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

[Obsessor]

that weekend has bugged me for days!! what exactly did they do? I can't picture a weekend with friends, acting normal...all I can accept from that is that it would be nice for the girls, maybe that would be enough but its bugged me all the same

Glad I wasnt there trying to act normal. I did think it would have been nice for the girls, but wow, it wouldnt have been easy....

 

[Blue Bottle]

I had a new land cruiser...still didnt shine up like that....and

your a bloke - yeah??? if you are, you probably dont do the shopping like us women, or get kids in and out the back like women have to...not only does the ball thingy bang you on your thigh, but it bites the kids too...its a bloody pain in the arse...in a ute, you dont tend to put shopping in the back...cos it all falls out of bags and rolls around etc...in a prado...(had one of them too) you open the door from the side...and have to manage the heavy bags etc in the shopping centre car parks like indro, its all dark and you hit your leg on it...but i just remember what it was like and if ABC is driving prado....cos she has the kids more...then that ball thing would be off....IMHO

Nope... female.... who does all the shopping and carting about, even the cases of beer for the blokes coz you know, I have a ute and it all fits in there. Including 30ks of chook food and straw bales and trips to the tip. I even have a roof rack thingy I can fit at the back of the ute to carry loads of long timber and so on. I save heaps on delivery charges.

I've simply learnt to avoid the tow bar and tow ball contraption. Even with the tow ball off, it sticks out heaps.

 

[laserdisc10]

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.

I'm sure you mean well. However, one or two individuals in particular have been spamming several fora in which the ABC case is being HOTLY debated and discussed, warning about 'defamation'

In those fora, people have basically told the well-meaning individual to get lost - to quit trying to silence the public - and to quit trying to assume control (the suspicion being that the individual in question is primarily a control-freak who has no particular interest in the case and who simply trawls the Net trying to dominate others in order to feed their questionable need to dominiate

If, as you claim, you're a journalist, media-lecturer (nothing personal, but as is said so often, 'People can be anything they like online') then you'd be aware that defamation is extremely difficult to prove. And in order to prove it to the satisfaction of the court, many inconvenient information may be uncovered about the complainant. Should the court be of the opinion that the alleged defamation is nothing of the sort and instead is simply 'normal' discussion and sleuthing by members of the public in response to media and other reports about a horrific murder -- then the complainant bears the costs and may open themselves up to subsequent litigation

Most people in this forum are what a court would doubtless deem to be erring on the side of caution - are tackling this case responsibly and are mindful of advice provided by the site owners and mods

Thanks for your advice though

 

[Keyboredom]

Person also needs to be read their rights....or else, all they see and do cannot be used in a court of law......sosososos (as shown in tv shows)

That's not quite right (remember the Miranda rights on the tv shows is 'Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law..' - it doesn't work in direct reverse that nothing can be used against people in Court if they hadn't been read their Miranda rights first - eg. if I shot someone in the head, and then got read my rights, the fact I shot someone can and would be held against me ;-)

Think it is useful to differentiate between police powers and responsibilities elsewhere versus the fine State of Queensland (Joh set stuff up pretty well for our police force - at least Terry Lewis thought so ).

And also to point out GBC reported a potential missing person case / crime, it would be the height of lunacy to invite police onsite then start being 'difficult'. Not saying it didn't happen, but suggesting hugely unlikely.

This link might be helpful :
http://www.caxton.org.au/pdfs/Police Powers Your Rights.pdf

Section 2.6 page 15 - GBC legally didn't 'have' to say anything (but given he called and reported a missing person, it would have looked very strange if he then claimed his right to silence).

Section 3.3 page 24 - 'do police have to read me my rights?' (they don't)

Section 4.1 page 26 - 'what can I do if police ask to come into my home?'

Section 4.2 page 27 deals with 'reasonable suspicion' that police require in order to enter a property without a warrant. As noted the 'reasonable' bit is up to interpretation. "...just need to be some
fact(s) that would enable a reasonably minded person to conclude
something, such as that a particular person is in that house. The
police offi cer’s suspicion does not ultimately have to be right, but
their suspicion does need to be reasonable."

Section 4.3 page 31 deals with the police rights re. seizing computers etc. This also outlines what needs to happen when "Police have power to stop, detain and search you personally without a warrant".

 

[minni]

I disagree with the tow ball thing, I never take mine off, even though I've skinned my shin a few times LOL, I actually don't know of anyone who does take theirs off, so to me that's not odd at all. Not saying your wrong, but just that it's not necessarily common practice to remove tow balls.

Minni, I think the bin theory could be valid as there is video footage of commercial bins being searched and there have been mentions about them. I think it would make sense to dump stuff and then go oops!
Not necessarily something that would make you call police immediately, but definitely once Allison was reported missing some one might go' oh yeah I did see someone dumping rubbish there'.

what if you saw someone RETRIEVING rubbish from there? I would be included to be very uneasy....especially if it was big

 

[CaseClosed]

I find it hard to believe that they haven't made an arrest if they were certain who did it. Never heard of police putting off arresting someone for any funeral or any other event the cuplrit may have planned. Children or no children.

I could be wrong, but once the police know who the culprit is, it doesn't seem normal to allow a criminal to be still roaming around loose, potentially putting others in danger.

I thought that only a court can determine if someone is allowed out with bail or what sort of a risk they are to the public (or allow to attend a funeral once an arrest is made).

There is no Cause of Death yet. If the forensic investigation had been concluded, am pretty sure the police would have release the COD to the media by now. Without COD, they can't be absolutely sure how she died, hence who could have done it.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I'm sure you mean well. However, one or two individuals in particular have been spamming several fora in which the ABC case is being HOTLY debated and discussed, warning about 'defamation'

In those fora, people have basically told the well-meaning individual to get lost - to quit trying to silence the public - and to quit trying to assume control (the suspicion being that the individual in question is primarily a control-freak who has no particular interest in the case and who simply trawls the Net trying to dominate others in order to feed their questionable need to dominiate

If, as you claim, you're a journalist, media-lecturer (nothing personal, but as is said so often, 'People can be anything they like online') then you'd be aware that defamation is extremely difficult to prove. And in order to prove it to the satisfaction of the court, many inconvenient information may be uncovered about the complainant. Should the court be of the opinion that the alleged defamation is nothing of the sort and instead is simply 'normal' discussion and sleuthing by members of the public in response to media and other reports about a horrific murder -- then the complainant bears the costs and may open themselves up to subsequent litigation

Most people in this forum are what a court would doubtless deem to be erring on the side of caution - are tackling this case responsibly and are mindful of advice provided by the site owners and mods

Thanks for your advice though

Also good points.

 

[BrizzychickinUSA]

Nope... female.... who does all the shopping and carting about, even the cases of beer for the blokes coz you know, I have a ute and it all fits in there. Including 30ks of chook food and straw bales and trips to the tip. I even have a roof rack thingy I can fit at the back of the ute to carry loads of long timber and so on. I save heaps on delivery charges.

I've simply learnt to avoid the tow bar and tow ball contraption. Even with the tow ball off, it sticks out heaps.

yeah it does still stick out....

I guess what I didnt write properly....(its late here...midnight in fact) with land cruisers/prados etc...you have to open that back door and when the ball thing is where the handle for the back door its very annoying....also the kids stand on it to get in and out and if the ball is in they slip off and hurt themselves...especially in their school shoes...and then your putting the shopping in and out of it...

I just remember the thing was way better off than on...

but maybe Its just me that thinks that way? think ill go to sleep now...:doh:

 

[CaseClosed]

very possible, but as awful as this sounds...I was actually thinking maybe he disposed of her (God, sorry again) in the bin in a world of panic, then as time wore on he got his head together and went back to put her somewhere that she wouldn't be found? I try to think what I would do if I had done what he did..and I guess I would want to remove evidence from house ASAP but would not be thinking clearly AT ALL

Those industrial bins are very deep and IMO it would be very difficult to lift a heavy bundle out of them just like that.

 

[frostythesnowman]

Hi everyone, I have been reading your forum which is very interesting. Just a question, the roundabout that they have been conducting tests on, isn't that right near a Century 21 office?

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

There is no Cause of Death yet. If the forensic investigation had been concluded, am pretty sure the police would have release the COD to the media by now. Without COD, they can't be absolutely sure how she dies, hence who could have done it.

I may be wrong Case closed..I did think they stated earlier in the week COD was known to police(but it has not been reported). However they were also waiting on toxicology results.. So maybe you are correct.

 

[ozazure]

I don't think removing the two ball after each use is that common, certainly not common enough that leaving it on there is notable. There's lots of products for protecting your shins out there including the half a tennis ball trick.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Hi everyone, I have been reading your forum which is very interesting. Just a question, the roundabout that they have been conducting tests on, isn't that right near a Century 21 office?

The office in not there anymore, I believe. It moved some time back to Taringa. At least that is what I have gathered(that it was there, but not now)

 

[Limaes]

Thank-you, thank-you! And why I have posted a few times about wild speculations and posting as if its fact that this person did this etc. (obviously even in not naming, but alluding to a person is also a tricky issue). So facts are best. I am not sure if Mods would know in regards to the forum as I believe most may not be up on the intricacies of Australian law. But I could be wrong there.

Great post, thanks for the input.

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.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

that weekend has bugged me for days!! what exactly did they do? I can't picture a weekend with friends, acting normal...all I can accept from that is that it would be nice for the girls, maybe that would be enough but its bugged me all the same

I think it would definitely be something done for the girls benefit. Maybe he just needed to get them out of Brisbane and all that is going on here regarding the case.

 

[Humdinger]

what if you saw someone RETRIEVING rubbish from there? I would be included to be very uneasy....especially if it was big

Yeah for sure, if I saw someone retrieving rubbish I'd no doubt even drive back past for another look and possibly write down details, unless of course they looked like they were homeless.

 

[CaseClosed]

that weekend has bugged me for days!! what exactly did they do? I can't picture a weekend with friends, acting normal...all I can accept from that is that it would be nice for the girls, maybe that would be enough but its bugged me all the same

Could be a Freemason's get-together?

 

[Keyboredom]

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.

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.

 

[brookster]

Glad I wasnt there trying to act normal. I did think it would have been nice for the girls, but wow, it wouldnt have been easy....

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.

 

[Hillsdon]

Just wanted to point out something with the photos of the car in the previous thread (not sure how to copy them here); but the marks on the bonnet appear to be paint. There was a photo of the other car on the driveway (will try and find it; it's the one where the word "SHE" is marked out on the driveway, by what appears to be a high pressure spray) and there appears to be more paint on the driveway.
Not sure it's relevant to this matter, but could be a good excuse to be washing the car when the police arrived.

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=b...8&start=52&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:52,i:291

WASHING THE CAR WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED? How do we know this?