ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#23

[UnfoldingTruth]

I find this case so tragic and almost completely beyond my comprehension that something like this could occur in what appeared to be an ordinary family to others.

Can someone please tell me why GBC would still be proclaiming his innocence when the police have obvious proof of his guilt.

Also why his legal team are going for a bail application if the police have proof he has committed this terrible murder. How could he get bail under these circumstances?

I simply cannot get my head around how someone could murder the Mother of their 3 little girls and then callously premeditately dump her body in the bush. Absolutely beyond shocking!!

As I am just catching up, this has probably been answered already, so appologies if so.

Many Guilty people continue to proclain their innocence for the rest of their lives. It does not mean they are.(and I am not saying in this instance the accused is or isn't innocent) But it isw quite a common occurance. Why? I don't know there are a myriad of reasons..delusion, Hoping they will get away with something and many other reasons.

His legal team will apply for bail regardless of what the police have on him, because they are representing him. it is their job to represent him regardless.

And your last paragraph, I feel many of us feel the same way. It is hard to comprehend how this could happen. And someone who could be your neighbour or local real estate agent or other.. Its so hard to comprehend.

 

[BreakingNews]

If he is convicted of murder, won't his crime carry a life sentence? If so, why rehabilitate him? He'll never be out again.

Life in Australia is not actually life - 12 years or something like that. It makes me so mad that some prisoners are supposedly rehabilitated. I even know of a convicted murderer getting a psychology degree while in prison. Now he's out with a new name and degree!!!

 

[Mothergoose]

With all due respect, i stand by my comment

Without seeming like I don't disagree totally could you explain the comment? Do you think I have reasonable doubt because I haven't agreed that he is all the things he is said to be. LOL I'm an old lady I've almost forgotten what I said :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ollijack]

So true , I agree and good advice. But I don't know him and I haven't any evidence, that he is any of these pretty serious character traits ,that have been attached to him without basis. Is it because people want him to be what they say? Some of the things I've read about the BC's and OW have absolutely no foundation. I guess that is where I'm coming from.I hope I'm explaining myself O.K. IMO

You would agree I hope that he is a cold blooded murderer

 

[plentyofnous]

Sorry to disagree with you, but the below link will clarify the rights of grandparents, especially where they are defined as a 'significant person' in the child's life.

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/flra/pg/gflif

It is fact in the Family Law of Australia that there are no "rights" per se for Grandparents , or Parents for that matter

The rights belong to the children, , if you like i will find the legislation in the Family Law Act

The article if you read it sets out that the family Court ACKNOWLEDGES the role, but doesn t state that they have rights. PARENTS do not have rights as parents, the CHILDREN have rights to have a parent

 

[Spotted Reptile]

So true , I agree and good advice. But I don't know him and I haven't any evidence, that he is any of these pretty serious character traits ,that have been attached to him without basis. Is it because people want him to be what they say? Some of the things I've read about the BC's and OW have absolutely no foundation. I guess that is where I'm coming from.I hope I'm explaining myself O.K. IMO

Well, I guess I'm guilty of that - I have a picture of GBC in my mind that has been built up over the past few weeks, have no idea whether it's accurate or not. But we all make character judgments drawing from our own life experiences, no? Only time will tell if we are right. Guess that is why this forum is so popular, we are all sleuths in our own minds. As long as we can admit that we are wrong from time to time :websleuther:

 

[linette]

It is fact in the Family Law of Australia that there are no "rights" per se for Grandparents , or Parents for that matter

The rights belong to the children, , if you like i will find the legislation in the Family Law Act

From my experience, it all boils down to the rights of the child... therefore if it is in the best interests for a child to have an ongiong relationship with their grandparents, then it can be granted. I guess this also increases the chances of the grandparent being able to see the child. When the change was made it was put across as grandparents have more rights, so I can see where the confusion comes from. But in my eyes, it is still an increased chance for grandparents. IMO.

There are still way too many kids being made to see a parent when it clearly isn't in their {the child} best interests, so really some things don't change. The part where it says every child has a right to have a relationship with BOTH parents is misused. They forget that not every parent deserves to have one with their child though. Sorry, a bit personal for me, but still very true.

 

[plentyofnous]

Without seeming like I don't disagree totally could you explain the comment? Do you think I have reasonable doubt because I haven't agreed that he is all the things he is said to be. LOL I'm an old lady I've almost forgotten what I said :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Its just what you stated is what the defence will be trying to instill in any jury member, if it can be achieved in court, he will walk

 

[Mothergoose]

You would agree I hope that he is a cold blooded murderer

Define cold blooded. If you mean it was premeditated I'm not there..........yet.
Still think extreme DV followed by manic panic followed by coverup or loose everything. IMO

 

[Zorro]

This news article says "It's understood there won't be any further arrests."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/par...st/story-e6frfkvr-1226397286105#ixzz1xx7I55Z0

I think that is significant and has caused me to think and change my view slightly.

I think police now believe that GBC caused the death of Alison and acted alone. Anyone can fill in the blanks of method motive and opportunity but we have few facts.

I think someone assisted in "interfering with a corpse" by taking it to the Kholo Creek area. Anyone can fill inthe blanks about how and where but we have few facts. I think the penalty for doing that is up to two years jail.

I did think that NBC might have been the assistant but that is not consistent with his surprise/anger at the arrest of GBC.

Police moved very quickly after Tully suggested someone may be seeking immunity. Because GBC was reacting highly emotionally in the days prior to arrest inferring that the arrest may have been to avoid GBC self harming or doing something else irrational.

I think that after ABC died that GBC called TM, the only other character we know heavily interviewed and 'lawyered up'.

I think that TM has become a key witness and once GBC became aware of that in the past week he started emotionally floundering and police had to arrest.

I think TM will be charged at some time in the future, perhaps after the trial and her 'co-operation' could result in a suspended sentence for "interfering with a corpse".

I now think that perhaps GBC pulled the wool over NBC, EBC and OW's eyes who didn't or didn't want to believe that GBC would cause the death of the mother of their grandchildren.

IMO etc.

 

[Mothergoose]

Its just what you stated is what the defence will be trying to instill in any jury member, if it can be achieved in court, he will walk

I promise I will get out of JD at all costs. (my geese need me or something):giggle:

 

[linette]

It is fact in the Family Law of Australia that there are no "rights" per se for Grandparents , or Parents for that matter

The rights belong to the children, , if you like i will find the legislation in the Family Law Act

The article if you read it sets out that the family Court ACKNOWLEDGES the role, but doesn t state that they have rights. PARENTS do not have rights as parents, the CHILDREN have rights to have a parent

That's right... children have the right to have a parent. It should be changed to 'every child has a right to have a DECENT parent'. This is what gets misused. Even a down right rotten parent still gets to see the kids because the kid has a right?? If a parent can't do the right thing by their child, then they need to have a good hard look at themselves before even thinking about being in the child's life.

 

[37inarow]

With all due respect, their punishment is their incarceration and liberty taken, not what happens to them while they are incarcerated

Agreed - in our civilised society people are imprisoned AS punishment, rather than FOR punishment.

 

[Nads]

I think the girls will need to talk to someone with experience and compassion with understanding their unique needs.

I don't necessarily think it should be an "interview" situation, but certainly anything of interest should be bought to the attention of the police.

If and when this case gets to court, the girls will be significantly older, 13 and 11 th two older girls, and hopefully will be in a position to be able to gain some acceptance from the evidence. I could imagine, a teenager of 13 getting very upset if something was mentioned in court that was not correct and that the 13 year old was able to clarify, and also getting very angry when they where talking about "her" parents and not giving her some input.

I am not trained in this, but I would imagine the sensible way to do it, would be to talk to them together now to establish anything that they remember and then to talk to them individually in the months ahead.

The age of the elder girl is so critical, she is at such a vunerable time in her life and forming so many self perceptions, she needs very careful and gentle help. IMO

I couldn't imagine the children would be at the court case.

 

[plentyofnous]

From my experience, it all boils down to the rights of the child... therefore if it is in the best interests for a child to have an ongiong relationship with their grandparents, then it can be granted. I guess this also increases the chances of the grandparent being able to see the child. When the change was made it was put across as grandparents have more rights, so I can see where the confusion comes from. But in my eyes, it is still an increased chance for grandparents. IMO.

There are still way too many kids being made to see a parent when it clearly isn't in their {the child} best interests, so really some things don't change. The part where it says every child has a right to have a relationship with BOTH parents is misused. They forget that not every parent deserves to have one with their child though. Sorry, a bit personal for me, but still very true.

Thank you for your post and I am sorry it is so personal. You would know there is no winners and no losers in this system but there is no other

You would be aware that PARENTS and Grandparents have no rights in Australia, the Court only address the rights of the child

I sincerely hope your own situation is now calm and working well for you and your children

 

[angel1]

OMG!!! i feel so sad about this case tonight

 

[Zorro]

I've seen in cases on TV where a judge only interviews children. Is that possible here in Aus?

I did Jury Service where a minor was a witness for unsavoury reasons. The evidence was presented by pre-recorded video and the minor was interviewed in a pleasant child friendly room without any pressures by someone obviously expert in talking to minors.

The judge gave us guidance on the value of the evidence in that form.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I'm so sorry! - By charging him with "murder", police does not believe it was accidental. There is some premeditation element in it (I'm not saying "pre-planned" necessarily). Otherwise they would have charged him with manslaughter. IMO.

Murder shows and intent to kill or to cause grevious bodily harm or that the accused could forsee the probability that their actions or lack of action(depending on the situation) would result in the victims death.

Manslaughter comes under the voluntary or involuntary category. Voluntary shows the same intention to kill or harm, but that the mental capacity of the accused was somehow affected in a way to reduce culpability for killing.
Involuntary manslaughter is a killing by a person who can not be proven to have the guilty mind for murder, but whos action is not that of which would be a reasonable person under the circumstances.

 

[grannie]

However, when the community puts a focus on rehabilitation and education of offenders, they are potentially helping someone else's family member avoid becoming another victim of a violent act. Helping stem violence through something like education has a potentially greater flow-on effect which the community benefits from, rather than just focusing on the deprivations meted out to an individual.

Of course, I am not so naive to think this solution is a magic wand, either, but it appears to be the best option the community has. The gold star would be that a community has no offenders, but that will happen only when there are no people - humans being what they are.

BBM.

I wonder if this solution was ever compared with other models. If yes, what models.

Numerous research studies indicate an association between aggressive behaviour and personality disorders (mental illness), in most inmates (>75%). I can provide heaps of references on this topic - mostly US based research studies. But just for example, one of the recent - the association between antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and aggression stems from biological factors, such as ASPD-related impairments of amygdala, which affect the activities of higher reasoning, or so called executive brain. In this light, I do not see how education or rehabilitation programmes can help others to avoid offense. I see it as a complete waste of taxpayers money. IMO.

 

[BreakingNews]

Believe me, convicting someone of a crime as a juror has little to do with guilt or innocence. It have everything to do with the law. Judges always advise a jury panel what they need to consider.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt