How can GBC appeal? Discussion, links, and documents

[Total]

If I may, I'll respond to both of these posts together (time constraints and they pose similar questions). My apologies for not clarifying my statements this morning, had only just stumbled into work and I have a chronic case of Friday-itis!

Speaking strictly from a personal point of view, I believe that it was open to the jury to convict GBC on the basis of Justice Byrne's directions. The $64,000 question is whether or not Justice Byrne erred in his directions and if the Court of Appeal deems this to be so, whether a verdict of acquittal is substituted (in which case there would be no retrial) or whether the CoA finds that while Justice Byrne may have erred, it is still open to a jury to convict if/when properly instructed in which case a retrial would be ordered.

Essentially the appellant contends that certain evidence is so critical to tying all of the other circumstantial evidence together, that these individual pieces of evidence must be proved to the highest legal standard and the jury should have been directed in kind (the Shepherd Direction). Byrne QC noted this in his closing address but Justice Byrne made no such order in his directions (and thus 2/4 grounds of appeal).

Think of it like a 5000 piece puzzle, there are thousands of individual pieces but only 4 corner pieces. Even before you begin the puzzle, you know if you cannot locate each and every one of these 4 pieces that the puzzle cannot be completed. It's true that other pieces may ultimately prove to be missing but the corners are the only pieces that you know from the outset that must be present and without all 4 of them, the puzzle is doomed to be incomplete. The defence submits that the blood in the Captiva is a corner piece and the acceptance of this evidence must be subject to the highest standard, beyond reasonable doubt. Not a great analogy I know, but hopefully you can understand where I am heading with this. Whether Justice Byrne disagreed or it was simply an oversight I don't know, but it will now be up to the CoA to make the call.

For the prosecution to prove their circumstantial case beyond reasonable doubt, the jury must have accepted the prosecution version of events in which GBC took Allison's body to Kholo Creek in the Captiva as the only rational inference. The blood is vital because -

- Nobody saw or heard GBC murdering Allison at the BC residence.
- Nobody saw him place Allison in the Captiva.
- Nobody saw GBC leave that night.
- Nobody saw him en route to Kholo Creek.
- Nobody saw him dispose of Allison's body at the scene.
- No forensic evidence linking GBC to Kholo Creek was submitted.
- Nobody saw or heard him return home.

The prosecution, in very brief terms, submitted that Allison was smothered at the BC house, was unceremoniously bundled into the Captiva and taken by GBC to the bridge and dumped there. For the case to be successful, which it ultimately was, each and every part of the prosecution argument must have been accepted as the only rational inference that could be made given the evidence available to them. The forensic evidence in the Captiva is the only link to the transportation theory and as such, in my view should have been subject to the highest evidential standard and I believe it fell well short of the required standard. If the jury could not accept that the blood was transferred on the night of the murder beyond reasonable doubt, they must acquit as the chain of circumstantial evidence is then broken and ultimately irreparable (in my view). Is it likely that the blood was the result of happenings on the 19th? It's quite likely but by no means certain beyond reasonable doubt.

It is my own personal view (and many will disagree, that is fine) that Justice Byrne incorrectly directed the jury in relation to ground 2 of the appeal and I'm of the opinion that the appeal must succeed on this basis (and this is disregarding the other 3 grounds). However I do not sit on the Court of Appeal, hell I'm not even a barrister so take my opinion with the largest grain of salt you can possibly find. I truly hope I am wrong but I think it is more likely than not that the verdict will be vacated on appeal.

I would have respectfully snipped but that takes soo long

My issue with your argument is that it seems centred on GBC being placed at Kholo Creek in relation to the appeal. I hope that i am correct as in my understanding the trial has delivered a verdict of guilty on the charge of murder?

Again IMOO there was little in terms of what the crown offerred that was related to Kholo creek. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the second charge of interfering with a corpse disappeared mid trial. My limited view is that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict him on the murder charge, and as sentences are served concurrently there was little to be gained by the crown in pursuing GBC and/or others at Kholo Creek.

However, your reasoning related to certain points and I would like to dissect them one by one:
Nobody saw or heard GBC murdering Allison at the BC residence.

no nobody did, but the crown did not lead that anyone did, rather they provided certain facts (leaves in hair -for that a body would have to have been on the ground ) circumstantial evidence was dog barking and howling and others hearing screams and other noises apart from Ms Apps
- Nobody saw him place Allison in the Captiva.
no, but car doors were reported to have been slammed, the children recalled nothing having been in the Captiva the day before and yet items ready for someone to pick them up had been placed in the car, also Allison's rivulet (not a drop or smear) of blood was found in a very strange position - beneath the fold down back row seats in a six week old car
- Nobody saw GBC leave that night.
No
- Nobody saw him en route to Kholo Creek.
That is questionable as there were witnesses (not called) who saw two vehicles - one with their lights on and another with lights off in the area.
- Nobody saw him dispose of Allison's body at the scene.
No, however Allison's body was found with a jumper sound her neck and according to the autopsy report was found in the position that she was in very shortly after death. Also she was not thrown from the bridge according to expert witnesses, as she would have suffered broken bones or other injuries.
- No forensic evidence linking GBC to Kholo Creek was submitted.
No
- Nobody saw or heard him return home.
No

The above is just in relation to Kholo Creek, and just going though it I can see why the Crown did not pursue this part. The other circumstantial evidence is so damning by and for itself that there was no reason to. And as it was not part of the trial, it will not be able to play any part in the appeal process. As in my limited (non legal background) understanding, only the issues brought to a trial can be part of the appeal.

 

[Total]

JCB
I just want to say good luck with your essay/assignment or thesis.

 

[wakeskate]

If they charge someone else for moving the body to Kholo creek before the appeal is heard, what would happen to this part of the appeal?

(I don't know if they have enough evidence to charge anyone else, but I'm just curious about what would happen if they did).

I know nothing about what would happen if they charged someone else for moving the body, but ...

IMO GBC did the murder and moved the body.
If an accomplice was involved, I can only think of one person, and if they were at all involved it would have been (literally) baby sitting the kids.

I highly doubt there was an accomplice myself. The logistics of making contact, and having two cars moving unnoticed or unheard through the night would be so much harder than one. (even the captiva was caught on camera, but it just wasn't a clear enough ID to put forward as evidence which is why they interviewed people at the round-a-bout the thursday night after the body was found)
There would have been some contact between the two as well, which is generally recorded somewhere. (I remember early in the investigation there was something about a "facetime" call, but I thought they mixed up UTC and UTC+10 which meant the call was not during the window of the crime)

My guess is GBC would have just waited until the early hours of that morning and snuck out.
As a kid between those ages, I never bothered my parents when they were sleeping.

 

[JCB]

Again IMOO there was little in terms of what the crown offerred that was related to Kholo creek

Apologies for singling out the above snippet but as I'm half asleep, I thought I'd address the above and address the rest over the weekend

Yes there was precious little evidence and therein lies the crux of the argument.

The chain analogy cited previously is an apt way of describing many circumstantial cases, including (in my opinion) this one. If we disregard motive, which need not be established to find a person guilty anyway, the prosecution chain, at its simplest looks something like this.

Link 1 - The BC children gave evidence that their mother was alive when they went to bed on the night of the 19th.
Link 2 - GBC murdered Allison at some point during the night at the BC residence, probably by smothering.
Link 3 - GBC transported Allison's body and left her at a point adjacent to the Kholo Creek bridge.
Link 4 - GBC placed his phone on charge during the early hours of the 20th.
Link 5 - Allison's body was discovered on the 30th.

As (correctly) directed by Justice Byrne, in a circumstantial case, the jury must not only be satisfied that a rational inference can be made that supports the Crown case, it must be the only rational inference given the circumstances. Remembering that the defence need not put forward a plausible, or indeed any alternative scenario. The fact that the suicide theory was obviously discounted by the jury need not preclude them from considering other alternative possibilities.

As per Shepherd

On the other hand, it may sometimes be necessary or desirable to identify those intermediate facts which constitute indispensable links in a chain of reasoning towards an inference of guilt. Not every possible intermediate conclusion of fact will be of that character. If it is appropriate to identify an intermediate fact as indispensable it may well be appropriate to tell the jury that that fact must be found beyond reasonable doubt before the ultimate inference can be drawn

The defence is arguing, amongst other things, that the Captiva evidence is indispensable to the Crown case. If this evidence is discounted on the basis of it failing to meet the reasonable doubt burden of proof then what other reliable evidence is there that GBC did in fact drive Allison's body to the creek and dispose of it in the manner that the Crown suggested? Plant material found in Allison's hair only establishes that said material probably originated from the BC property. Outside of the blood, the Crown offered nothing else of probative value in regards to the Captiva.

No evidence was led that anyone witnessed GBC taking Allison's body to the bridge and likewise nothing forensically linked him to the site where she was found.

Can the only rational inference be consistent with the prosecution version of events if there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that places Alison in the Captiva the night in question or GBC anywhere in the vicinity of the route or site at the time? Please remember that this is a presumptive scenario, one which serves to demonstrate the importance of the Captiva evidence in the prosecution chain of events. If it is to be excluded, one could argue that numerous other inferences would be open to a jury to consider and therefore the prosecution version of events may not be the only rational inference if the jury was appropriately directed. I can think of at least 3 distinct possibilities, for obvious reasons I won't list them here but there are plenty of intelligent members here who I'm sure can put 2 and 2 together and form their own opinions (as would have been the case with members of the jury).

It is my opinion, and my opinion only, that if the Captiva evidence was to be excluded, the prosecution case may well have been irreparably damaged and as such, it should have been the subject of a Shepherd Direction.

This is moving into contentious and complex legal areas and I don't expect that everyone, or anyone for that matter, shares my opinion or concern but consider it merely an attempt to give some insight into the reasons for one of the grounds of appeal. <modsnip>referring to the Court of Appeal as the CoA, I'm obviously aware that this is not the abbreviated title but I refer to it in this manner for the sake of clarity on the assumption that many people would have no idea what I was referring to if I kept citing the QCA.

Ultimately we are all, myself included, indulging in speculation until the appeal is heard which I hope for the sake of everyone involved is in the not too distant future (perhaps in the first half of 2015).

http://netk.net.au/Australia/Burrell7.asp

 

[Total]

originally posted by JBC
Apologies for singling out the above snippet but as I'm half asleep, I thought I'd address the above and address the rest over the weekend

Yes there was precious little evidence and therein lies the crux of the argument.

The chain analogy cited previously is an apt way of describing many circumstantial cases, including (in my opinion) this one. If we disregard motive, which need not be established to find a person guilty anyway, the prosecution chain, at its simplest looks something like this.

Link 1 - The BC children gave evidence that their mother was alive when they went to bed on the night of the 19th.
Link 2 - GBC murdered Allison at some point during the night at the BC residence, probably by smothering.
Link 3 - GBC transported Allison's body and left her at a point adjacent to the Kholo Creek bridge.
Link 4 - GBC placed his phone on charge during the early hours of the 20th.
Link 5 - Allison's body was discovered on the 30th.

As (correctly) directed by Justice Byrne, in a circumstantial case, the jury must not only be satisfied that a rational inference can be made that supports the Crown case, it must be the only rational inference given the circumstances. Remembering that the defence need not put forward a plausible, or indeed any alternative scenario. The fact that the suicide theory was obviously discounted by the jury need not preclude them from considering other alternative possibilities.

JCB
I think the chain is much longer, as argued by the crown, evident in the matters agreed between the prosecution and the crown, and other circumstantial evidence provided that clearly go to establishing a strong rope that establish (according to the verdict) means motive and opportunity beyond reasonable doubt. I have given it a quick go .

Link A. GBC was in significant financial difficulties, had re established his affair with TM (whilst still pretending to try and save his marriage by attending counselling with his wife Allison). He told TM in an email that he would be with her unconditionally on July 1, 2012 and that she should 'leave things to me now'.

Link B. Allison had been in touch with the Life Insurance Company to reduce her cover. In addition the instalments on the insurance had fallen due and the policy would become null and void by the 11th of May, unless payment was received. Interest payments on his loans from his 3 friends were overdue and the payments for the purchase if the rent roll from his previous partners was also overdue and needed to be paid by 30 June. Also Allison, in addition to her work with the ballet classes, resilience training for children, had started work as the GM in the business. The three partners who loaned GBC the money had been very happy with that.

link C. On 18 April, just after having his credit card rejected at the shop, with Allison only having $20 available and them being 'on the bones if their arses'. He received a number of calls from TM demanding that GBC tell Allison not to go to the conference as TM wanted to attend, creating a big dilemma for him.

Link D. The counsellor they had seen on the Monday had advised them to have a 15 minute session a few times a week for Allison to ask questions and say whatever she needed to say about the affair (which Allison thought was finished but had re started), and GBC needed to listen and answer the questions. It is still not clear if this in fact happened on the 18th or 19th of April.

Link 1 - The BC children gave evidence that their mother was alive when they went to bed on the night of the 19th.

Link E. The children gave evidence that they last saw their mother wearing her pjs watching TV on the lounge, GBC wearing shoes and ironing, GBC not having any scratches and the back of the Captiva not having any toys in the back as they were left downstairs for someone to pick them up.

Link 2 - GBC murdered Allison at some point during the night at the BC residence, probably by smothering.

Link F Allison's body was found at Kholo Creek with leaves in her hair and body, four of the species were only found in and around BCs residence at Brookfield. The autopsy report stated that the post mortem results showed that she had died on the 19th of April or early on the 20th of April and that her body was placed in that position close to the time of death.

Link 3 - GBC transported Allison's body and left her at a point adjacent to the Kholo Creek bridge.

Link G. Blood matching Allison's DNA was found in the back of the Captiva. The Captiva was found on the morning of the 20th of April with toys packed in the back of the car (the eldest child stated in her recorded evidence that the first time she had seen this was on the photo of the car.

Link H. GBC had changed his regular 3S routine to make the Shaving his last and was seen by one of the children to come out of the bathroom dressed but with shaving foam on his face and then told the children he cut himself shaving, after revealing the gouges on his face.

Link 4 - GBC placed his phone on charge during the early hours of the 20th.

Link I. From the time Allison went missing GBCs calls to and from TM were documented and showed that from the 20th of April they called each other regularly.

Link J. GBC lawyered up within hours of police arriving (as is his right), did not participate in the search, told TM 'they had to lay low'

Link 5 - Allison's body was discovered on the 30th.

Link K. GBC called the insurance company about the payout before the body found was identified as Allison's.

IMO. This is a pretty strong rope that will not see an appeal succeed as there are too many pieces tying it together and was regarded by the jury as being sufficient evidence to make the only rational explanation that GBC had murdered Allison. As for transporting Allison's remains to Kholo Creek and dumping her body, this was not lead by the Crown and I would not be surprised to see more charges in relation to this. As such, arguing that your links are sufficient for an appeal to succeed is IMO not taking all the evidence provided at the trial into consideration, is focussing on an aspect that the jury was not asked to consider, and is leaving out the critical elements of the case.

 

[FormerDet]

While I think we all agree that GBC is guilty, looking at that evidence chain it does look like the jury did a lot of the heavy lifting in this trial. Having said that I don't think the appeal will be successful.

 

[JK673]

Pretty sure the Crown will have anticipated this before trial. We all knew he would appeal that is what he is like. Can't see him winning.

 

[Onlyone]

Thanks Total, I was having the same thought processes but not the skill to post it as well
I wanted to ask - the captiva photo, no number plates but loads of measuring went on. Looking for height of driver? Looking for height of passenger? What if it showed two heads? If the Crown has no proof of collaboration, maybe they didn't want to introduce this photo. If we know about it, does that mean the Defence wouldn't let it be used. However the blood is the link between her being placed in the boot bleeding.
The jury did a sterling job, there is no other explanation. As to how she got to the bridge... I though it was interesting that the one thing that burned him was the suggestion he might have left the girls alone that night. I don't think he did.
Let the appeal process pass quickly for the girls security.
I gaureentee following that he will find God, confess (self defence - push - head injury - panicked - all for the girls) and set himself up for earliest parole.
How do I get on the parole board?

 

[Total]

Thanks Total, I was having the same thought processes but not the skill to post it as well
I wanted to ask - the captiva photo, no number plates but loads of measuring went on. Looking for height of driver? Looking for height of passenger? What if it showed two heads? If the Crown has no proof of collaboration, maybe they didn't want to introduce this photo. If we know about it, does that mean the Defence wouldn't let it be used. However the blood is the link between her being placed in the boot bleeding.
The jury did a sterling job, there is no other explanation. As to how she got to the bridge... I though it was interesting that the one thing that burned him was the suggestion he might have left the girls alone that night. I don't think he did.
Let the appeal process pass quickly for the girls security.
I gaureentee following that he will find God, confess (self defence - push - head injury - panicked - all for the girls) and set himself up for earliest parole.
How do I get on the parole board?

Hahahah Only...one of my friends is known for telling people who knock on her door to ask if she wants to find god '...I know where God is, he is in Arthur Gorrie goal, because everyone who goes there says that they have found God...so please leave me alone.'

As for your questions regarding the photos at the roundabout, I simply don't know as I have not seen he photos.

 

[JCB]

JCB
I think the chain is much longer

No doubt about it but as I noted in my post, it was an extremely simplistic demonstration on my part. It was a complex trial and the appeal is based on a complex question of law, if we were to go into specifics we would wind up with 20,000 word posts! Just my humble attempt to explain the rationale behind the appeal to those who may be interested. I think at least 2 of the 4 grounds have merit, and others believe that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and that is fine, we are all perfectly entitled to our opinions

Pretty sure the Crown will have anticipated this before trial. We all knew he would appeal that is what he is like. Can't see him winning.

I'm sure they anticipated the unsafe and unsatisfactory part of the appeal (as pretty much everyone did), but no one could have anticipated the other 3 grounds as they occurred during directions to the jury. The appeal does not contend that there was any appealable defect in the Crown case outside of the verdict being unreasonable, it really was a very "clean" trial and the appeal grounds are evidence of that.

 

[Greg]

Respectfully snipped by me.

Having said all that, I am sure that the BCs will leave no stone unturned as IMO this is not just a matter for GBC, trying to get the verdict squashed or overturned is a self preservation matter for those within the family who I believe we're involved in the second charge (that somehow fell of the wagon during the trial, for which no adequate explanation has appeared in the MSM ). My gut feeling tells me, keep denying and appealing, which keeps the focus on the trial and on GBC, as this keeps the focus away from NBC and OBW. They are desperate people acting in desperate ways and sadly using up a lot of taxpayers money in the process. Even if the are unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal they will try and find a way and means to appeal further.

There is not just one person involved in denial but a family in denial. Justice will be served.

Of course I completely agree with the above.

 

[~Katie~]

I know nothing about what would happen if they charged someone else for moving the body, but ...

IMO GBC did the murder and moved the body.
If an accomplice was involved, I can only think of one person, and if they were at all involved it would have been (literally) baby sitting the kids.

I highly doubt there was an accomplice myself. The logistics of making contact, and having two cars moving unnoticed or unheard through the night would be so much harder than one. (even the captiva was caught on camera, but it just wasn't a clear enough ID to put forward as evidence which is why they interviewed people at the round-a-bout the thursday night after the body was found)
There would have been some contact between the two as well, which is generally recorded somewhere. (I remember early in the investigation there was something about a "facetime" call, but I thought they mixed up UTC and UTC+10 which meant the call was not during the window of the crime)[/I agree with you about an accomplice- I no longer think someone else was involved. But the possibility of the kids waking was actually what made me initially wonder about whether he'd risk leaving them.

My guess is GBC would have just waited until the early hours of that morning and snuck out.
As a kid between those ages, I never bothered my parents when they were sleeping.

BBM

I think my judgement is a bit clouded on the leaving the kids at home bit because my kids wake often. My children are the same age as ABC/GBC's children were when it happened and they've always been so random with their waking and coming in. Every now and then one will have a nightmare and come straight into our room, and if we ever left them home alone there'd be a very good chance they'd wake (and be in an absolute panic if they couldn't find us). So my initial thoughts were that the risks were too great for GBC to leave the kids at home.

But it's interesting that you mention never disturbing your parents at that age. I wonder if ABC/GBC's children were the same, or maybe GBC perhaps had a rule that they weren't allowed to come into their parents room during the night and/or they kept their door shut, not to be disturbed, so for him it was a very low risk of the children finding out that he'd left the house?

It's something I've been struggling with- why I think GBC was capable of murder, yet I just can't picture him leaving the kids alone for an hour or so (I know it doesn't any make sense!)

 

[wakeskate]

So my initial thoughts were that the risks were too great for GBC to leave the kids at home.

Yes, in normal peoples lives this is true. But remember he just killed his wife. The risks of someone finding that out would far outweigh the kids waking up.
The eldest was 12 I think. I feel she is sensible/smart enough to calm the others if it did happen and try to call mum/dad/grandparents etc.
I feel their safety wasn't in danger. In fact having the only murderer in probably a 50km radius away from them probably made it safer relatively speaking.
I still this that is a moot point anyway, as murdering your wife kinda trumps leaving your kids at home for a few hours in the early hours of the morning.

But it's interesting that you mention never disturbing your parents at that age. I wonder if ABC/GBC's children were the same, or maybe GBC perhaps had a rule that they weren't allowed to come into their parents room during the night and/or they kept their door shut, not to be disturbed, so for him it was a very low risk of the children finding out that he'd left the house?

That is how it was in our place. My dad worked very early mornings, so both my parents were up by 4am every work day.
At that age I was in bed before them, but it was just sort of known not to wake my parents unless it was important.
Mum however knew exactly when we were at the door. A small whisper through the door and she would answer or get up. I guess mums are just tuned to their kids voices.

But anyway, our parents room was off limits when the door was closed as dad worked early hours

 

[Whirligig]

I found this article interesting. An argument is put forward (by a Qld lawyer) that circumstantial evidence can make a case harder to defend than one with direct witnesses, and that the circumstantial nature of the evidence in this case has been to the advantage to the prosecution:

"When asked why circumstantial cases are often considered weaker than those with direct evidence Mr Magill replied: "There's nothing direct - no smoking gun".

"In a shooting the prosecution might have the gun or have found the gun on someone but in this case there's no real scientific evidence that says Mr Baden-Clay did it," he said.

"Reaching a guilty verdict is easier if there is direct evidence but that can often depend on the credibility of a witness and a witness is only as good as their credibility.

"The defence will want to discredit a direct witness and if they do so they can be seen as unreliable and can affect the entire case."

The circumstantial evidence is factual and the ability of the prosecution to construct a scenario where all those facts incriminate one suspect makes a case like this difficult to defend. "

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...e-proved-powerful/5604348?WT.ac=statenews_qld

 

[~Katie~]

The jury did a sterling job, there is no other explanation.
As to how she got to the bridge... I though it was interesting that the one thing that burned him was the suggestion he might have left the girls alone that night. I don't think he did.

BBM Yep I noticed that too, onlyone

JCB, while we disagree about another person being involved in moving the body (I'm still undecided), I agree with you about ground two and was surprised the direction about the blood wasn't given to the jury prior to deliberations.

Also regarding ground three, if I were on the jury and received the additional direction that was specified in the appeal, it would have been crucial.

I'm unable to believe beyond reasonable doubt that GBC was the person that placed ABC's body at Kholo creek, and as I mentioned in an earlier thread, while I would have been able to find the murder charge proven beyond reasonable doubt, I would not have found the interference with a corpse charge proven beyond reasonable doubt. I know there are a couple of other people here on WS who also can't be certain that he was the one who moved the body, and if there had've some jury members who also felt this way, and were given this direction, the outcome may have been different.

I'm hopeful that the appeal isn't successful, but I've been surprised by decisions in the past. I really thought Keli Lane's appeal (another circumstantial case) would be successful, particularly on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable and also after Justice Whealy revealed his doubts over the verdict but I was wrong.

 

[BreakingNews]

I wonder what time frame we are looking at for the appeal. Anyone know?

 

[marlywings]

I wonder what time frame we are looking at for the appeal. Anyone know?

One case that comes to mind is Sica. He was found guilty in July 2012. He filed the appeal a couple of weeks later, it didn't make it to court until Sept 2013 when it was dismissed.

I'm sure media will bring it to our attention whenever GBC's comes up, probably some time next year.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

They won't let me have my phone ;-)

BBM

I think my judgement is a bit clouded on the leaving the kids at home bit because my kids wake often. My children are the same age as ABC/GBC's children were when it happened and they've always been so random with their waking and coming in. Every now and then one will have a nightmare and come straight into our room, and if we ever left them home alone there'd be a very good chance they'd wake (and be in an absolute panic if they couldn't find us). So my initial thoughts were that the risks were too great for GBC to leave the kids at home.

But it's interesting that you mention never disturbing your parents at that age. I wonder if ABC/GBC's children were the same, or maybe GBC perhaps had a rule that they weren't allowed to come into their parents room during the night and/or they kept their door shut, not to be disturbed, so for him it was a very low risk of the children finding out that he'd left the house?

It's something I've been struggling with- why I think GBC was capable of murder, yet I just can't picture him leaving the kids alone for an hour or so (I know it doesn't any make sense!)

bbm
I think so!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

He's a widdle bit hurt
He didn't do it, cause OW said he didn't
They don't offer 'mail bag making' courses here anymore
I have to dress myself
No one likes me
But I'm a B-C

APPEAL!!!
Grounds for appeal=
Missing mummy and daddy
Doesnt like communal showers
All the other men are naughty!
Crying at night
Its just not fair!
I needed the money

I am missing my mistress, which I didn't ever love and only always had to placate and only had as an object for enough sex.

(Trying to make my 1. multiquoted post. :smile

 

[Anonthemouse]

BBM

I think my judgement is a bit clouded on the leaving the kids at home bit because my kids wake often. My children are the same age as ABC/GBC's children were when it happened and they've always been so random with their waking and coming in. Every now and then one will have a nightmare and come straight into our room, and if we ever left them home alone there'd be a very good chance they'd wake (and be in an absolute panic if they couldn't find us). So my initial thoughts were that the risks were too great for GBC to leave the kids at home.

But it's interesting that you mention never disturbing your parents at that age. I wonder if ABC/GBC's children were the same, or maybe GBC perhaps had a rule that they weren't allowed to come into their parents room during the night and/or they kept their door shut, not to be disturbed, so for him it was a very low risk of the children finding out that he'd left the house?

It's something I've been struggling with- why I think GBC was capable of murder, yet I just can't picture him leaving the kids alone for an hour or so (I know it doesn't any make sense!)

Hi Katie,
I think if we can take on board the strict way that he parented those kids, then I can guarantee you that no matter what, they would not have gone into their parent's bedroom late at night. I speak of course, from my own experience, but when my father was home (business trips were pretty rare) that there was NO WAY that I would have been able to go in their room NO MATTER WHAT.
Of course I went the other way and am still hoping that my near 12 year old will finally outgrow sleeping on our floor from time to time :facepalm: