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

[Mothergoose]

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.

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

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Not picking at your post in any way... just curious as to what you think on this... if GBC's parents genuinely thought their son was innocent, who do you think they believed killed her? It was a far fetched story for anyone to believe {IMO}, makes me wonder how they could not have doubted him at least?

I have often wondered this same thing. What would he have told them to make them think he was innocent?

I think the mere fact he is their son may well be enough for them to not ever be able to consider he would be responsible for such a heinous crime. Many Parents would by the sheer fact it is their child, be unable to comprehend their child capable of something such as murder. Therefore I think it may not have mattered what he told them, they most likely they were not willing to believe he could and therefore their mind could not go there. Just MOO

 

[ollijack]

A few people have said this.I have looked at that photo a few times to see what you mean.But I can't define what the difference would be between protecting them and shielding himself. He is behind them ....should he have been in front of them? He is embracing his daughters in their grief. I don't know how else he could have done it. Help me see it :banghead:

Let me help you see it. He MURDERED their mother. Why would he be trying to comfort them in their grief

 

[KG1]

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.

Didn't you know that the world's prisons are full of innocent people? :what:

 

[YoureNicked]

I think it looked like he was using the children to shield himself at the funeral, particularly when they were near the coffin.

I agree, Nads. I think he was using the children as a shield. But when his shield was broken up a bit by the Dickies taking the hands of two of the girls I felt that the look he gave Mr Dickie was one of contempt.

IMO.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226353/150101-allison-baden-clay.jpg

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Didn't you know that the world's prisons are full of innocent people? :what:

Yes I have heard that.. its a crying shame...

 

[plentyofnous]

Of course plenty, none of us would want to be in the situation where we had to make that decision, however, you do understand that they would not be involved in the actual trial. The interview would take place in a situation similar to a counselling session and I would hope that the girls would have had some sort of counselling since Allisons death. It may even be beneficial to the girls, especially the eldest, to be able to talk to someone who is impartial. MOO

You are seriously mistaken if you believe that the children would not be cross examined in a murder trial, if they speak to anyone, that is evidence and therefore subject to cross

 

[itsthevibe]

Originally Posted by itsthevibe I agree with you Liadan.

As for the 'extreme act of spontaneous anger' and the comment "if he had stopped to think of his children' I would say that is exactly the point. A person who loves their children and who has a conscience does stop to think about them, or more likely doesn't even get to the point of such extreme anger that they would be on the verge of actually killing someone and need to 'stop themselves'.

Someone who is a narcissist is incapable of really loving anyone, and this includes their children. Some people are incapable of real love. Just remember, love is not a feeling, it is to do with actions. If you can't demonstrate your love in the most unselfish of ways, then you can't love properly, and you are no good to those you 'feel' love for, in fact there are many ways you could harm them.

Just because we see someone crying at a funeral, looking genuinely distressed, and clinging on to their children, does not mean they can love these children in a way that is ultimately beneficial for them, and does not necessarily mean that they feel sad for the person who died. It could mean something totally different, such as an immature, narcissistic man, who is feeling dreadfully sorry for himself, who is clinging onto his children as a shield, and appreciating them in a different way, as the only ones left who, in their purity and trustingness, treat him as innocent. IMO

If like myself you don't know GBC we are both voicing opinions based on what we have read and our lifes experiences. My make up won't let me judge him as being a narcissist, immature, evil person without knowing him personally.You'd be amazed at how many people in Brookfield , who know GBC (now they know him at least) can't possibly believe he did it. I have family there and my grandparent were some of the first settlers in Brookfield. Either of us could be wrong or right. Or we both could be wrong. IMO

Hi Mothergoose,

This post has several inaccuracies which I would like to clear up. Firstly, I used the funeral and this murder as an example to explain my views in general. I realise that you were referring to GBC, but my post stands whether it is about him or not.

Secondly, the post spoke for both of us about how and why we are voicing our opinions. If I was voicing my opinion about GBC, I would do so not only on my life experience and what I have read. I would do so on the fact that I have met GBC on a number of occasions, and on what I have actually observed, experienced, and felt intuitively about him. However as I said my own comments are spoken in general using this case as an example, because I was commenting on your comments about GBC.

Thirdly, you said "My make up won't let me judge him as being a narcissist, immature, evil person without knowing him personally." I did not mention evil, and I was describing a scenario and an alternative explanation for what can be observed about it, based on a profile of a narcissistic person. It is a viable and accurate scenario for this type of person. As for GBC, he may, or may not, have these traits himself.

Last but not least, the statement "You'd be amazed at how many people in Brookfield , who know GBC (now they know him at least) can't possibly believe he did it." is wrong on both counts, first on the assumption I don't know him, which puzzles me as you just assume I dont know him, and second, on the fact you are stating that I would be amazed! I wouldnt be amazed, for a start when first hearing about something like this it's quite a shock and no one likes to think that someone livng in their close community could do somethig like this IMO. It doesnt amaze me at all. And this reaction is not an indication GBC is innocent, or that the majority of people who know him well think he is not capable of murder IMO. Even if that were the case the majority of people are understandably unfamiliar with the complex and deceptive personality traits of the type of people who can commit murder, and/or naturally trusting and giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Just wanted to clear these things up about the post.

 

[Mothergoose]

Let me help you see it. He MURDERED their mother. Why would he be trying to comfort them in their grief

I hear you and I mean no offence.....but are you saying he doesn't love or want to comfort his children at all. I guess I can't see it because I don't think this is about not loving his children. It goes without saying he didn't love Allison but I believe he loves his children. I can see comfort and protection and regret and pain in everyone's eyes. I don't see him using his children as a shield. Against what? I am happy with not seeing it if that is your explanation. We're all different in how we perceive things....and that's a good thing. IMO

 

[plentyofnous]

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

 

[KG1]

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

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

 

[plentyofnous]

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

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

 

[Perthgirl62]

I hear you and I mean no offence.....but are you saying he doesn't love or want to comfort his children at all. I guess I can't see it because I don't think this is about not loving his children. It goes without saying he didn't love Allison but I believe he loves his children. I can see comfort and protection and regret and pain in everyone's eyes. I don't see him using his children as a shield. Against what? I am happy with not seeing it if that is your explanation. We're all different in how we perceive things....and that's a good thing. IMO

What you are saying makes sense if he is in fact innocent, however if he did commit this crime I honestly can't believe that he has much love for his children. They are the ones who have been most affected by the loss of Allison and if it was an act of DV he should have thought of his children before unceremoniously dumping their mother in a creek. IMO

 

[CaseClosed]

you can make yourself believe anything if you want to.

IMO, and it is just that, GBC didn't become the person he seems to be without some parental "assistance".

We don't know what the family life was like when the Gerard, Olivia and their brother where growing up. They seem a very close knit family, so they would probably tolerate a lot from each other, and while they may have there own doubts, would not voice or exhibit them in public.

I think we have to be careful not to label "bad people" as being the product of "bad parents". It could be that GBC is just the way he is because of his brain chemical composition (or whatever it is called).

 

[Perthgirl62]

It is possible to despise your partner and love your children

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.

 

[TheStupidTree]

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

I have experience in this area. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, or any other significant person do not have any 'rights'. The court only cares about the childrens rights to have a meaningful relationship with who they deem is in the best interest of the child. The grandparents can lodge an application with the family court for custody based on facts as to why they should be able to have a meaningful relationship/shared care/residential care etc etc. The magistrate will take this, usually a 'family report' and other evidence into consideration when deciding what is in the childrens best interest. The child may even have a lawyer themselves to represent their interests.

Different weight is given to different evidence, ie the 10 year olds family report would hold more weight than the 5 year olds. The court may consider a move away from the paternal grandparents, school, friends, dad not in their best interest. Tius can be weighed against maternal grandparents lifestyle where they currently live, any job they hold, family nearby etc.

This is a very complex area of law, and some decisions really make you scratch your head.

 

[CaseClosed]

I even throw in the Pastor as a secret keeper as well. just for good measure.. if Olivia knew , HE knew, too.

Yes, IMO all pastors/priests are used to keeping secrets.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I hear you and I mean no offence.....but are you saying he doesn't love or want to comfort his children at all. I guess I can't see it because I don't think this is about not loving his children. It goes without saying he didn't love Allison but I believe he loves his children. I can see comfort and protection and regret and pain in everyone's eyes. I don't see him using his children as a shield. Against what? I am happy with not seeing it if that is your explanation. We're all different in how we perceive things....and that's a good thing. IMO

What you are saying makes sense if he is in fact innocent, however if he did commit this crime I honestly can't believe that he has much love for his children. They are the ones who have been most affected by the loss of Allison and if it was an act of DV he should have thought of his children before unceremoniously dumping their mother in a creek. IMO

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

 

[Mothergoose]

Hi Mothergoose,

This post has several inaccuracies which I would like to clear up. Firstly, I used the funeral and this murder as an example to explain my views in general. I realise that you were referring to GBC, but my post stands whether it is about him or not.

Secondly, the post spoke for both of us about how and why we are voicing our opinions. If I was voicing my opinion about GBC, I would do so not only on my life experience and what I have read. I would do so on the fact that I have met GBC on a number of occasions, and on what I have actually observed, experienced, and felt intuitively about him. However as I said my own comments are spoken in general using this case as an example, because I was commenting on your comments about GBC.

Thirdly, you said "My make up won't let me judge him as being a narcissist, immature, evil person without knowing him personally." I did not mention evil, and I was describing a scenario and an alternative explanation for what can be observed about it, based on a profile of a narcissistic person. It is a viable and accurate scenario for this type of person. As for GBC, he may, or may not, have these traits himself.

Last but not least, the statement "You'd be amazed at how many people in Brookfield , who know GBC (now they know him at least) can't possibly believe he did it." is wrong on both counts, first on the assumption I don't know him, which puzzles me as you just assume I dont know him, and second, on the fact you are stating that I would be amazed! I wouldnt be amazed, for a start when first hearing about something like this it's quite a shock and no one likes to think that someone livng in their close community could do somethig like this IMO. It doesnt amaze me at all. And this reaction is not an indication GBC is innocent, or that the majority of people who know him well think he is not capable of murder IMO. Even if that were the case the majority of people are understandably unfamiliar with the complex and deceptive personality traits of the type of people who can commit murder, and/or naturally trusting and giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Just wanted to clear these things up about the post.

Thank you for the feed back.
Firstly as this is a forum about GBC I could only conclude that the person you were describing as shielding his children must have been GBC.

Secondly I said "If Like me you don't know GBC" I didn't say you don't know him. I think that addresses your second point.

Thirdly though those traits may be viable for this type of person (I assume you mean a murderer) it has not been established (the traits that is)re GBC as far as I know. I used the word evil as it has been used on occasion to describe GBC in particular and I recall another BC 's(please don't make be find it) on occasion .
.
And last but not least. Using the term "At least they know him" did not imply you didn't ,it simply was my way of saying I would hold a personal friends description of his personality traits over the opinions of stranger. How well did you know him? Was it professional or personal if I am allowed to ask without offending you.

Finally I am sorry I said you would be 'amazed' re the number of people who don't think he was possible of such a thing, that was really bad of me and I apologise.That you are not amazed is your right and I should't have used such a common phrase to make my point.

I hope this explains my post and no offence was intended. All IMO

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Thank you for the feed back.
Firstly as this is a forum about GBC I could only conclude that the person you were describing as shielding his children must have been GBC.

Secondly I said "If Like me you don't know GBC" I didn't say you don't know him. I think that addresses your second point.

Thirdly though those traits may be viable for this type of person (I assume you mean a murderer) it has not been established (the traits that is)re GBC as far as I know. I used the word evil as it has been used on occasion to describe GBC in particular and I recall another BC 's(please don't make be find it) on occasion .
.
And last but not least. Using the term "At least they know him" did not imply you didn't ,it simply was my way of saying I would hold a personal friends description of his personality traits over the opinions of stranger. How well did you know him? Was it professional or personal if I am allowed to ask without offending you.

Finally I am sorry I said you would be 'amazed' re the number of people who don't think he was possible of such a thing, that was really bad of me and I apologise.That you are not amazed is your right and I should't have used such a common phrase to make my point.

I hope this explains my post and no offence was intended. All IMO

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.