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

[Bobbie Elliott]

When I am speaking to people who have not met my husband I always refer to him as my hubby. If I know the person I am talking to I use his name.

Everyone who watches this interview whill know who "Allison" is. She doesn't need to be introduced - "My wife Allison ..... "

Maybe he couldn't remember her name.

 

[Flinders]

I didn't know Century 21 had profit sharing. http://connect.rpdata.com/379

Consequently he introduced to Century 21 Westside a profit-sharing arrangement that continues to produce record-breaking results for buyers, sellers and for his team – effectively a “win-win-win” result. “It’s a long way from the traditional real estate model that saw agents working against each other, often to the detriment of their clients,” he says.

 

[Hawkins]

Sitting in my local coffee shop I am perusing the Courier Mail. I rarely read it these days but I think they've generally done a good job in coverage with this case and in trying to reconcile all sorts of conflciting pressures. The underlying subtext has been a little too strong in terms of the behaviour of Mr Baden Clay being an indicator of a consciousness of guilt, but apart from that a good job.

Sometimes the press beat up a story to varying degrees for their own purposes. One annoying habit of this particular paper is to exaggerate the rank or status of police officers involved in alleged offences. For example, they will regularly headline a story with something like 'Senior police officer charged with X". Then when you read the story the person referred to is just a senior constable, which is actually the second lowest rank in the QPS and anything but a senior police officer. Crime reporters and editors would be fully aware of this, yet they run the description anyway. Might grab the attention of a few more readers but detracts from the credibility of the paper and staff a little.

I've read a few posts here though that suggest that the press are complicit with the police in managing the release of information to try and encourage people to implicate themselves in the relevant offences. I would hope that's untrue. In my view it's OK for police to withold certain details so that they can filter reports and claims from witnesses etc, but to use the press as an investigative tool to 'fool' potential ligitants would be a serious matter. We need, and largely have I think, a free, independent and objective press.

I do think that the standard of crime reporting in general has dropped, but I suspect this is due to management and marketing cultures rather than the abilities or ethics of individual journalists. I am hoping that the News of the World demise will cause some media owners and journalist bodies to have pause for thought. I have been interviewed by some very junior journalists in Brisbane who came up with very accurate, objective and intelligent work. I have to give a plug to the Brisbane Times in that regard.

I saw that Alan Saunders died last week which is a real blow. I did a lengthy interview with him a couple of years ago which was a real joy on Radio National. Not a journalist but a true intellect and gentleman. RIP Alan.

 

[CIB]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...wing-as-bail-appeal-nears-20120616-20he5.html

ARTICLE

 

[Woombite]

If GBC is examined and assessed as being "suicidal" he would have to be admitted to a mental health facility. There would be a duty of care involved I would think.They could't just release him without treatment and follow up and/or supervision if this was the case. MOO

Still catching up on this thread so apologise if this has already been cleared up. There is a Prison Mental Health Service as well as a Community Forensic outreach Service. PMHS would assess and if there are signs of a person being at risk to themselves or others significant enough to warrant further assessment and treatment unavailable in the Med unit, a possible transfer to a mh facility under specific provisions in the Mental Health Act for that to occur.

Let me just say this, regardless of our belief that someone is guilty, while on remand, they are technically innocent people until proven guilty. If you or any one of your family were there, you would be emtitled to the same level of care (medically speaking) that you would be entitled to in the community.

The Forensic Provisions of the MH Act are no 'soft option'. While a person may receive a definate head sentence in the Supreme Court, forensic orders often end up being for a lot longer period of time with intensive supervision and followup by highly trained forensic trained staff both in a facility and down the track on return to community with ongoing conditions they have to abide by or risk return to a secure facility.

While my personal view is that it appears to me on the basis of details provided in the MSM and QPS that GBC is most likely guilty, i expect that natural justice prevails and he receives a fair trial as any one of us expects.

I might add that a lot of people in prison often mask symptoms of mental illness to a degree because they know if they go down the forensic path, they could be followed up for life rather than 14 years.

 

[Watsonian Institute]

I saw that Alan Saunders died last week which is a real blow. I did a lengthy interview with him a couple of years ago which was a real joy on Radio National. Not a journalist but a true intellect and gentleman. RIP Alan.

Saunders was terrific and renowned for his programs which respectively focused on food, architecture and design, film and television, and philosophy. I always enjoyed his expertise.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-15/abc-radio-philosopher-alan-saunders-dies/4073618

 

[whitechapel]

IMO - Probably not.
My comment on WW post BBM below;

According to section 16 of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) and IMO, the Court can refuse to grant bail to GBC if the Court is satisfied that GBC should remain in custody for his own protection or that there is an unacceptable risk that if GBC is released on bail he would either:

(A) fail to appear at the trial;
Alleged concern over his mental state may be considered enough of a reason to deny bail or

(B) while released on bail:

• commits an offence; or
• endangers the safety or welfare of a person;
Alleged concern over his mental state may be considered enough of a reason to deny bail. or
• interferes with witnesses or otherwise obstructs the course of justice.
It has been reported (and rumoured) that there are allegedly other others involved (two cars, PT blog, witnesses about possible family member at the bus stop, maybe the children are witnesses before or after the fact). These may be considered enough reasons to also deny bail. or
​

The factors taken into consideration in assessing whether GBC poses an unacceptable risk if granted bail, include:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
Alleged murder by accused is about as serious as it gets. and

(b) the character, antecedents, associations, home environment, employment and background of the defendant.
Employment maybe non-existent if MSM reports are true (business being refused C21 transfer or being stripped of franchise).
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gerard-baden-clays-real-estate-franchise-may-lose-century-21-branding-amid-murder-charges/story-e6freoof-1226397633460
​

All MOO

 

[knowledgethirsty]

long time lurker, occasional thanker, first time poster.


IMO GBC phoned his parents that night and asked them to come over because ABC hadn't returned from her "walk" and he wanted to go and look for her. EBC came to house in case kids roused, NBC dropped at bus stop in case she came that way. GBC went for a drive picked up NBC and went home.

Parents are none the wiser, comfort son tell him to ring police if she isn't home in the morning.

As for tv programming, maybe GBC said he was watching something pre recorded from the night before.

Something i don't understand, GBC saw ABC watch tv then he went to bed, how did he know she went for a walk?

 

[Rational]

Sitting in my local coffee shop I am perusing the Courier Mail. I rarely read it these days but I think they've generally done a good job in coverage with this case and in trying to reconcile all sorts of conflciting pressures. The underlying subtext has been a little too strong in terms of the behaviour of Mr Baden Clay being an indicator of a consciousness of guilt, but apart from that a good job.

Sometimes the press beat up a story to varying degrees for their own purposes. One annoying habit of this particular paper is to exaggerate the rank or status of police officers involved in alleged offences. For example, they will regularly headline a story with something like 'Senior police officer charged with X". Then when you read the story the person referred to is just a senior constable, which is actually the second lowest rank in the QPS and anything but a senior police officer. Crime reporters and editors would be fully aware of this, yet they run the description anyway. Might grab the attention of a few more readers but detracts from the credibility of the paper and staff a little.

I've read a few posts here though that suggest that the press are complicit with the police in managing the release of information to try and encourage people to implicate themselves in the relevant offences. I would hope that's untrue. In my view it's OK for police to withold certain details so that they can filter reports and claims from witnesses etc, but to use the press as an investigative tool to 'fool' potential ligitants would be a serious matter. We need, and largely have I think, a free, independent and objective press.

I do think that the standard of crime reporting in general has dropped, but I suspect this is due to management and marketing cultures rather than the abilities or ethics of individual journalists. I am hoping that the News of the World demise will cause some media owners and journalist bodies to have pause for thought. I have been interviewed by some very junior journalists in Brisbane who came up with very accurate, objective and intelligent work. I have to give a plug to the Brisbane Times in that regard.

I saw that Alan Saunders died last week which is a real blow. I did a lengthy interview with him a couple of years ago which was a real joy on Radio National. Not a journalist but a true intellect and gentleman. RIP Alan.

Vale Alan Saunders

 

[YoureNicked]

Yes, you are right, people can kill someone when enraged. And maybe in some cases could attack severely without intending to actually murder but somehow they hit too hard, for example, and do end up killing them. But I believe that for a lot of them they actually do mean it, in the moment they do actually want to eliminate the person. Hard to understand if you are not that type of person, but what I'm saying is that just because they want to kill someone and only get that desire in a few minutes or so, doesnt mean they dont want to kill them.

Also, it just occurred to me in trying to explain this, and also sparked a bit by what you said heloise, that it could be that the real 'accident' in many cases of severe domestic violence is that you don't get killed? Meaning that the attacker really did want to kill you but didnt go far enough to actually do it - more of a fluke it didnt happen? (I'm not saying in your case, but just that it made me think).

I understand it's hard to accept that there are murderers, therefore hard to accept the way their minds work. I think perhaps because of the whole confronting and frightening nature of murder, and what a murderer is, that people try to put a positive, less horrible spin on it and the murderers nature and intent.

Bolded BY Me

I agree with you, it'sthevibe. I say this because it's exactly how people think when they come up against a narcissist and the mind-twisting games they play. 'It's not possible that he couldn't really love me. He said he did and he sure made it look as though he thought I was special in the beginning. Surely, that cryptic comment he made couldn't possibly be him having a 'dig' at me! No, I don't believe he could truly be that nasty! I bet he was just having a 'bad day'. I'll let it go and give him another chance.'

We make all kinds of excuses for other people's bad behaviour if the bad behaviour doesn't seem to make sense.

And I see murder as an extreme form of narcissism.

Just My Opinion. :seeya:

 

[Aunty]

The word unsavory makes me think the child was the victim. In such a case the child would need to be interviewed to nail the perp. Just guessing. IMO

That leads me to believe that they should be interviewed because they are really victims of this crime, lease: especially if they witnessed something as well . lease:

 

[Curiousasacat]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...sting-laboratory/story-e6freoof-1226397632135

Step inside the John Tonge Centre, our own 'CSI: Brisbane' forensic testing laboratory

 

[Thinking]

Well if indeed he does have a narcissistic personality disorder, I would vote that at least the mother would protect him no matter what. The NPD person I know has a totally fawning mother and the son could do no wrong, which is how I think his personality developed that way.

That is a very interesting point - I do think that in some cases (not all) it appears that the way the child is treated by their mother/parents through their life seems to have an impact.

Out of interest for those who have encountered this type of personality (and I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that GBC has this personality type as I don't know him) - is it often the first born child in the family unit?

I ask this as I know one or two people who might fit into the category of personality type, and both of them could do no wrong in their mother's eyes and were the first born son in the family. Interested in your thoughts (as I really know nothing about this)?

 

[YoureNicked]

That is a very interesting point - I do think that in some cases (not all) it appears that the way the child is treated by their mother/parents through their life seems to have an impact.

Out of interest for those who have encountered this type of personality (and I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that GBC has this personality type as I don't know him) - is it often the first born child in the family unit?

I ask this as I know one or two people who might fit into the category of personality type, and both of them could do no wrong in their mother's eyes and were the first born son in the family. Interested in your thoughts (as I really know nothing about this)?

Hi Thinking,

I think that it's not so much the birth order of the child that predisposes them to more extreme levels of narcissism but rather, how they were treated as children. From my reading on the subject, narcissists arise from either over or under-indulgence by the parents.

The person that I believed had strong narcissistic ( "all about me") traits was a middle-child and had been abused by his father during childhood and adolescence.

But, a friend's abusive partner was the first-born son who had been pandered to by his family for eleven or twelve years until the second born sister was born.

 

[Jillie]

Can go both ways..
Max Sica is not allowed to have his children visit him...Check his MO on google and you will see why.

I think it is also fair to say that the American and Australian judicial systems vary greatly in many areas.

 

[Jillie]

The inherent problem in this post is the assumption that I have not experienced, or known people who have experienced, any of these things. I believe it is very important not to assume something about a poster simply because they have not opened up to the users of this forum with a personal story of their grief, or because their post may seem unreactive or without strong emotion. No offence intended.

Cheers

You are such a nice (and dare I say, intelligent) person WI!! :hero:

 

[Rational]

I will give my opinion on why the arrest went down like it did ( this has been previously posted earlier today )

Open for discussion or to be ignored, of course IMO only
IMO the surprise visit at Toowong to detain GBC was a very strategic move by QPS. IMO they could have alerted his highly respected and learned Lawyer to have GBC attend voluntarily with him. Why do I think it was strategic, well IMO the QPS need to question / interview the children and they were not able to, so the best way was to wait for GBC to move back into the residence at Brookfield. Why is this important, because of the Procedure needed to gain access to the children.
I ll explain further, DOCS would have been informed of an arrest/detention and would have taken custody of the children if there was concern for their welfare. If they were with the BC s then I assume that that arrangement should have been suitable for them to remain with them during this assessment period. DOCS would have to Apply to a Magistrate immediately for a TAO (Temporary Assessment Order) which places the “care and control” of the children with DOCS for 3 days in order to make a proper assessment of where the children should be placed. They can apply for an extension of assessment however they should be following the Family Court Principles which usually is causing as little disruption to their routine, what they are familiar with and used to, where their friends are, school etc, and in the absence of any danger / threat or unsuitability, then they should be placed with their best interests at the forefront of any decision. Why is this important, well ultimately the Family Court could/should decide where the children reside and who should make decisions about their short and long term welfare. Any decision that is made in the Family Court will override any decision made by any State Qld Dept.
Why is this important, because whoever has “care and control” of the children could allow QPS to interview them, I am assuming Dickies will, BC s wouldn’t, a massive difference to any relevant evidence.
However, it is interesting to note here that if and when any Application is made to the Family Court by the BC s, normally you need a strong case to alter the status quo ie where the children currently are comfortable, with willing and able carers, amongst other things such as assessments made previously etc until a proper determination/ Application could be made, which could be some 2 years away. I think the subsequent abuse of the Police by the BC s in informing them of an arrest would form part of this assessment as to “unsuitability” and thus allowing QPS access to the children s evidence. If the children were still living at BC s, then the Dept would not (in a normal world) have any reason to alter their custody. However the media seemed to have played their part in this, how do they justify camping out at the BC s where the children are previously, but now leaving them alone while they are at the Dickies, DOUBLE STANDARDS.
As we operate in an Adversarial Justice System, applications/complaints have to made by people, evidence presented and determined by that evidence. Decisions are not made just because they should or everyone thinks they should. This process is for everyone’s protection, not just for this case. Put yourself in similar shoes to try and grasp the severity of the process. Who should determine where your children are placed if you are sick, hurt etc and couldn’t t care for them. Should the media camp outside your place because it makes them money until such time as they are placed somewhere else. If you can grasp this, then you will see similarities to the stolen generation of indigenous where improper manipulation and process and opinion was used to alter their rights.
IMO custody of the children and the ability to allow questioning ( probably involving TV programming) will form part and a major part of the DPP s brief and the strategic move without informing the Lawyers, GBC moving back to Brookfield and the subsequent “care and control “ of the children’s best interests have resulted in QPS and DPP “outplaying, outlasting and outwitting” GBC and his legal team. IMO very poor advice to move back home, a fatal error.
IMO IMO IMO IMO

Plentyofnous
I have been following the discussion around the children being interviewed and who will have custody with interest from my 'persona non grata' status.

I worked in Indigenous affairs for 15 years and have first hand knowledge of the issues surrounding docs and how only over the last few years policies may have changed but there is still a lack of cultural empathy when it comes to removal of children.
Having said that I also believe that we as a society have an overall responsibility to children and have formed a view (to some degree reflected in policies such as the Family Law Act) that covers all Australian children regardless of their background, culture or situation. This IMO is how it should be. How children (and women) are protected is how societies define themselves as either just or unjust societies.

I can see your argument pertaining to Alisson's children and how, to a certain degree, they may have indeed been part of the strategising around the arrest. We can all question that. My question is slightly different.

If you were Alisson, would you want your children to be looked after at a place (BCs) where the media would be part of your daily life (and I believe the media would respect the privacy of the children, but the public interest issue around the BCs has not yet been played out in my view and IMO the BCs have not yet won the right to privacy)?

I think that the temporary legal guardianship provided to a child safety worker was part of a strategy, giving that temporary custody order to the Dickies was IMOin the best interest of the children. As legal guardians (temporary until further decisions are made re longer term custody and the outcome of the bail hearing) hey can decide if the children can go and visit GBC in prison (not him) based on what is best for the children.

Also if bail were to be granted to GBC (which I doubt very much, but I have been wrong before), custody wold not automatically revert back to him. As the welfare of the children is the overriding issue in he FamilyLaw Act (as you have rightly pointed out) not the right of parents (hence why there is still many removals of children every day particularly in Indigenous communities) and not he right of grandparents.

All IMO MOO

Glad to be back!!

 

[ozazure]

It will be interesting to see what picture is painted as the details unfold. I too would prefer it was untapped rage that ended Allison's life versus a calculated murder for tactical reasons. He seems quite an ineffective character to me to date, the walking story lacked credibility, I find the car "accident" seems similarly dubious, and he come across quite pathetic in the front yard interview. I wonder if he is aware of how he presents and it's a trade off he is willing to make to say and do what he thinks will work, or if he can't help it, and if he can't help it, if he even realises how unconvincing and unsympathetic he appears. I guess the thing is, an ineffective person can still come up with a grand plan they think they can execute ... he does seem to dream big with his business endeavours. I will wait and see.

I have to admit I am also interested to see what family dynamics are exposed. I would hope in the BC's position I would support my child without losing sight of truth or justice. I would go to where he had been taken asap and want to see him. I do wonder why they are not in court, it doesn't seem to match up that they'd rush to him at once and then not be there when they could be.

 

[Nads]

That is a very interesting point - I do think that in some cases (not all) it appears that the way the child is treated by their mother/parents through their life seems to have an impact.

Out of interest for those who have encountered this type of personality (and I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that GBC has this personality type as I don't know him) - is it often the first born child in the family unit?

I ask this as I know one or two people who might fit into the category of personality type, and both of them could do no wrong in their mother's eyes and were the first born son in the family. Interested in your thoughts (as I really know nothing about this)?

The person I am referring to was a first child. In fact the only child for 14 years! And a male.

In general, I think first children get what they want! Of course, this is a second child saying this but it's also true of my own children, and the children of our friends, both sons and daughters.

 

[factfinda]

I've read a few posts here though that suggest that the press are complicit with the police in managing the release of information to try and encourage people to implicate themselves in the relevant offences. I would hope that's untrue. In my view it's OK for police to withold certain details so that they can filter reports and claims from witnesses etc, but to use the press as an investigative tool to 'fool' potential ligitants would be a serious matter. We need, and largely have I think, a free, independent and objective press.

I think the relationship between police and the media is a fascinating one. From what I have seen it hasn't tended to be one of extremes. For example, the police do not control the media or try to dupe them into acting on their behalf - that relationship would crash and burn very quickly. Conversely, I don't believe the media acts with disregard for the outcome of an investigation. Mostly I believe there is a delicate balance between the two professions, whereby the police understand that a significant story will be vigorously pursued by the media and that working with them (up to a point) is beneficial. It really depends on the specific officers coordinating the case and their prior experience with certain journos, coupled with the advantages and disadvantages of releasing certain information. If a cop feels as if he/she has been burned by the media in the past they won't feel such a compulsion to share.