Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #5

[minni]

Im responding after reading a few similar posts.

Guilty or not guilty, its a family trying to heal in their own style! We would have a lot more to say if the kids were being locked up for weekends on end, father too ashamed to leave the house and let them be kids - what kind of environment is that for children to heal in? ..we'd probably say.

I think kids deserve to live in their fantasy world, away from hounding media, away from constant reminders of their enormous loss, allowing life and a little holiday to sooth away the pain. PLEASE let's not criticise any member of the family for doing their best to help girls, no matter who it is. Its not fair to comment, certainly not going to help solve a case, and certainly not our turf to be messing on! I am so pleased they are trying to be normal. All adults involved know nothing is normal, and no holiday will change that. This was probably the best thing he could have done for the kids - at least give him that.

thankyou!! you are so right

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Sorry, but I don't think the mods or the owner need to be up on Australian Law. This message board, and all comments on it,are under U.S duristriction. I do agree that what people consider to be facts though. I think there is a lot of confusion. Especially regarding the female ex-colleague.

Thanks as I said I wasn't sure on juristiction. Have deleted my post now anyway.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I share your underlying concern that people should not be able to publish obvious rubbish hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. There should be some fact involved that, as you say, would let a reasonable person draw some conclusion. The statement itself does not have to be fact, but it has to be generally acceptable and expected in our society. IMO a lot of the stuff mentioned in these discussions have been far from based on fact, or reasonable, but that's just my opinion.

I think the mods of this site would be able to confirm, but I presume if they received a subpoena from a relevant authority in their jurisdiction, they could be 'asked' to release information (such as IP address) to identify posters. I wonder if that has ever happened? (Mods?)

The chances of posts by people claiming to be in Australia, defaming an individual in Australia, proven to such an extent that an international action is commenced against them, is probably pretty slim.

That said, anyone being charged in this case is also likely to have fairly pressing matters on their mind in the coming months. If it turns out this person/people were also the subject of the defamatory comments on here, I really don't think the insignificant chance they could benefit from pursuing a defamation action against a faceless internet poster or public forum, hosted in another country altogether, is going to come into play. IMO.

True, and good post. However I guess if we look at it the other way and they turned out not to be guilty. Then they may see fit to look into defamation. But again just voicing a thought.

 

[BrizzychickinUSA]

I haven't posted on any other forums, and I'm not trying to shut down any conversations. The issue with defamation is that the onus is on the defendant (the person being sued) to prove that the comments were true. This is vastly different to a regular court scenario where the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the guilt of the defendant. Defamation cases are notoriously difficult to defend because the court requires indisputable evidence. Many journalists have been in trouble in the past because, even though they have what they regard to be solid evidence, much of it is not admissible in court. This is the real frustration in being a journalist. You can have an enormous amount of information about someone and you are absolutely convinced of their guilt or involvement in something, but legally you do not have enough substance to fight a defamation suit. And it makes no difference where the website is hosted, or where the people who live that make the comments. The courts will rule the jurisdiction as being the place where the comments were downloaded or sighted that had the most harm for the plaintiff. My original post arose because this case has such a high public interest (for me as well) and no doubt my students will be asking why the media is gagged in their comments but the public appears not to be, even though there is just one law for everyone, regardless of profession.

However....we are just general public and not professional writers, who are writing stories reporting what is happening in the world. We are writing on a forum which is known to be a forum of debate....not likely to be read by the general public and/or believed. I would say it would be a bit like advertising products, advertisers tend to say amazing things, but not taken seriously bc general public expect advertisers to exaggerate.... (there was a court case...cant quote it now...been a while since my uni law days)

I think, that one of us writing in an opinion column might be different....i would expect that may cause issues with shaming and blaming...

anyway...I gotta ask now....Has there ever been any cases where people have actually been sued for their comments on slueth sites as these?



one

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Im responding after reading a few similar posts.

Guilty or not guilty, its a family trying to heal in their own style! We would have a lot more to say if the kids were being locked up for weekends on end, father too ashamed to leave the house and let them be kids - what kind of environment is that for children to heal in? ..we'd probably say.

I think kids deserve to live in their fantasy world, away from hounding media, away from constant reminders of their enormous loss, allowing life and a little holiday to sooth away the pain. PLEASE let's not criticise any member of the family for doing their best to help girls, no matter who it is. Its not fair to comment, certainly not going to help solve a case, and certainly not our turf to be messing on! I am so pleased they are trying to be normal. All adults involved know nothing is normal, and no holiday will change that. This was probably the best thing he could have done for the kids - at least give him that.

Agreed. Kids need to have some sense of normality(if it can be put that way).

 

[CaseClosed]

However....we are just general public and not professional writers, who are writing stories reporting what is happening in the world. We are writing on a forum which is known to be a forum of debate....not likely to be read by the general public and/or believed. I would say it would be a bit like advertising products, advertisers tend to say amazing things, but not taken seriously bc general public expect advertisers to exaggerate.... (there was a court case...cant quote it now...been a while since my uni law days)

I think, that one of us writing in an opinion column might be different....i would expect that may cause issues with shaming and blaming...

anyway...I gotta ask now....Has there ever been any cases where people have actually been sued for their comments on slueth sites as these?



one

I know of a site in the UK, which was discussing the McCann case 5 years ago. The mods were constantly reminding poster about libel. There were attempts to shut the site down, but I think it didn't go anywhere. I don't know of any individual members being sued then.

 

[marlywings]

Conversely, trying to stop everyday people having a conversation, whether it is out the front of the local IGA supermarket or over their own back fence, or on a web forum, would be akin to taking away people's civil rights. While I don't agree with some of the banter on here, it's a million miles from the expectations anyone should have over a journalist or member of the media, or police, or Courts. IMO.

My point of view.... on this forum & the numerous other forums around, it is all just "opinion"...it can't be classed as anything else.

Actual main stream media is a whole other story.

I think if any of our police force read some of the stuff that's been posted they'd be laughing their heads off..lol.

 

[CaseClosed]

My point of view.... on this forum & the numerous other forums around, it is all just "opinion"...it can't be classed as anything else.

Actual main stream media is a whole other story.

I think if any of our police force read some of the stuff that's been posted they'd be laughing their heads off..lol.

... or maybe they are getting some clues out of this

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I think if any of our police force read some of the stuff that's been posted they'd be laughing their heads off..lol.

:floorlaugh:Yes I have had that thought a few times..it could be their entertainment.

 

[crimecat]

You would obviously know a lot more about the media than most of us on here, but surely the answer is that the media has a professional obligation and clear legal constraints due to the influence they have on the wider population. It's not one law for everyone - there are a bunch of Acts set up specifically to control the influence of the media (aren't there? - like Broadcasting Services Act, Commercial Television Code of Practice, and whatever else they all operate under.)

Conversely, trying to stop everyday people having a conversation, whether it is out the front of the local IGA supermarket or over their own back fence, or on a web forum, would be akin to taking away people's civil rights. While I don't agree with some of the banter on here, it's a million miles from the expectations anyone should have over a journalist or member of the media, or police, or Courts. IMO.

Those bodies (codes of practices) cover ethical obligations but not legal ones. We are all bound by the same laws, regardless of whether we are police officers, journalists, housewives, etc. And yes, people defame others constantly in their everyday lives through gossip but it rarely turns into a legal case. This type of situation is different because all of the comments are documented in writing and available for public viewing. To be honest I would doubt that the main person being discussed here would bring a defamation suit as they are incredibly expensive to launch (and therefore out of the realms of most everyday people), but the situation might be different for the father or one of the colleagues. And again, my concern is not with protecting guilty people - it's about the protection of the average person who can unwittingly find themselves in hot water. Well I'm bowing out of this now as I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. It was just food for thought.

 

[Kimster]

I thought I would just post something here about the women that have been referred to as mistress, business partner, person who has been interviewed etc as it appears there is still some confusion and I think we need to clarify again. Also because there are some newbies here who might not have seen Mod postings/warnings on the previous phase of this topic. Perhaps others who have been around awhile and know more than I do can clarify about my accuracy here, and anyone who wishes to can comment on what I am proposing -

Firstly - Mods have highlighted not to post addresses of people or info regarding streets which get people close to addresses. Also, Mod Kimster posted recently that the issue of GBC having a mistress is only rumour and a Websleuth rule is we dont start rumours so we are not allowed to refer to the mistress.

However, from what I understand we have 2 women we have been discussing to varying degrees about business partnership, being interviewed by police several times, etc. I cant see how we can never mention anything about these aspects again, and I dont think it is a problem if we do. The issue is not to ID them by address or name, or talk about one being a mistress, or confuse the two.

So - what do you think about this, and is this correct?

Woman 1. Refer to her as 'Lady Friend". This is the woman who was interviewed by police several times and who has taken out Legal representation. She may also be relevant to vehicle roundabout movement, but not sure. (some of us have also been calling her the mistress but from now on we leave this out of it and only refer to her in relation to media and police reports about the interviews and legal rep etc.)

Woman 2. Refer to her as 'The Business Partner', or former whichever is correct. This woman is the business partner or former business partner? No other connection relevant.

Is this correct and what do people think about my suggestion? I thought it might be the best way going forward, but I'm not the be all and end all of what we do on here so just putting it out there.

Yes, this works within the guidelines of Websleuths. :highfive:

 

[Neuromancer]

While the discussion was about pre-meditated or not recently, I came to thinking I think it was.
Reasons could vary from any of these to several:

- kids not home. (even though there was an argument it seems, he let himself go much firther this time than ever before, indicating that he had perhaps considered the "benefits" of doing her in before).

- a very false look of sadness. No hint of shock or disbelief IMO

- financial problems and a possible monetary win from an insurance payout.

- the desire for life to carry on as "normal". As someone else said on here once (many threads ago) what is normal about your wife and mother going missing for goodness sake.

- the "dumping" of the body as if it was no longer of any use, like rubbish.

- the apparent lack of love and respect he has shown towards her for a long time- ie, relinquishing her profile to bottom of the page on C21 website

- if truly narcissistic, which I believe he shows himself to be, then he would have very little regard for her as a person or a mother once he considered herself past "useful" as an ego feed for himself. I think he shows this by keeping anything to do with her as if it is of minor concern.

- and lastly, and not really sure how you guys feel about me mentioning this, is the recent "back to normal" weekend he had with friends of the couple and the kids on the GC. How on earth did the friends feel about acting "normal" all weekend? I cant imagine how it would have been.

Just thoughts and observations. Its all so disturbing. I too feel like its taken over my life for the past couple of weeks. I hope someone pays for this crime!!!

These are all really good points - great summary of some disturbing (to normal people) issues.

I'm on the fence atm re pre-mediated or not (but slipping sideways daily).
*Home alone? - maybe
*Insurance evidence if it exists - definitely
*Involvement of 2nd person? maybe a bit more (rationale being that the willingness of a 2nd person to get involved, even if the events of the 19th were spontaneous, could indicate pre-planning)
*Messiness of stories and impression of rush job and panic - maybe not

All the rest of the issues you've raised depict a pathological lack of empathy. I too had a wtf? about "getting the kids back to normal life".

And the more I think about it, the more I find the treatment of Allison's body to be an indication of the murderer's feelings for her - utter callous disregard; just a threat to be disposed of. Does that mean that the living Allison was viewed in that way too?

I think so. People who love and care about someone still fuss over their body after death - you don't instantly start viewing it as rubbish.

If that degree of hatred/disregard existed, then there may have been some pre-planning, or at least fantasising about how to murder her. Whether or not these plans actually came to pass on the night of the 19th, or whether it was more an opportunistic killing (+/- some degree of pre-meditation) is hard to tell.

Something like evidence of insurance policy changes may then turn out to be the deciding factor.

 

[marlywings]

... or maybe they are getting some clues out of this

Somehow I think they were wayyy ahead of everyone..from day 1.

At last report there were 25 detectives working full time on this case...

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Somehow I think they were wayyy ahead of everyone..from day 1.

At last report there were 25 detectives working full time on this case...

Agreed, somehow, I don't think we are going to solve this, as you say. The Police have the numbers, experience, resources and much, much more information regarding the case than we could possibly know.

Thats not to say that people on forums or facebook and the like can't come up with some little piece of information or whatever that may be relevant. but then the advice would always be contact the police(crimestoppers) and that is what Police have been calling for people to do.

 

[Kimster]

Hi all,

As a former journalist (now a media lecturer), I have been following this thread with great interest, however I am concerned about the legalities of most of the discussions. Anything that is said (or alluded to) about any person can result in a defamation action. It doesn't matter whether you name the person or not; it only matters whether the judge feels it is "reasonable" to assume that a discussion relates to the person who is suing. This is why the media have been so careful in their reportage of this event so far. The risks of identifying anyone, or making claims about guilt, are too great. While the laws in the US surrounding freedom of speech are quite liberal, we don't have this same protection in Australia. In this country (Australia), it is also not a legal defence to qualify a statement with "in my opinion". Here's a quote from media law expert Mark Pearson:

If that were the case (regarding the use of IMO), it would be allowable to write such defamatory statements as 'In my opinion, the honourable member is a liar, a cheat, a pervert and a serial killer'. No, the court will allow for opinion ONLY where that opinion can be proven to be based on true (provable) facts.

So this means that if any person under discussion in this thread is found guilty in court then there is no risk of defamation arising from speculation, however if the person is not convicted (for whatever reason - including a "technicality") then that person could sue for defamation. This is why the QPS page is so vigilant about deleting comments. They cannot risk hosting a forum that contains any defamatory comments or they will be held liable (along with the poster of the comment).

I don't know how the situation with a forum like this would differ, and maybe one of the mods could answer? Don't get me wrong - I'm as interested in the details as everyone else, but I just don't want to see any repercussions arise when I know you are all just trying to get to the bottom of this tragedy.

Please note that Websleuths is operating within United States law. On occasion we have had law enforcement from other countries ask us to abide by their laws and we have complied out of respect. The Victoria Stafford case is a perfect example. If Australian authorities ask us to change our rules for a case, it will be reviewed by our management and then complied with, if management agrees that justice is better served.

If there are Australian laws about individual posts, we are not aware of them.

 

[Neuromancer]

I can say that you are definitely NOT wrong. The only time one can enter without permission or warrant and seize......................is if the crime is happening at that given moment. ie man has a gun. ie hear screams in bathroom. etc

If you call the police (which gbc did), they automatically have the right to enter.
It's in the links i gave yesterday re establishment of crime zone.

 

[Kimster]

However....we are just general public and not professional writers, who are writing stories reporting what is happening in the world. We are writing on a forum which is known to be a forum of debate....not likely to be read by the general public and/or believed. I would say it would be a bit like advertising products, advertisers tend to say amazing things, but not taken seriously bc general public expect advertisers to exaggerate.... (there was a court case...cant quote it now...been a while since my uni law days)

I think, that one of us writing in an opinion column might be different....i would expect that may cause issues with shaming and blaming...

anyway...I gotta ask now....Has there ever been any cases where people have actually been sued for their comments on slueth sites as these?



one

The only lawsuits I've heard of have been copyright violations. That is why we allow only 10% of a link to be copied and pasted.

 

[BrizzychickinUSA]

its now 1am here in the usa....so I gotta go to sleep...but, I just thought of something....its to do with the 'trust fund for girls'

To send the girls to Ippy Grammar would be lovely and practical...if their father is found guilty...One would hope that the girls do get to live with Allisons parents...but they are elderly, and wont live forever...so it would be wonderful if the girls had the option of boarding, as IGGS has boarding available....[its pouring outside]....night guys

 

[Kimster]

Mrs Baden-Clay's husband, Gerard, returned to the family's home in the western suburb of Brookfield early this morning before taking his three young daughters to school, the Courier Mail reports.http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8463996/murdered-brisbane-mums-children-return-to-school

I'm sure you guys know about this, but it's really disturbing to me! Why make the girls go to school before the memorial on Friday? And with all the media on this case! It almost seems cruel! Is it just me?

 

[CaseClosed]

Mrs Baden-Clay's husband, Gerard, returned to the family's home in the western suburb of Brookfield early this morning before taking his three young daughters to school, the Courier Mail reports.http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8463996/murdered-brisbane-mums-children-return-to-school

I'm sure you guys know about this, but it's really disturbing to me! Why make the girls go to school before the memorial on Friday? And with all the media on this case! It almost seems cruel! Is it just me?

I agree, however you have to bear in mind that they are only 5, 8 and 10 (I think) and they still live pretty much in a world of their own. Maybe a psychologist has been advising the family on this? Who knows.