Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 #19

[marlywings]

Except, I don't think she'd be able to answer my questions, lol

Nor mine...lol

 

[KG1]

Re Trust Funds - A trust is a legal entity and each state in Australia will have a Trustee Act which governs what a trustee can and cannot do. After all, the property of the trust is held on trust for the beneficiaries. The Trustee will be required to adhere to the Trust Deed, which sets out the purpose etc of the trust. Every Trust is required to have a Trust Deed. Failure to adhere to the Trust Deed is a breach of trust, punishable by law. If the purpose of a trust expires, or for some reason cannot be performed, then there are avenues open to the Trustee to apply to the state Supreme Court under the cy pres doctrine, to allow the trust to be applied for as near the intention of the original testator or settlor.
Below is the US version of the cy pres doctrine and the Australian application is the same.

The cy-près doctrine ( /ˌsiːˈpreɪ/ SEE-PRAY) is a legal doctrine that first arose in courts of equity. The term can be translated (from old Norman French to English) as "as near as possible" or "as near as may be."[1] The doctrine originated in the law of charitable trusts, but has been applied in the context of class action settlements in the United States.[2]

When the original objective of the settlor or the testator became impossible, impracticable, or illegal to perform, the cy-près doctrine allows the court to amend the terms of the charitable trust as closely as possible to the original intention of the testator or settlor, to prevent the trust from failing.

For example, in Jackson v. Phillips,[3] the testator bequeathed to trustees money to be used to "create a public sentiment that will put an end to negro slavery in this country."[4] After slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the funds were applied cy-près to the "use of necessitous persons of African descent in the city of Boston and its vicinity. (From Wikipaedia)

 

[J-Diggety]

I must admit that it is exceptionally depressing that someones death has generated so much discussion, dissent, sadness, gossip, idle chat and unnecessary arguing.

One part of me is sad that we have forums to do this, this is the job/role of the police. In 19 different threads (at the time of writing), how much of this discussion is actually contributing to finding Allison s killer. Not much at all.

I mean no offence to anyone, but it is something that sits there nagging away

Are we just predators in another form?

 

[Makara]

Anyone can send questions to Alison Sandy at Courier Mail and she answers.

Yes she does, as best she can.

 

[Radster]

We don't discuss other members here. If someone is a verified local and or insider, it doesn't mean you have to take what they say as FACT. You can of course disagree in a respectful manner and state why you disagree. Its not ok to discuss if a verfied local 'really' knows more or what they state is fact etc. You can state why you disagree or why you don't think its right and move on.

Once again we know how to talk and how to treat members here, we all know it, now lets get back to the topic at hand... In case you've forgotten its... Allison.

Thanks.

Ima

ETA... If you have a question on the verification process you can pm a mod or Admin.

Why even have "verified locals" or "insiders" or any such distinctions, then? Seriously?

 

[Kimster]

Any so called insider is still getting second or third hand information. To me it is still just gossip.

Because of our promise of anonymity, we will not divulge why someone is a verified insider. If anyone wants to question a post as reliable, that is fine. You can kindly say "I choose not to believe that one" and move on. The key part is MOVE ON. Don't complain about the process. Don't attack the poster. Don't act as though everyone here demands to know their credentials. How would that work for all the verified professionals/insiders?

If a verified insider posts something that doesn't seem quite right, ALERT THE POST and explain why it doesn't make sense and your concern. DO NOT DISCUSS IT ON THE THREAD.

I'm going to repeat it:


If a verified insider posts something that doesn't seem quite right, ALERT THE POST and explain why it doesn't make sense and your concern. DO NOT DISCUSS IT ON THE THREAD.

If anyone doesn't like the verification process on Websleuths, please contact the owners with your concerns: Tricia and/or SoSueMe.

The topic of verified posters on the threads is now OVER.

:saber:

 

[Kimster]

Why even have "verified locals" or "insiders" or any such distinctions, then? Seriously?

Because years ago we had a lot of "trolls" come here saying they were "so and so" and they were not anyone, just someone trying to cause problems. That's the reason for verified insiders.

Verified professionals have their credentials sent to us and this enables them to post facts about their profession without having to link.

That's why, pure and simple.

 

[Kimster]

I must admit that it is exceptionally depressing that someones death has generated so much discussion, dissent, sadness, gossip, idle chat and unnecessary arguing.

One part of me is sad that we have forums to do this, this is the job/role of the police. In 19 different threads (at the time of writing), how much of this discussion is actually contributing to finding Allison s killer. Not much at all.

I mean no offence to anyone, but it is something that sits there nagging away

Are we just predators in another form?

This would be an interesting topic in our Jury Room: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=25"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

It's off topic here, though. :tyou:

 

[Makara]

This would be an interesting topic in our Jury Room: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

It's off topic here, though. :tyou:

Kimster, I've just had a look over there at the Jury Room. It's scary! False eyelashes, skin care products, etc. etc. :what:

Seriously though, how many threads do we have to clock up before we are granted a dedicated forum? I recall the Zahra Baker thread grew to be so large that a dedicated forum was implemented.

All of this deleting of seemingly innocent posts, (one of mine was deleted tonight and I don't understand why), being referred to other forums etc. is quite confusing for the majority of posters here. I do understand and respect Websleuths TOS but is it possible to cut us a bit of slack. Aussies as a rule are very open and without malice. In saying that, I do thank the moderators for granting us a chat forum, because we quite often stray off topic and, well, we just love to talk about stuff unrelated to anything in particular.

 

[Kimster]

Kimster, I've just had a look over there at the Jury Room. It's scary! False eyelashes, skin care products, etc. etc. :what:

Seriously though, how many threads do we have to clock up before we are granted a dedicated forum? I recall the Zahra Baker thread grew to be so large that a dedicated forum was implemented.

All of this deleting of seemingly innocent posts, (one of mine was deleted tonight and I don't understand why), being referred to other forums etc. is quite confusing for the majority of posters here. I do understand and respect Websleuths TOS but is it possible to cut us a bit of slack. Aussies as a rule are very open and without malice. In saying that, I do thank the moderators for granting us a chat forum, because we quite often stray off topic and, well, we just love to talk about stuff unrelated to anything in particular.

Forums are a lot more work for the moderators and we only start them when there are many twists and turns in a case and a lot of new information to be sleuthed. We don't have that in this case, unfortunately. We can recruit more mods without a problem, but there just isn't enough new information coming forth to warrant it.

As for cutting the members some slack, if we do that here, we need change the rules all over the forum. I'd have about 500 PMs asking me why you guys can do something and they can't. We have to be fair. And I already did something new just for you guys when I created the chat room thread. Please use it.

Cheers!

 

[CaseClosed]

Lol So cute! I have just caught up and would you believe am only just about to have dinner? That's what this place does to me.

As for my snippets, well I'd have to say these are rumours, as follows:

This one we've heard before, but I'm posting it because it may carry more weight that it's turned up again (although not necessarily)

I've been told by a friend of mine who knows the wife of one of the policeman on the case that there definitely was an argument at the BC house on the Thursday night, which was reported, and the police did attend. At that stage apparently Allison was OK, and eventually the police left. I was told that this was one of the main reasons police attended the next day and went into action so dramatically and quickly. ... <respectfully snipped>.

This scenario is what i have always believed happened that night.

 

[Woombite]

family trusts are often 'discretionary', meaning the trustee (often a corporate trustee). has the right to assign or allocate the 'interest' as they see fit. the only rights the beneficiaries have are the equitable right to demand the trustee properly administer the trust. having said that, GBC is not likely to be a beneficiary of the trust (I havent read the latest report, nor other reports on trusts as I didnt see the relevance to who killed Allison)
In fact, I think even the kids are not entitled to the money yet. They may have entitlement but are legally disabled, due to their age.
I dont think this is relevant that he doesnt have access
I think its relevant that CM decided to state this obvious fact IMO

Correct! These sorts of minors trusts are set up for the education, maintenance and benefit of the benes, ie the girls. Capital may also be utilised in certain circumstances eg assistance with housing an example. I think CM made it clear that GBC does not have an entitlement to ensure that people understand it is purely for yhe benefit of the girls. The girls may also be entitled to crim compensation if amd when someone is charged, however that is not much money and is often paid on their behalf to the Public Trustee to manage until they can provide a legal discharge/receipt for the money at 18 yrs.

 

[Kimster]

Yes that is correct Marly, a little bit more, the person who was the 'horses mouth' (primary family member to squizzey1) felt it necessary to stop because knowing this person to be GBC, she/he knew all the buses had stopped running............

Where did this information come that it was a primary family member? Please link to that post. I searched Squizzey1's posts and didn't find where that was stated.

:tyou:

 

[Fuskier]

My email copy:

"The problem is there&#8217;s a lot we cannot print for legal reasons and on the basis it will cause harm to the investigation.

While it&#8217;s frustrating, we have to be careful in our reporting.

Kind regards,

Alison" (Sandy- Crime Reporter)

BERRY: Thank you for this contribution. It informs us about the CMs position legally and the reason behind the current constrained reporting. Thats helpful. We need to support that as we don't want to cause harm to the Police investigation. We want to Perp(s) to be rightfully convicted in this case.

The Police have our support, the media have our support. It offends our collective consciousness and the community wants justice.

 

[Thinking]

Yep you are right you know..It would be strange given the fact his house was a crime scene..Unless his computer was already at the folks house. Maybe the Media misreported it again. As you are right I can't find that original where I am certain they said it was his laptop. Maybe the laptop was originally at work, and so not seized at the house, then he took it from work to his parents place and it was seized from there? don't know..

I assume it was the parents laptop? I don't think there is any reason to think otherwise? Gbc's would have been left at his house, but this was clearly a raid of the seniors' house. I think at first it was assumed the raid took place because GBC was staying there, but I no longer think that. I believe it was a raid of the BC seniors' house and belongings, and 6 bags of evidence were taken away along with the laptop and hard drive. All belonging to the BC seniors.

 

[Fuskier]

ON THAT NOTE....I want to add a something, my husband said straight away that NBC was sitting at the bus shelter at the roundabout as a "SPOTTER".

That means ....well husband said, just a spotter to ring and alert for some reason.

May be others had considered there had to be a 'spotter' i.e someone who watched out for approaching headlights and used their mobile phone (or other device) to alert the Perp(s) to turn off their torches etc - until the vehicle was well past, so they could continue to dump the body.

 

[loveandlite2012]

Got some good points there Manni. I especially like the one Allison left in the car to go see TM.
I can't help but think if this incident did happen earlier with the DV, how stupid could he be to then murder her, has me a little stumped, as he is and always has been my prime suspect...mmm.. the mind boggles with this case that for sure.

Here's another scenario in my head, what if after the DV incident Allison DOES take off for a walk to calm down and clear her head, GBC gets on the phone to NBC and tells him what's happened, NBC asks where she is now, gone for a walk, so then mumma and poppa bear decide they need to get rid of Allison she is a problem to them all, so NBC is sitting at the bus stop waiting for Allison to come back from her walk, and they get their hands on her.

Hope someone is in :jail: soon!!! And Im positive it will be someone with the last name BC.

 

[minni]

I mean GBC's innocence in relation to murder. I can see quite a few things he is guilty of, not least of which is being a ****** husband

 

[Greg]

Hope someone is in :jail: soon!!! And Im positive it will be someone with the last name BC.

and also someone with the last name BC, and someone else with the last name BC...and just for good measure someone with the name OW.....

Now in poker that's 4 of a kind and a pretty good hand at that! And to me would seem a fitting piece of justice to bring an end to this sick mess!

 

[kalamityk]

could it just be that he is quite stupid - JMO