Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #46

[Thinking]

Hi all - I heard in a radio news report today that the interference with a corpse charge still stood along with the murder charge. Of course I have no link to support this, sorry. It is so hard to know when there is a reporting error or not. Similarly, my understanding is that GBC has already been indicted - this hearing was for Danny Boyle to let the court know the prosecution is set and ready for trial. Again, if this is the case, it hasn't quite been reported correctly. Ali, do correct me if I'm wrong?

I see the BCs got Peter Shields after all. Interesting.

I also noted today that the BC residence at Brookfield appears to be tenanted now and has been painted yellow.

 

[Nads]

I also noted today that the BC residence at Brookfield appears to be tenanted now and has been painted yellow.

Yellow!

 

[possumheart]

yellow!

way to go!

 

[Makara]

August 23, 2013

A statement from Mrs Baden-Clay's family said they were pleased the case was progressing.

"The entire family has been, and continues to go through, a very traumatic time so we are relieved with this latest development as it represents another step forward in a long and difficult process," it said.

"Not a day goes by when we do not grieve for the tragic loss of our beloved Allison and we continue to be incredibly grateful for the support of the community, our extended family and friends in helping us navigate through this extremely difficult time in our lives."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18620876/baden-clay-murder-trial-to-take-a-month/

My thoughts are always with Allison's family and I'll stand right beside them metorphorically until justice is served for Allison.

Just revisiting some old reports from May last year...

May 10, 2012,
Police believe Allison Baden-Clay's killer may have had an accomplice.

According to the Courier Mail, investigations into a second person's involvement in the murder and cover-up have begun.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/13650017/baden-clay-killer-may-have-had-accomplice/

ETA:...I'm not finding any mention on any of today's reports/videos about the interfering with a body charge being dropped. We'll wait & see if it's mentioned in CM late night report or over the next few days. If we don't hear further we'll presume the charge still stands.

Agreed Marly. In all of the MSM reports I've read today there hasn't been any definite mention of the body interference charge being dropped. It just hasn't been mentioned or included in their report. I'm thinking that the journo's have completely forgotten about that second but oh so important charge of interferring with a corpse.

Hi all - I heard in a radio news report today that the interference with a corpse charge still stood along with the murder charge. Of course I have no link to support this, sorry. It is so hard to know when there is a reporting error or not. Similarly, my understanding is that GBC has already been indicted - this hearing was for Danny Boyle to let the court know the prosecution is set and ready for trial. Again, if this is the case, it hasn't quite been reported correctly. Ali, do correct me if I'm wrong?

I see the BCs got Peter Shields after all. Interesting.

I also noted today that the BC residence at Brookfield appears to be tenanted now and has been painted yellow.

BBM.

I'm pleased that the Interference With A Corpse charge still stands according to the radio news report you heard.

Woot!! :great: 593 Brookfield Road is now painted yellow!! Way to go new owners/tenants! I'm hoping someone will now go and paint skull manor and wherever it is that TM is living in the same lovely shade.

ETA: Snap Possum. LOL. Also, I'm so happy to hear our baby girl is doing well. :hug:

 

[ollijack]

Hi all
lovely to see all your lovely names.
Was at work last night when I heard his name, went running to TV. lol
How has he the gall to plead innocent.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[BreakingNews]

back in the saddle today with our boy Gerard and the cautionary tale of telling too many fibs..... I caught a quick glimpse of his only public performance all over again on Sunrise, or something, here comes Gerard trotting out , his beady eye firmly on the bosom of the nice young woman reporter... I think I heard that he wouldnt be appearing in court, as such, which is a pity, I would like to see how he has weathered this long remand.. .. but not long to go, really. And to see how Toni has travelled the thorny harsh path sans Gorgeous Guy...

regards to all. looking forward to it.

Spoken like a real Trooper

 

[BreakingNews]

Hey Doc, it's all a bit confusing isn't it? The way I understand it is that the committal hearing (in front of a magistrate) was to prove that the prosecution had sufficient evidence against GBC to send him to trial. The indictment is the submission of the case to a higher court, which is heard by a judge. A committal hearing is always heard by a magistrate, while an indictable offence is heard before a Judge. Make sense?

I'm also surprised that the interference charge has not been mentioned in MSM. Could it be that the journo's forgot about this important bit of info or has that charge actually been dropped? I hope not! Even if that charge only carries a two year sentence, I want it tacked on to GBC's murder charge. The threw Allison's body off the bridge. No dignity in death for Allison from the man she married and with whom she created a family.

Unfortunately I think that GBC will receive a sentence of no more than 15 years for unlawful killing, in that GBC did not foresee Allison's death as the outcome of his actions on that Thursday night last year. With time already spent in jail and if he behaves himself, he could well be released in 10 years if he in fact is found guilty.

Gawd I hope I'm wrong.

My gut feeling is also not good. Not enough concrete evidence. I've said before that I think he will plead guilty to manslaughter during the trial if the case hots up too much against him. He might say as argument gone wrong. Murder has to have the intent beforehand. There is some evidence of that in telling TM he would be with her and checking of the insurance policies, but unless someone spills the beans or police arrest an accomplice I am not hopeful of a lengthy murder sentence.

MOO

 

[Thinking]

Yellow!

It is an interesting choice of colour isn't it? It looks really nice. There is still a pretty yellow flower pinned to the front fence also.

 

[nowvoyager]

And I'm still keeping a beady eye on here too. I must admit that my ignorance of things legal has caused some confusion on my part - I thought GBC had already been charged with murder? And indicted? Or am I confusing that with being committed for trial?

Hello folks, my ears pricked up also when the case seemed to suddenly come back into view Friday.

Here's the section from the qld criminal act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 560

560 Presenting indictments
(1) When a person charged with an indictable offence has been committed for trial and it is intended to put the person on trial for the offence, the charge is to be reduced to writing in a document which is called an indictment.

(2) The indictment is to be signed and presented to the court by a Crown Law Officer, a Crown prosecutor or some other person appointed in that behalf by the Governor in Council.

(3) If a person has been committed for trial for an indictable offence that may be tried in the District Court, a Crown Law Officer or a Crown prosecutor may present the indictment to either the Supreme Court or District Court.

(4) In deciding the court to which the indictment is to be presented, the Crown Law Officer or Crown prosecutor must have regard to—

(a) the complexity of the case; and
(b) the seriousness of the alleged offence; and
(c) any particular importance attaching to the case; and
(d) any other relevant consideration.
(5) Also, if an indictment is signed by a person authorised to sign the indictment under this section, a DPP presenter may present the indictment to the court stated in the indictment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, yes, Gerard's already been charged with murder etc and committed to stand trial. Now the prosecution lays out a bit more detail - the allegations of where, when, why and how.... in some limited fashion, and the defence then knows what they are trying to fight.

It's like - if anyone has experience of civil proceedings, you are a plumber and you "sue" someone for "moneys owed for work done" and that starts the proceeding. The next step is to lay out a statement of claim of what you say are the circumstances... who you spoke to, what was the quote, what you did, proofs of costings, etc.. Not quite the same but that's kind of the gist of it.

 

[Makara]

Thank you very much. You explained it perfectly.

Hello folks, my ears pricked up also when the case seemed to suddenly come back into view Friday.

Here's the section from the qld criminal act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 560

560 Presenting indictments
(1) When a person charged with an indictable offence has been committed for trial and it is intended to put the person on trial for the offence, the charge is to be reduced to writing in a document which is called an indictment.

(2) The indictment is to be signed and presented to the court by a Crown Law Officer, a Crown prosecutor or some other person appointed in that behalf by the Governor in Council.

(3) If a person has been committed for trial for an indictable offence that may be tried in the District Court, a Crown Law Officer or a Crown prosecutor may present the indictment to either the Supreme Court or District Court.

(4) In deciding the court to which the indictment is to be presented, the Crown Law Officer or Crown prosecutor must have regard to—

(a) the complexity of the case; and
(b) the seriousness of the alleged offence; and
(c) any particular importance attaching to the case; and
(d) any other relevant consideration.
(5) Also, if an indictment is signed by a person authorised to sign the indictment under this section, a DPP presenter may present the indictment to the court stated in the indictment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, yes, Gerard's already been charged with murder etc and committed to stand trial. Now the prosecution lays out a bit more detail - the allegations of where, when, why and how.... in some limited fashion, and the defence then knows what they are trying to fight.

It's like - if anyone has experience of civil proceedings, you are a plumber and you "sue" someone for "moneys owed for work done" and that starts the proceeding. The next step is to lay out a statement of claim of what you say are the circumstances... who you spoke to, what was the quote, what you did, proofs of costings, etc.. Not quite the same but that's kind of the gist of it.

 

[kiwijayne]

It is an interesting choice of colour isn't it? It looks really nice. There is still a pretty yellow flower pinned to the front fence also.

Will have to look when I drive past Monday

 

[alioop]

Woooo. Have been very busy the last couple of days and have just read yesterday's paper seeing the news about GBC's indictment. It's good that the case is progressing.

I don't believe the interference with a corpse charge could be dropped as it is part of the prosecutions allegations that GBC killed Allison at home and drove her body in the captiva to the bridge and dumped her there. If they dropped the charge that is inconsistent with their allegations. So the charge has to remain. I don't believe they have sufficient evidence to charge anyone else with moving the body alone.

It will be clarified soon no doubt.

Thanks now voyager for explaining the indictment process.

The pre trial hearing to hear if the counsellor from Relationships Australia and her file is admissible will be interesting. The reference to the "Family court matter" intrigues me. This implies that there was something formal happening, like a divorce, custody, or property settlement or all or any of those things. As far as we have been aware, there was nothing formal, just some marriage counselling to save their marriage following his affair with TM. Nothing in Allison's diary suggests any court process. I think it could just be that technically the counselling was with a qualified counsellor who is approved under the Family Law Act. The legislation's intention of the inadmissibility of counselling sessions is so that parties can't use anything that happens in a later family court proceeding,though from memory the legislation says "any court". The question for the judge will be does the words " any court" exclude the Supreme Court of Qld in a murder trial where the husband is accused of murdering his wife, those being the parties involved in the counselling?

Marly, could you kindly find and repost the info I researched on admissibility of the counselling sessions and the relevant legislation. It was ages ago. I remember posting the sections of the Family law act 10D and 10E. I can comment on that once I have re read it.

 

[alioop]

My gut feeling is also not good. Not enough concrete evidence. I've said before that I think he will plead guilty to manslaughter during the trial if the case hots up too much against him. He might say as argument gone wrong. Murder has to have the intent beforehand. There is some evidence of that in telling TM he would be with her and checking of the insurance policies, but unless someone spills the beans or police arrest an accomplice I am not hopeful of a lengthy murder sentence.

MOO

I want to clarify that murder does not have to have an intention before the act of unlawful killing. As long as intent can be proven, it can be at the time of the killing such as on the spur of the moment. For example, in Jill Meahers case. Her killer did not apparantly have any intent to kill her when he grabbed her or when he raped her, he formed the intent to kill her at some time during his attack on her.

However in GBC's case, the prosecution will try to prove that he did have a prior intent in the circumstances of the extreme financial difficulties and his promise to TM to deal with his marriage etc. They need to do this as they can't prove exactly how she died as the autopsy was inconclusive. His injuries will help them prove there was an altercation between them that night but those injuries without the other stuff may not be enough to prove intent. But taken all together it is a strong circumstantial case of an intent to kill her.

 

[marlywings]

Marly, could you kindly find and repost the info I researched on admissibility of the counselling sessions and the relevant legislation. It was ages ago. I remember posting the sections of the Family law act 10D and 10E. I can comment on that once I have re read it.

Would this be it??...

I think I have found the reason for the issue with the admissibility of the Relationships Australia info.

Section 10E(1) and (2) of the Family Law Act states that there is an absolute prohibition, in all courts, on the admissibility of evidence of anything said, or any admission made, by or in the company of, a family counsellor conducting family counselling. There is only 1 exception and that is in relation to admissions of child abuse.

We will have to see how the magistrate deals with this issue.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s10e.html

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9020802&postcount=771"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - ***Day 1-Committal Hearing*** 11th,12,13th March 2013[/ame]

 

[Nads]

Yellow!

Just realised that we painted our rental house yellow last month too!

 

[Liadan]

Would this be it??...



Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - ***Day 1-Committal Hearing*** 11th,12,13th March 2013

hmm but was it family counseling or 'marriage' counseling?

 

[BreakingNews]

I want to clarify that murder does not have to have an intention before the act of unlawful killing. As long as intent can be proven, it can be at the time of the killing such as on the spur of the moment. For example, in Jill Meahers case. Her killer did not apparantly have any intent to kill her when he grabbed her or when he raped her, he formed the intent to kill her at some time during his attack on her.

However in GBC's case, the prosecution will try to prove that he did have a prior intent in the circumstances of the extreme financial difficulties and his promise to TM to deal with his marriage etc. They need to do this as they can't prove exactly how she died as the autopsy was inconclusive. His injuries will help them prove there was an altercation between them that night but those injuries without the other stuff may not be enough to prove intent. But taken all together it is a strong circumstantial case of an intent to kill her.

Thanks Alioop for the clarification. I was going on what the judge told us (jury) in a murder trial a few years back. However in that case murderer had intent and well thought out plan.

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-if-witness-can-be-called-20130826-2skwm.html
Gerard Baden-Clay Case: No Decision on If Witness Can Be Called
August 26, 2013 - 11:19AM

Justice Glenn Martin is considering whether a family counsellor can testify during Baden-Clay's month-long murder trial, which is expected to start next year.On Monday, Justice Martin told the court the counsellor's evidence could be considered inadmissible and trigger a retrial if Mr Baden-Clay was found guilty.He also is considering whether there are grounds for a constitutional appeal based on whether a state subpoena can override federal confidentiality laws.
He adjourned the review and will hear the matter again next Monday. Interested to see the outcome of this aspect.

 

[Makara]

Relationships Australia counsellor Carmel Ritchie claims privilege in bid to avoid testifying at Gerard Baden-Clay murder trial

by: Tony Keim •From: The Courier-Mail •August 26, 2013 12:24PM

Mr Boyle at the time revealed the Crown would seek to have Ms Ritchie testify about the details of a counselling session.

The court was not told who was present during the counselling session with Ms Ritchie

BBM.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lay-murder-trial/story-fnihsrf2-1226704151567

The Crown are seeking the details of a counselling session. Just one particular session is how I read it. Why is Danny Boyle so adamant about this counselling session? Could the details of this session assist in convicting GBC of Allison's murder? Did Allison reveal that GBC had threatened her life. Did GBC reveal that his affair with TM was ongoing, hence the need for him to be rid of Allison?

According to GBC, he and Allison last saw the counsellor on the Monday before Allison was murdered. That's just three days before Allison's murder! No wonder Danny Boyle is so interested in the counsellor and what she may reveal.

In GBC's record of interview on 20 April 2012 before Sergeant Jackson and Snr. Sergeant Curtis he states in part:

GBC: "Um and in fact we went and saw a counsellor on Monday. (INDISTINCT)"

GBC: "Her name was Carmel (INDISTINCT). I can't remember her surname. My, my wife--organised it."

SSGT Curtis: "Was there anything that came out of that session that would upset your wife?"

GBC: No, overall it was a pretty positive thing, I think. She has seen her previously, um in Spring Hill."

GBC: "We, Allison was comfortable with this woman, was keen for me to meet her. So I spent, ah I think about an hour with her--Oh alone and then together."

GBC: "We spent a bit of extra time. And I thought overall it was a pretty positive thing. There were some strategies and (INDISTINCT). It's about rebuilding the trust and everything."

The full record of GBC's interview can be found here.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9048085&postcount=8"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Bail Hearing Documents *No Discussion*[/ame]

 

[Liadan]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-if-witness-can-be-called-20130826-2skwm.html
Gerard Baden-Clay Case: No Decision on If Witness Can Be Called
August 26, 2013 - 11:19AM

Justice Glenn Martin is considering whether a family counsellor can testify during Baden-Clay's month-long murder trial, which is expected to start next year.On Monday, Justice Martin told the court the counsellor's evidence could be considered inadmissible and trigger a retrial if Mr Baden-Clay was found guilty.He also is considering whether there are grounds for a constitutional appeal based on whether a state subpoena can override federal confidentiality laws.
He adjourned the review and will hear the matter again next Monday. Interested to see the outcome of this aspect.

A CM link fyi
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lay-murder-trial/story-fnihsrf2-1226704151567