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

[plentyofnous]

IMO

Lets have some discussion

If he was on trial on what we know and even what has been alluded to, would any of us be able to convict him and imprison him for 25 years without his children having a dad

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Would we, if it was up to us, give him bail to return home on what we know and even what has been alluded to here


There must be so much more to come we couldn t even imagine, surely, because I m afraid at the moment my answer is No and Yes

 

[KG1]

We can argue til we are blue in the face, but I am telling you GRANDPARENTS or PARENTS do NOT have rights in the Family Law Act, they are simply acknowledged

It is the children and ONLY the children who have RIGHTS

And further, by the time the Grandparents , any Grandparents got around to spending the dough and waiting 2 years to have their Application heard, he would be long gone, I think you will find when one parent doesn t want the other to have any contact or input and that parent has custody ( care and control and residency to be factual ) it can be ridiculously hard to gain any contact at all for many years

If what you are stating is what you believe, think about all the maternal parents ie fathers and mothers who can t even see their children at all because of the other party, let alone grandparents. IMO it would be delusional to think it is a walk in the park for grandparents to access their grandkids, and even more so if they think they have some sort of RIGHTS in LAW to do so

I have no intention of continuing to debate with you. Perhaps you should read the Family Law Act yourself. Grandparents do have rights - rights to apply for access to their grandchildren. The amendment which specifically mentions 'grandparent' would not be there, unless to give standing to a grandparent as a right to apply to the Court. This is the current law.

I appreciate that where there is conflict between parents, or where one parent is determined to 'punish' the other parent, a good parent can be kept from child/children for years and this is very wrong. I know of a case where a very decent father is totally broken as he is unable to see his little son as the mother keeps moving and ignoring access court orders. The one really suffering of course is the child, but some selfish parents are so hell bent on 'winning' that the child/children end up becoming incidential to the whole matter. These are children who are sadly deprived of a good loving parent, and the Court seems unable to enforce many of its orders.

 

[CaseClosed]

Of course it is, I am in that situation myself, however I am civil towards him because I love my daughter. If it weren't for her I wouldn't give him the time of day.

I am the same with my ex-husband. If it wasn't because I want my daughter to be happy and have a decent relationship with him, I would have no contact with him (who caused me great pain when we were married).

 

[Lurker on Websleuths]

I still think it is very strange the BC seniors did not attend court. If I was the mother, I would have been there no matter what. IMO they are hiding something!

Yeah I was wondering this myself, for a tight knit family like they WERE, it is very telling for them not to be there in court. Maybe they just wanted to avoid the media, as there is no pictures of the accused allowed in the media now , there would have been plenty of space to put new pictures of them in the Courier Mail.

 

[plentyofnous]

I have no intention of continuing to debate with you. Perhaps you should read the Family Law Act yourself. Grandparents do have rights - rights to apply for access to their grandchildren. The amendment which specifically mentions 'grandparent' would not be there, unless to give standing to a grandparent as a right to apply to the Court. This is the current law.

I appreciate that where there is conflict between parents, or where one parent is determined to 'punish' the other parent, a good parent can be kept from child/children for years and this is very wrong. I know of a case where a very decent father is totally broken as he is unable to see his little son as the mother keeps moving and ignoring access court orders. The one really suffering of course is the child, but some selfish parents are so hell bent on 'winning' that the child/children end up becoming incidential to the whole matter. These are children who are sadly deprived of a good loving parent, and the Court seems unable to enforce many of its orders.

I am not passing any moral judgement on the Law, just telling you how it is, in reality the house cleaner could apply in the same way if he/she saw that they were important in the child's life

The acknowledgment is simply that , an acknowledgement, NOT A RIGHT per se

I have read the Family Law Act very carefully many times and its difficult to get people to comprehend that THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS just a chance to APPLY for orders

 

[heloise]

Well said! I was married to a narcissist for a long time:woohoo:.

Hi everyone...my first post but have been following this case (and forum) since the beginning. Another one here who has had dealings with a narcissist, unfortunately and I can relate to so many people who have seen their lack of emotional responsiveness and empathy, first hand.

Hi Thinking (re: your quote above) - yes, a normal, innocent person would face the court, indignant that he/she was being charged falsely...but, if Gerard, is a narcissist/sociopath (as many of us suspect), he thinks of himself as a King and the rest of us as 'subjects/slaves' only here to pander to him.

We, the 'servants/underlings/peasants' have effectively engaged in revolt against 'The King', accusing him of being a murderer...Therefore, in his mind, we are not worthy of even seeing his face.

Hence the turned back in the courtroom. I don't think it's shame he feels but intense anger at, what in his eyes, is the total injustice of the situation.

MY OPINION ONLY

 

[Mothergoose]

not trying to be pedantic or anything, but this thread on the websleuths forum is about Allisons Murder- not actually about GBC. just so happens now that he has been arrested for Allisons murder.

You could have fooled me (said totally tongue in cheek) ,,,,:moo:read all the posts? IMO

(couldn't find a icon for tongue in cheek)

 

[plentyofnous]

I have no intention of continuing to debate with you. Perhaps you should read the Family Law Act yourself. Grandparents do have rights - rights to apply for access to their grandchildren. The amendment which specifically mentions 'grandparent' would not be there, unless to give standing to a grandparent as a right to apply to the Court. This is the current law.

I appreciate that where there is conflict between parents, or where one parent is determined to 'punish' the other parent, a good parent can be kept from child/children for years and this is very wrong. I know of a case where a very decent father is totally broken as he is unable to see his little son as the mother keeps moving and ignoring access court orders. The one really suffering of course is the child, but some selfish parents are so hell bent on 'winning' that the child/children end up becoming incidential to the whole matter. These are children who are sadly deprived of a good loving parent, and the Court seems unable to enforce many of its orders.

In Australian family law Grandparents do not have an automatic right to spend time with their Grandchildren. This situation can arise due to divorce or separation of their own children. However, Grandparents may bring an application before the Court by reason of being a person concerned with the care, welfare or develop of the child.

 

[CaseClosed]

We can argue til we are blue in the face, but I am telling you GRANDPARENTS or PARENTS do NOT have rights in the Family Law Act, they are simply acknowledged

It is the children and ONLY the children who have RIGHTS

And further, by the time the Grandparents , any Grandparents got around to spending the dough and waiting 2 years to have their Application heard, he would be long gone, I think you will find when one parent doesn t want the other to have any contact or input and that parent has custody ( care and control and residency to be factual ) it can be ridiculously hard to gain any contact at all for many years

If what you are stating is what you believe, think about all the maternal parents ie fathers and mothers who can t even see their children at all because of the other party, let alone grandparents. IMO it would be delusional to think it is a walk in the park for grandparents to access their grandkids, and even more so if they think they have some sort of RIGHTS in LAW to do so

Australian Family Law should then be amended, as it seems to be behind the times. In other countries, grandparents have rights (I think incl. the US). In many instances, grandparents are daily babysitters/carers for their grandchildren, because both parents need to work. It is totally unfair to suddenly be faced with a situation where they would be cut off from those children. IMO.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

IMO

Lets have some discussion

If he was on trial on what we know and even what has been alluded to, would any of us be able to convict him and imprison him for 25 years without his children having a dad

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Would we, if it was up to us, give him bail to return home on what we know and even what has been alluded to here


There must be so much more to come we couldn t even imagine, surely, because I m afraid at the moment my answer is No and Yes

SImply because what we know has not even touched the surface I am sure, of what police know or what has gone on, I don't think any of us could beyond reasonable doubt in what the courts require, convict. BUt a jury will not have to convict simply on what we know. They are the ones that will be presented with all the evidence and then it may be clear cut(maybe it still won't be)

Given That I believe if the police have arrested him they have very good suspicion and belief(and evidence) that he is guilty. On the basis of that fact, no I do not think I would take the risk to allow bail at this stage.

MOO

 

[Thinking]

The Family Law Act (as amended) specifically uses the word 'grandparent' in Section 60CC (3)(b)(ii) and this is the avenue which a grandparent would use in any application to the Family Law Court for access or contact with a grandchild. The court would ensure that the applicant was a 'significant' person in the child's life and that it would be in the 'best interest' of the child for him or her to have access/contact with the grandparent. Of paramount importance is 'the best interest of the child' when the court makes any decision. See link below.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s60cc.html

My guess is that you know your stuff in this particular area

 

[kiwi50]

I believe from my personal experience of him nearly 3 decades ago that it is likely he is devoid of feeling because he sure presented that way not only devoid of feelings ( except for self intitlement) but oblivious to others feelings.

Interesting post, would love to hear more.

 

[ollijack]

IMO

Lets have some discussion

If he was on trial on what we know and even what has been alluded to, would any of us be able to convict him and imprison him for 25 years without his children having a dad

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Would we, if it was up to us, give him bail to return home on what we know and even what has been alluded to here


There must be so much more to come we couldn t even imagine, surely, because I m afraid at the moment my answer is No and Yes

Old Aussie saying. Well, I'll be buggered.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

You could have fooled me (said totally tongue in cheek) ,,,,:moo:read all the posts? IMO

(couldn't find a icon for tongue in cheek)

?? sorry.. I was not trying to be rude. And I have read all the posts. I felt a need to comment that this is not a forum about GBC, but about Allisons murder.
(of course as he is now arrested for allegedly committing her murder,and previously as he was for webslueth purpose POI, then he is being discussed- if it were someone else, then it would be them being discussed). I am sorry if you found my post offensive. I simply wanted to point out that fact and yes I said not trying to be pedantic, as I was not and I worried it may come across that way.

 

[CaseClosed]

IMO

Lets have some discussion

If he was on trial on what we know and even what has been alluded to, would any of us be able to convict him and imprison him for 25 years without his children having a dad

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Would we, if it was up to us, give him bail to return home on what we know and even what has been alluded to here


There must be so much more to come we couldn t even imagine, surely, because I m afraid at the moment my answer is No and Yes

My answers would be "yes" and "no". This is also considering that I don't see any other person having had the opportunity and motive to kill her

 

[plentyofnous]

Australian Family Law should then be amended, as it seems to be behind the times. In other countries, grandparents have rights (I think incl. the US). In many instances, grandparents are daily babysitters/carers for their grandchildren, because both parents need to work. It is totally unfair to suddenly be faced with a situation where they would be cut off from those children. IMO.

Once again caseclosed the voice of reason and morality, I am simply just stating how it is, not how it should be, but I think most parents in Australia would disagree with allowing in laws rights over their kids, for petes sake the majority won t even acknowledge gay marriages, not that i have an opinion , just stating how it is

 

[Thinking]

I am not passing any moral judgement on the Law, just telling you how it is, in reality the house cleaner could apply in the same way if he/she saw that they were important in the child's life

The acknowledgment is simply that , an acknowledgement, NOT A RIGHT per se

I have read the Family Law Act very carefully many times and its difficult to get people to comprehend that THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS just a chance to APPLY for orders

Oh stop it - you are both essentially saying the same thing and we all understand your point - move on!

 

[CaseClosed]

I see both sides in this. Yes how can you do this (allegedly) to your childrens mother if you at all love them. However people that are capable of committing murder generally do not have the same mind set as you and I. And in his mind as much as he is able he may indeed love his children. Perhaps it was delusion or denial that would allow him to comfort his children after killing their mother.. But I do not have the ability to see his thoughts and regardless of him being arrested for this crime, we need to bear in mind that at this stage it is alleged. MOO

I believe RAGE played a part. If he indeed is guilty, I could easily see it as him having lost control totally. Although he may love his children, rage took over, and once that happens, people do not think about what they are doing, they just do it!

 

[Lurker on Websleuths]

IMO

Lets have some discussion

If he was on trial on what we know and even what has been alluded to, would any of us be able to convict him and imprison him for 25 years without his children having a dad

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Would we, if it was up to us, give him bail to return home on what we know and even what has been alluded to here


There must be so much more to come we couldn t even imagine, surely, because I m afraid at the moment my answer is No and Yes

Plenty if your point is that what we know is at this stage very little, I would give you that, but if Centrebet were to run a book on whether he made supreme court bail or not , what price would you think they would offer for him to remain in custody whilst on remand ?

 

[Mothergoose]

?? sorry.. I was not trying to be rude. And I have read all the posts. I felt a need to comment that this is not a forum about GBC, but about Allisons murder.
(of course as he is now arrested for allegedly committing her murder then he is being discussed- if it were someone else, then it would be them being discussed). I am sorry if you found my post offensive. I simply wanted to point out that fact and yes I said not trying to be pedantic, as I was not and I worried it may come across that way.

Again you have taken me the wrong way. I found it funny that you said this forum was about Allison's death and not GBC. If you have read all posts this forum completely what % of posts have discussed GBC ? Please don't think I get offended or wish to offend.....I'm the most easy going person you will ever meet. Cheers