ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#24

[J-Diggety]

If anyones interested (may have been posted before)

Family Tree of BCs etc....

(use CTRL F to search on clay for easier searching) (command F on a mac)

http://www.spanglefish.com/bettyclay/documents/Documents/SOAMES Family Tree.txt

 

[ActusReus]

I respectfully disagree, my guess is the QPS is still looking for the nail so to speak, with Mahoneys statement of not knowing his Client was at the Station before arrest, its IMO obvious there is some games and bluff going on IMO

Every chance you're right! It certainly appears that QPS are still building their case however Thursdays hearing is only for bail, evidence won't be tested under cross examination and IMO contested hearings are fairly weighted towards the prosecution anyway.

The QPS brief has a much easier job than the defence brief in this one.

From a completely academic viewpoint I'd give an arm and a leg to be at the hearing on Thursday. I've had to sit in on at least two dozen of these things in the magistrates court and they can be fairly cut and dried. Not often one gets to see a top QC earning his beans in a case like this. Apologies if this sounds a bit insensitive but to examine these things critically it's sometimes necessary put aside the human element for a while.

 

[grannie]

Police seek advice on Facebook posts

It's more common than you think

 

[plentyofnous]

Every chance you're right! It certainly appears that QPS are still building their case however Thursdays hearing is only for bail, evidence won't be tested under cross examination and IMO contested hearings are fairly weighted towards the prosecution anyway.

The QPS brief has a much easier job than the defence brief in this one.

From a completely academic viewpoint I'd give an arm and a leg to be at the hearing on Thursday. I've had to sit in on at least two dozen of these things in the magistrates court and they can be fairly cut and dried. Not often one gets to see a top QC earning his beans in a case like this. Apologies if this sounds a bit insensitive but to examine these things critically it's sometimes necessary put aside the human element for a while.

Agree, don t think there will be much room, journos everywhere, like the Melb Cup at the track, suddenly everyones an expert, 4000 Bart Cummings appear, LOL

 

[Wonder Woman]

Thank you for providing valuable perspective

I agree with what you've written

Ever since humans squatted in caves, they've communicated. Communication is hard wired in humans. It's why language developed

People have always voiced their opinions - over the fence, on the street, in the workplace, on buses and trains, via phone, in public places, through the print and televised media, etc. Always

Someone posted recently that the numbers of murders per thousand in Australia have remained pretty much constant in the years, for example, 1907 and 1997. Many of us remember many of those murder cases and can remember how it was then before social media

When Graham Thorn was kidnapped and brutally murdered back in the 1960's, thousands of people made their way to the street in which he'd lived. Enterprising others sold coffee, newspapers, ice-creams etc. to those crowds

The print media and tv indulged in sensationalistic updates and devoted hours to coverage which was saturation, Australia wide

As result, discussion of the case was encouraged. It was impossible not to know about the case, so intense was main stream media coverage

Where were those complaining about 'influencing the trial' back then ?

Where were police warning the public not to discuss the case back then ?

Why don't these 'concerned legal people' admit that because of social media -- the mainstream news isn't making the same sort of profit from grisly crimes as they used to and the mainstream media is angry about that and trying every trick in the book to regain it's profitable edge, using 'legal experts' as their tool ?

How long has social media been mainstream? What -- ten years? Less?

So suddenly social media is being portrayed as the villain of the piece -- yet for thousands of years, people have voiced their opinions, speculations etc., about crime -- and for thousands of years, this public voicing of opinion has NOT been seen to 'prevent a fair trial'. Obviously -- because they've still managed to form juries

We're supposed to accept and preach to others now though, that 'social media' could jeoparise fair trials ? Lol. I'm not buying the argument. It's see through. I regard all the blather about the detrimental effects of social media as bulldust, as hoopla, being spun by people who want to sell their latest book or want to create a new job for themselves vetting social media

I agree that social media has great benefits. Social media has helped people become informed and have opinions.

A problem is that a jury is supposed to determine guilt based on evidence heard in court and not on what they have read or heard about the particular case. A legal issue may be whether the defendant will be able to get a fair trial if the jury is drawn from a public that has already formed opinions against the defendant based on information gained from outside the trial.

As Mark Twain said in his 4th of July speech in 1873,

We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read.

While members of Websleuths seek justice for Allison, the Defence in this case might well cite the opinions of Websleuthers as evidence that a defendant cannot get a fair trial. This is not to say that the Defence would be wrong or right in making that argument, I am just flagging it. Perhaps these days you cannot rely on getting a jury that does not know anything about a case. Trials might have to place a greater reliance on the presiding judge cautioning and directing the jury to disregard what they have heard or read outside the trial.

 

[plentyofnous]

Police seek advice on Facebook posts

It's more common than you think

This is not Facebook Grannie, however I thank you for the link

 

[ActusReus]

Within the brief of evidence detailing the entire case against him, would the identities of informants (for want of correct term) who may have provided much of the evidence, be disclosed, do you know?

If so, would it be considered wise to grant bail to someone suspected of murder, under those circumstances?

Don't take it as gospel but I don't believe the identity would be revealed. Just the fact that they have witnesses, incriminating statements etc.

 

[laserdisc10]

I agree that social media has great benefits. Social media has helped people become informed and have opinions.

A problem is that a jury is supposed to determine guilt based on evidence heard in court and not on what they have read or heard about the particular case. A legal issue may be whether the defendant will be able to get a fair trial if the jury is drawn from a public that has already formed opinions against the defendant based on information gained from outside the trial.

As Mark Twain said in his 4th of July speech in 1873,



While members of Websleuths seek justice for Allison, the Defence in this case might well cite the opinions of Websleuthers as evidence that a defendant cannot get a fair trial. This is not to say that the Defence would be wrong or right in making that argument, I am just flagging it. Perhaps these days you cannot rely on getting a jury that does not know anything about a case. Trials might have to place a greater reliance on the presiding judge cautioning and directing the jury to disregard what they have heard or read outside the trial.

I appreciate your views. I've said my bit so won't belabour it

Thanks

 

[summer_breeze]

It would be an interesting exercise to work out who should , or better question, who should not be on his jury from websleuths, now theres a discussion lol

Let's not do this, OK? It will just take you down a path you don't want to walk.

 

[plentyofnous]

Let's not do this, OK? It will just take you down a path you don't want to walk.

don t think it was actually gonna be played out, more like a jovial aside, sorry i i offend

 

[Thinking]

I really think you are onto something here....pollen or the like in shoe or tire treads or inside the Captiva that matches plants near where Allison was found?

IMO

But wouldn't this all have been sent away long before now for testing (if car related or from kholo creek etc)?

Would it be something they found when undertaking further searches at the BC residence last Wednesday I wonder?

I feel like my posts are always questions, thank you to all the patient posters who regularly answer me, I do appreciate it

 

[plentyofnous]

But wouldn't this all have been sent away long before now for testing (if car related or from kholo creek etc)?

Would it be something they found when undertaking further searches at the BC residence last Wednesday I wonder?

I feel like my posts are always questions, thank you to all the patient posters who regularly answer me, I do appreciate it

I agree with your line of thought

 

[LollyPop]

But wouldn't this all have been sent away long before now for testing (if car related or from kholo creek etc)?

Would it be something they found when undertaking further searches at the BC residence last Wednesday I wonder?

I feel like my posts are always questions, thank you to all the patient posters who regularly answer me, I do appreciate it

Hmmm...good point. Unless they only just became aware of this testing for some reason or as you suggested they found something after further searches. I so wish we knew more!

 

[Mani]

But wouldn't this all have been sent away long before now for testing (if car related or from kholo creek etc)?

Would it be something they found when undertaking further searches at the BC residence last Wednesday I wonder?

I feel like my posts are always questions, thank you to all the patient posters who regularly answer me, I do appreciate it

I second that - mine are too or they are statements/explanations of fact.

 

[plentyofnous]

certainly got a response and woke everyone up lol

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I agree that social media has great benefits. Social media has helped people become informed and have opinions.

A problem is that a jury is supposed to determine guilt based on evidence heard in court and not on what they have read or heard about the particular case. A legal issue may be whether the defendant will be able to get a fair trial if the jury is drawn from a public that has already formed opinions against the defendant based on information gained from outside the trial.

As Mark Twain said in his 4th of July speech in 1873,



While members of Websleuths seek justice for Allison, the Defence in this case might well cite the opinions of Websleuthers as evidence that a defendant cannot get a fair trial. This is not to say that the Defence would be wrong or right in making that argument, I am just flagging it. Perhaps these days you cannot rely on getting a jury that does not know anything about a case. Trials might have to place a greater reliance on the presiding judge cautioning and directing the jury to disregard what they have heard or read outside the trial.

Thanks for the post..and without telling anyone what they should or shouldn't say..think it may be wise to be a bit cautious (all of us) on the comments and judgements we make about the accused. For the sake that we all want to see justice for Allison and do not want to give any defendents a good excuse for a mistrial or anything of the sought.(though I believe there would be motion for moving the trial before that happens, but sure others will know more on this side of things)..just MOO

 

[summer_breeze]

don t think it was actually gonna be played out, more like a jovial aside, sorry i i offend

No offense taken Plenty. Just don't want any license to discuss other members right now, even in general. Those conversations deteriorate too fast!

Just thinking of you all!

 

[laserdisc10]

certainly got a response and woke everyone up lol

You got me into trouble, Plenty

They removed my response to you - and after I'd put so much effort into it

It was a nice post, too

My bottom lip is waaaaay out and I'm a little bit hurt

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

But wouldn't this all have been sent away long before now for testing (if car related or from kholo creek etc)?

Would it be something they found when undertaking further searches at the BC residence last Wednesday I wonder?

I feel like my posts are always questions, thank you to all the patient posters who regularly answer me, I do appreciate it

Yes actually I did wonder if it was the hair sample for DNA, and as I said possibly been rushed to the lab with least backlog to have it ready for Thursday bail hearing? Though it may be possible that they have decided to send some samples for further more specialized testing?

 

[plentyofnous]

You got me into trouble, Plenty

They removed my response to you - and after I'd put so much effort into it

It was a nice post, too

My bottom lip is waaaaay out and I'm a little bit hurt

I am amazed at the quality and variety of posters on this site, it is very interesting to see some peoples on line views, am truly enjoying my 2 bobs worth, lol