What was it that she was attracted to, or what caught her eye/attention? I wonder if she had dated much before her marriage - she seemed very career focused, but she clearly wanted a family.

Did he woo her? Was he loving and giving? Did he detect a vulnerability in her?

IMO, GBC is very strategic - Allison would have fulfilled a need. Maybe he had high aspirations and a false sense of stature back then, and saw her as someone that could aid his cause. I wonder how long it was before he stopped being faithful in his marriage?

 

[Strangeworld]

Thanks for your reply Anonthemouse
I was not trying to convey that Gerard was "totally Mr Nice Guy" who could do no wrong. He certainly did plenty of wrong by Allison and he certainly had numerous faults. Many men, unfortunately cheat on their wives but still treat their children decently.

In reality, we have only got glimpses of what has gone one behind closed doors. I was just trying to point out that not all the glimpses were negative and I find it very hard to imagine that someone who loved their children would murder their mother while they were home. I too was extremely well behaved as a child, not because I was beaten or abused, just because I was shy and a relatively quiet personality in my childhood.

I am not really sure what to make of Phil Brooms statement, he was a one time "friend" who suffered because of Gerards financial managment and felt cheated by Gerard (probably with good reason). I think we also need to get a picture from Alisons friends and family who may have seen more interaction to decide if there was definitely "rigid control" and if the "field signals" contributed to this.

It is also interesting to note in Phil's statement how infrequently he saw Allison but other more personal gathering included Gerard, Phil, Phils wife and the girls. I again get the glimpse that Gerard was quite involved with his girls. Allison was certainly unhappy in her marriage but seemed to want to stay and try and make it work and yes, I have read her diary entries and I felt very sad for her. Gerard did not come up smelling like roses from what I read. I got the feel of a lot a regret and unhappiness in Alison's diaries. It is unfortunate that she did not make the decision to leave Gerard a lot earlier.

I don't doubt GBC was involved in the girls' lives. It is clear he was heavily involved in the community and their school. What I question is his motivation for this involvement.

 

[Happygolucky]

I agree with others, this is very thought-provoking, thanks HGL. I do believe we have to try to keep our minds as open as possible.

I too look forward to reading more statements as they become available. However, I understand we won't be reading one made by GBC. Can you think of any reason why he wouldn't have provided one, to put his version on the record and assist police in finding his wife's murderer? I struggle with this.

I believe that Gerard not making a formal statement would have been strictly on his lawyers advice. We know the house was designated a crime scene on the afternoon of the 20th April. We also know if foul play is involved it is usually someone close to the victim, often the husband. Whether he was guilty or innocent, Gerard would have been aware he was a prime suspect in his wife's diaappearance. My understanding, if you ask advice from a lawyer and you are suspected of committing a crime they will invariably suggest you don't make a statement. I believe it is because you then retain your right to remain silent during the trial. Ultimately it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime not for the alleged offender to prove his innocence. Lawyers give this advice to protect their clients--that is their job to protect their client, not the victim. Mind you if it was me and my husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances I would be very willilng to provide a statement knowing I was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Gerard did however, provided a taped interview with police that morning--and yes most of what he said was quite interesting and sometimes contradictory. Either he was a bad and forgetfull lier and/or super stressed. He came across to me as a very bad lier.

In many ways this case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain case sentenced for murdering her daughter Azaria. Her demeanour came across as unnatural, too cool and calculated and the public did not warm to her. Her story about Azaria being taken by a dingo was treated as unbelievable and she was convicted of murder. Luminol showed extensive blood sprays in their car (later shown to be rust protector). A chance discovery several years later of Azaria's matinee jacket in a dingo lair, compete with teeth marks and baby's blood caused her immediate release from prison and ultimate exoneration.

 

[they'll get you]

A recent article about the food behind bars.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...life-behind-bars/story-e6frexnr-1226609066503

Prison Food

You make breakfast from the rations they supply. You get your litre of milk every couple of days and they supply toast and butter.

"You're out by seven, straight to work. You can take food for the smoko break then you finish at 2pm."
The food was so bad he spent most of his weekly wage on fresh meat.

"They supply dinner but it's absolute rubbish," he said. "It's shocking. I don't know how some blokes survive on it.

:floorlaugh:

 

[breno84]

Fellow Sleuthers, there is something that has been a bit of a prickle with me and I'm sorry to have a rant, but it seems there is one thing people are reading WAY too far into;

OW says 'The truth will come out' (Or words to that effect)

These are not the words of a woman who knows a truth that would lead anyone to her 'Real' killer. These are the words of a woman blindly defending her brother, whilst clutching at straws for something to say.
Either she knows exactly what happened that night or at least part thereof.
I'm pretty sure if she had some compelling evidence to present it would have come out long ago but....nothing.
So as far as her knowing something that would be a game changer, I think we can bury this one entirely. Sorry I don't have anything more constructive to say right now but it just seems to be an aside comment that garnered far too much attention. :twocents::twocents:

 

[Strangeworld]

I believe that Gerard not making a formal statement would have been strictly on his lawyers advice. We know the house was designated a crime scene on the afternoon of the 20th April. We also know if foul play is involved it is usually someone close to the victim, often the husband. Whether he was guilty or innocent, Gerard would have been aware he was a prime suspect in his wife's diaappearance. My understanding, if you ask advice from a lawyer and you are suspected of committing a crime they will invariably suggest you don't make a statement. I believe it is because you then retain your right to remain silent during the trial. Ultimately it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime not for the alleged offender to prove his innocence. Lawyers give this advice to protect their clients--that is their job to protect their client, not the victim. Mind you if it was me and my husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances I would be very willilng to provide a statement knowing I was innocent of any wrongdoing.
Gerard did however, provided a taped interview with police that morning--and yes most of what he said was quite interesting and sometimes contradictory. Either he was a bad and forgetfull lier and/or super stressed. He came across to me as a very bad lier.

In many ways this case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain case sentenced for murdering her daughter Azaria. Her demeanour came across as unnatural, too cool and calculated and the public did not warm to her. Her story about Azaria being taken by a dingo was treated as unbelievable and she was convicted of murder. Luminol showed extensive blood sprays in their car (later shown to be rust protector). A chance discovery several years later of Azaria's matinee jacket in a dingo lair, compete with teeth marks and baby's blood caused her immediate release from prison and ultimate exoneration.

BBM

What gets me is that even if he followed his lawyer's advice, why did he think his needs were more important than finding his wife? I understand how lawyers will often give advice to protect the interests of their client, but his wife was missing. A husband concerned about his wife's welfare, who wanted her back home, would have told his lawyers where to go, IMO. Even if he had given a statement to clear his name, it still focuses on his needs, not the whereabouts of his wife. I know people react differently under extreme stress, but when a person is truly concerned for the welfare of a loved one, nothing will sway them from doing everything they can - speaking to police, speaking to the media, engaging the help of the community, etc.

And keep in mind, he sought legal advice very early - again, his needs were more important. A lawyer isn't going to help find his wife. They are going to protect his interests, his reputation and his legal rights.

Re the Azaria Chamberlain case, this has come up before, but I just can't see any similarity. Like comparing oranges and lemons. Sorry!

 

[Couldbe]

Fellow Sleuthers, there is something that has been a bit of a prickle with me and I'm sorry to have a rant, but it seems there is one thing people are reading WAY too far into;

OW says 'The truth will come out' (Or words to that effect)

These are not the words of a woman who knows a truth that would lead anyone to her 'Real' killer. These are the words of a woman blindly defending her brother, whilst clutching at straws for something to say.
Either she knows exactly what happened that night or at least part thereof.
I'm pretty sure if she had some compelling evidence to present it would have come out long ago but....nothing.
So as far as her knowing something that would be a game changer, I think we can bury this one entirely. Sorry I don't have anything more constructive to say right now but it just seems to be an aside comment that garnered far too much attention. :twocents::twocents:

breno84, take your point;

just that I think that, whether or not she is going to disclose any info, OW would know more about some of the facts than most of us Websleuthers. JMO

 

[Flinders]

:floorlaugh:

Why are you laughing at me?

 

[Maigret]

BBM

What gets me is that even if he followed his lawyer's advice, why did he think his needs were more important than finding his wife? I understand how lawyers will often give advice to protect the interests of their client, but his wife was missing. A husband concerned about his wife's welfare, who wanted her back home, would have told his lawyers where to go, IMO. Even if he had given a statement to clear his name, it still focuses on his needs, not the whereabouts of his wife. I know people react differently under extreme stress, but when a person is truly concerned for the welfare of a loved one, nothing will sway them from doing everything they can - speaking to police, speaking to the media, engaging the help of the community, etc.

And keep in mind, he sought legal advice very early - again, his needs were more important. A lawyer isn't going to help find his wife. They are going to protect his interests, his reputation and his legal rights.

Re the Azaria Chamberlain case, this has come up before, but I just can't see any similarity. Like comparing oranges and lemons. Sorry!

With the chamberlain case it was the NT police who drove that to where it went I know one of the police who was on it and they were all convinced she did it - mainly because of her religion - they didn't understand and when people don't understand they fear
My grandmother always said Lindy was innocent and I also thought she was
We even have an Azaria in the family - and she is gorgeous

 

[they'll get you]

Looking at the blurb about this REIQ conference, I can't understand why TM was so upset about Allison attending. It must have been a huge event attended by hundreds. Surely they could have both attended without having to be near each other? It sounds like TM went off her head about Allison attending- as if she was in a state of near panic about it! Weird. She really had it bad didn't she? I don't get it- but her reaction may have been the catalyst for what happened on the 19th April.

I've been to a few of these sales conferences in my days of real estate in NSW. Some are held in a centre with no seating arrangements like you would see, say, in a church with serve yourself refreshments at breaks, serve yourself lunch etc.
With a few guest speakers.

Others are a more formal setup, if an early start, and due to long trips, a light breakfast with tea, coffee & juice, a light lunch served to you at a dining style seating with cutlery & white tablecloths. I'm sure these were expensive & usually the principles attended these.
If it is a state conference, usually the local's are seated either at the same table or close to each other. For example outer west would be seated in the same approximate 'zone' and the northeasterners would be seated similarly. We had places set with our names and agency on our tables. You sat close to your zones because it was the REINSW & they saw you as one 'family'.
Look at times we had to sit next to or opposite our 'opponents' being an REINSW
And of course we were civil to each other. but that's not was said later as there were others that we didn't like their ethics or style. No there weren't arguments but at times the tension was tight.
My principals always paid because they wanted us to excell, learn new techniques, keep up with the laws and fly their flag. We were always dressed immaculately in our uniforms with our badges. Our office carpooled with as many as needed in one car.
When it was a franchise conference we had no 'opponents' and it was a more relaxed 'family' atmosphere. With a speaker and some achievement trophies thrown in.
All depends what style conference this was and the seating arrangements. I guess the venue would describe it.

I can imagine the threat TM have felt possibly having to sit in close proximity to Allison, possibly NEXT to her knowing full well Allison Baden-Clay, MANAGING DIRECTOR of C-21 WITH AN EMPLOYEE OF HERS would be there laughing and smiling as she had her man, her job, her desk, her lifestyle and she was outed on her ear and had to get another job. Im sure TM would have felt extremely intimidated, used and abused Ouchhh!

 

[Thinking]

I believe that Gerard not making a formal statement would have been strictly on his lawyers advice. We know the house was designated a crime scene on the afternoon of the 20th April. We also know if foul play is involved it is usually someone close to the victim, often the husband. Whether he was guilty or innocent, Gerard would have been aware he was a prime suspect in his wife's diaappearance. My understanding, if you ask advice from a lawyer and you are suspected of committing a crime they will invariably suggest you don't make a statement. I believe it is because you then retain your right to remain silent during the trial. Ultimately it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime not for the alleged offender to prove his innocence. Lawyers give this advice to protect their clients--that is their job to protect their client, not the victim. Mind you if it was me and my husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances I would be very willilng to provide a statement knowing I was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Gerard did however, provided a taped interview with police that morning--and yes most of what he said was quite interesting and sometimes contradictory. Either he was a bad and forgetfull lier and/or super stressed. He came across to me as a very bad lier.

In many ways this case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain case sentenced for murdering her daughter Azaria. Her demeanour came across as unnatural, too cool and calculated and the public did not warm to her. Her story about Azaria being taken by a dingo was treated as unbelievable and she was convicted of murder. Luminol showed extensive blood sprays in their car (later shown to be rust protector). A chance discovery several years later of Azaria's matinee jacket in a dingo lair, compete with teeth marks and baby's blood caused her immediate release from prison and ultimate exoneration.

My understanding is that he had no choice in the interview being taped, so technically he didn't provide it as such.

Yes, I agree the lack of statement would definitely have been on the lawyer's advice but, as we have mentioned before, why would an innocent person be focusing on contacting and meeting with their lawyer so early in the piece. A few days later maybe some would (I still wouldn't if innocent to be honest) but on the 20th? Thus, I would think that an innocent person would have provided their statement before even considering contacting a lawyer, as in their mind there would be nothing to hide.

I, like so many here, have turned this case and the events surrounding that fateful night, all the possible scenarios and explanations for behaviour and all the players involved, over in my mind so many times it is overwhelming. At the end of the day, I think, as many wise posters here have said in the past, that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.

 

[they'll get you]

GBC knew (and does know) how to present himself to others - he has enough insight to know how he SHOULD act, but does not really care about others. It is all about how do I need to act to get the most out of this situation. I imagine this is how he lived his life in his marriage, his social life, his work life, his cheating life, and his 'community leader/aspiring political' life. This can get very tiring, and can lead to escalation of antisocial behaviour over time. IMO

This combination in a person can be extremely dangerous - cares too much about own needs, and no care for other's needs. And danger doesn't just come in extremes - it can be dangerous to encounter these people in financial situations/partnerships, in the workplace, when balance of power is at play, etc. IMO

GBC has shown to be someone who can play the game. Intelligence is not always a protective factor from these types of people. Even emotional intelligence is not always a protective factor. If people like GBC can identify your weakness, you are almost certainly a goner (not literally). Look at the trail of destruction in his life. He has managed to fool people from all walks of life. And he can keep people dangling - at his beck and call. He can distance people when the heat is on, but still keep them on side. UNTIL others start to piece it all together, or the personal level of damage and cost reaches a limit that means they have to distance themselves from him.

Some people can also be attracted to the traits people like GBC show. They can be perceived as mysterious, powerful, intriguing.

This is all IMO.

GBC would have to project himself with confidence when speaking with clients, peers and employees. It's a far cry from his 'a little bit hurt' interview and his 'um er um' style taped interview-statement with the police.

 

[GEANIE]

My understanding is that he had no choice in the interview being taped, so technically he didn't provide it as such.

Yes, I agree the lack of statement would definitely have been on the lawyer's advice but, as we have mentioned before, why would an innocent person be focusing on contacting and meeting with their lawyer so early in the piece. A few days later maybe some would (I still wouldn't if innocent to be honest) but on the 20th? Thus, I would think that an innocent person would have provided their statement before even considering contacting a lawyer, as in their mind there would be nothing to hide.

I, like so many here, have turned this case and the events surrounding that fateful night, all the possible scenarios and explanations for behaviour and all the players involved, over in my mind so many times it is overwhelming. At the end of the day, I think, as many wise posters here have said in the past, that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.

Thank you to those.....you know who you are who contacted me on a personal note.....much appreciated and will hang in here.....THANKS
I work with men only being the only female on a property miles from nowhere and I must say the men treat me like a queen,,,some men are just like that.:fence:

 

[they'll get you]

A recent article about the food behind bars.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...life-behind-bars/story-e6frexnr-1226609066503

Prison Food

You make breakfast from the rations they supply. You get your litre of milk every couple of days and they supply toast and butter.

"You're out by seven, straight to work. You can take food for the smoko break then you finish at 2pm."
The food was so bad he spent most of his weekly wage on fresh meat.

"They supply dinner but it's absolute rubbish," he said. "It's shocking. I don't know how some blokes survive on it.

I was laughing at the prisoners complaining about the food they are getting, I tHough it was funny that the food is 'absolute rubbish' & it's shocking' maybe they should have thought about their stomachs BEFORE they did their crime.
Still laughing cause diddums is eating 'absolute rubbish'.

 

[GEANIE]

I was laughing at the prisoners complaining about the food they are getting, I tHough it was funny that the food is 'absolute rubbish' & it's shocking' maybe they should have thought about their stomachs BEFORE they did their crime.
Still laughing cause diddums is eating 'absolute rubbish'.

They should be grateful for bread and jam <modsnip>

 

[marlywings]

I wonder if Allison used to have the same feeling of dread and loathing as I do right now. Off to spend Easter with the in-laws.
Happy Easter websleuther friends.

On a good note GBC's phone records are coming along nicely and I'd rather stay home to finish it : ) My eyes are enjoying the rest though.

Just a question for Marly- Do you want me to post the phone records here tomorrow? It will be a very long post?
Just let me know and I'll check before posting.

Stay safe and eat lots of chocolate everyone.
Huge big cyberhug to those alone today *advertiser censored*

Happy Easter to you as well thanks CCat!! Hope you & all members had a great day

And yes it's fine to post the phone records...& thankyou!!

 

[LadyBird1]

I believe that Gerard not making a formal statement would have been strictly on his lawyers advice. We know the house was designated a crime scene on the afternoon of the 20th April. We also know if foul play is involved it is usually someone close to the victim, often the husband. Whether he was guilty or innocent, Gerard would have been aware he was a prime suspect in his wife's diaappearance. My understanding, if you ask advice from a lawyer and you are suspected of committing a crime they will invariably suggest you don't make a statement. I believe it is because you then retain your right to remain silent during the trial. Ultimately it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime not for the alleged offender to prove his innocence. Lawyers give this advice to protect their clients--that is their job to protect their client, not the victim. Mind you if it was me and my husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances I would be very willilng to provide a statement knowing I was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Gerard did however, provided a taped interview with police that morning--and yes most of what he said was quite interesting and sometimes contradictory. Either he was a bad and forgetfull lier and/or super stressed. He came across to me as a very bad lier.

In many ways this case reminds me of the Lindy Chamberlain case sentenced for murdering her daughter Azaria. Her demeanour came across as unnatural, too cool and calculated and the public did not warm to her. Her story about Azaria being taken by a dingo was treated as unbelievable and she was convicted of murder. Luminol showed extensive blood sprays in their car (later shown to be rust protector). A chance discovery several years later of Azaria's matinee jacket in a dingo lair, compete with teeth marks and baby's blood caused her immediate release from prison and ultimate exoneration.

With respect, Happygolucky, this case could not be further removed from the Lindy Chamberlain case. It is absolutely NOTHING at all like that. I can not see any similarities whatsoever.

If you are suggesting media interest, that too is way off. In this particular case the media has been very circumspect, almost silent.

If you are suggesting a people interest, I would agree there, but for completely different reasons. The media turned the Chamberlain case into a media circus that sold stories for profit.
In this case, people are outraged over the BC entire family's attitude. Their whole focus appears to circumvent the Law at whatever cost. IMO. No interest even in Justice for Allison from this family.
The sites that are trying to pursue JUSTICE, and whose collective consciences are offended, do so for no financial gain whatsoever.
The contributions here are many and varied and entirely open, informed, and educated. IMO.

My personal thoughts on "brainstorming", is that it a very healthy thing. Ideas from many different angles can be looked at, dissected, discussed. Might be completely different to mine, but then my thoughts might be one eyed.

If you mean that the people in question are behaving different to "normal":

Lindy Chamberlain appeared totally shell-shocked. Numbed. And as a lot of educated people at that time were required to do, they were to appear right.
Hide the inner feelings. Prepare for this new fangled thing, the TV interview.

Azaria Chamberlain was not the first human baby to have been taken by a dingo, nor will she be the last until arrogance and ignorance is brushed aside.

NB ***That salient point was neither asked for, nor debated, just assumed. *** NB.
Azaria Chamberlain was not the first baby to have been taken by a dingo.

There was little opportunity for ordinary citizens to have their ordinary say, or opinions, or share knowledge or facts. The Internet wasn't invented, and there were no crime sites or websleuth sites where people like you and me could have a voice.

The Chamberlain case should have served as a warning that, Yes Dingoes Do take Babies. Be aware. Be prepared.

To even compare Lindy Chamberlain to this case is a gross insult.