NO BAIL! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#27

[J-Diggety]

Because a psychiatric ward is more comfortable than a prison cell, IMO.

Actually worse, less privileges.

 

[marlywings]

he is too stupid to be a sociopath or a psychopath..

I think calling him stupid is being a tad kind to him. There are plenty of stupid people around who make bad/wrong decisions all throughout their lives.But they don't go around killing their spouses. For him to show the desire to be rid of Allison by killing her is one horrific thing in itself but to go to extremes of dumping her body is the work of someone evil...a psychopath!!!

 

[Oz Jen]

:floorlaugh:

The defence has no choice but to state it is weak, whether they believe it or not. If my legal team walked in and said;

"Gee, you blokes have got a cracking case, and the evidence you have against my client is top notch. We're in a bit of strife here"

Id be pretty dirty

We'll be right, justice will be served piping hot.

Brilliant! Cracked me up!!

 

[J-Diggety]

:floorlaugh:

Brilliant! Cracked me up!!

Ta

I originally penned this;

"Gee, you blokes have got a cracking case, and the evidence you have against my client is top notch. We're in a bit of strife here. How about we drop this fella like a disused Mcdonalds wrapper and head to the pub with Danny Boy. My shout, nothing for the accused though, he could be a while....."

 

[BreakingNews]

Oh wow, really? None at all? I'm surprised. Here a woman would receive maintenance if they were a stay-at-home mom for a long period of time.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4130/spousal-maintenance-the-check-is-in-the-mail-or-is.aspx
Yes, there is spousal maintenance, but you can't get blood out of stone.

 

[Jillie]

We do have it; check below

Thx J-D, but personally, I have never heard of a woman being granted spousal maintenance. I repeat, even though I was a stay-at-home-mum of four in the late 90s early 2000s when I went through the Family Law palava, noone ever mentioned that I should/could get it!! I didn't even get a property settlement in the end cos he disappeared with the money!

 

[Rational]

I can't see, based on the evidence released so far, how mental illness could play a significant part in Mr Baden Clay's trial. He seemed to be acting quite rationally and tactically during the period between his wife's disappearance and his arrest. If he did in fact kill her, then his efforts to evade suspicion would seem to indicate that he knew that killing her was wrong.

I think the Brevik matter is setting a dangerous scenario. He just seems, to me, to be a nasty peice of work who needed to get a real job and to spend less time on the net working himself up into a frenzy about the latest social and cuktural folk demons (Muslims and refugees). That's not a expression of mental illness it's just small minded nastiness. His sort shouldn't be explained away as being insane, they need to be tackled head on by rational argument, human decency and attempts at rehab. He's not some crack addicted lost soul who never had a chance in life. If there was a ever a reasonable argument for capital punishment then an unrepentant Brevik is it IMO.

Agree Hawkins, that the Brevik case could set a dangerous precedent, but the fact is that the law applicable to Brevik is that he could only get a maximum sentence of 20 years whereas if declared insane (apparently his worst nightmare and conflicting expert advice) he could be in an institution for life. Capital punishment IMO is not part of civil society, but I do understand that for the damage inflicted onto so many young lives by Brevik , 20 years seems nothing.

It is often tempting to argue in cases that offend the collective conscious so much that we need capital punishment. IMO that would degrade us as a society.
All IMO

 

[Mystique75]

That thought has crossed my mind too, however now that we know that he was a POI early on (as mentioned in the msm yesterday), we could assume that the police would have been keeping him under a tight watch. So would he have been able to go and move the body without being caught?

Apologies if this has been mentioned, but wasn't there a bomb scare at a local school during the time Allison was "missing"? Apparently it was all hands on deck as far as available emergency workers/volunteers. Seems like a possible distraction?

 

[Jesstah]

It costs to lodge a divorce papers. And then he would have maintenence for the girls.. Don't know what he thought though if he thought he was going to get away with murder(allegedly) he still would have to be supporting the girls.

a divorce costs $500 here in oz....obviously there would be more involved with the children etc.....but IMO when he said he couldn't afford a divorce i think he was referring to more than just a financial cost....ie public humiliation etc....maybe ABC parents are loaded and a divorce would cut him out of any of that money....IMO

 

[marlywings]

Agree Hawkins, that the Brevik case could set a dangerous precedent, but the fact is that the law applicable to Brevik is that he could only get a maximum sentence of 20 years whereas if declared insane (apparently his worst nightmare and conflicting expert advice) he could be in an institution for life. Capital punishment IMO is not part of civil society, but I do understand that for the damage inflicted onto so many young lives by Brevik , 20 years seems nothing.

It is often tempting to argue in cases that offend the collective conscious so much that we need capital punishment. IMO that would degrade us as a society.
All IMO

I agree re the 20 years....that horrific case of the little Aussie girl Zahra Baker...her killer was sentenced to a mere 18years.

It should be standard life sentence...where life means life, none of this "good behaviour" parole crap. Lock them up & throw away the key...never to be released.

 

[Jillie]

I agree re the 20 years....that horrific case of the little Aussie girl Zahra Baker...her killer was sentenced to a mere 18years.

It should be standard life sentence...where life means life, none of this "good behaviour" parole crap. Lock them up & throw away the key...never to be released.

What, then, is all the "Truth in Sentencing" that the pollies raved on about some years back. Doesn't 'Life' mean life yet??? I seriously thought that all that had changed.:banghead:

 

[Jillie]

...maybe ABC parents are loaded and a divorce would cut him out of any of that money....IMO

Although we don't know in the case of Allison, it reminds me of something one of my ex's siblings told me years later (after divorce) that he had whispered-slyly-whilst-chuckling-nastily (cant say s****** here - racial vilification obviously) to them at our Engagement Party "Her family is loaded, I'll never have to worry again!"

Well, afterwards he found out that "her" family wasn't "loaded" and didn't he get crapped off!?

 

[Curiousasacat]

Stole this from "the other" forum.
Can anyone elaborate?

Queensland Courts web-site the following came up as the material filed in relation to the bail application:

Doc no Date filed Document type Document description Filed on behalf of
1 14/06/2012 Application (Originating) Applicant
2 21/06/2012 Affidavit of GR BADEN CLAY Applicant
3 21/06/2012 Affidavit of GR BADEN CLAY exhibit C vol 1 Applicant
4 21/06/2012 Affidavit of GR BADEN CLAY exhibit C vol 2 Applicant
5 21/06/2012 Affidavit of GR BADEN CLAY exhibit C vol 3 Applicant
6 21/06/2012 Affidavit of GR BADEN CLAY exhibit C vol 4 Applicant
7 21/06/2012 Affidavit of GR BADEN CLAY exhibit D Applicant
8 21/06/2012 Affidavit PA NEGEREVICH Respondent
9 21/06/2012 Affidavit PJ RODDICK Respondent
10 21/06/2012 Affidavit PB CRANNA Applicant
11 21/06/2012 Affidavit TE CRANNA Applicant
12 21/06/2012 Affidavit IL THOMAS Applicant
13 21/06/2012 Affidavit P NEGEREVICH Respondent
14 22/06/2012 List of Documents Applicant
15 22/06/2012 List of Documents Respondent

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/

http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esear...Location=BRISB&Court=Supre&Filenumber=3259/11

 

[Champagne4lulu]

Actually worse, less privileges.

Can you explain what it's like? I have no idea!

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Meanwhile, TM does not really look like a classic femme fatale.. JMO.

They never do!

 

[Jesstah]

Lololol .....oh God.

i know this might be out of line but when i read your signature comment about olivia, i feel uncomfortable. If your brother was accused of murder wouldn't you believe him first and then once evidence was presented wouldn't you feel shame and guilt and a number of other horrible emotions? i think we should leave her out of it....her life will never be the same again and any bad karma she generates by assisting his finances is her own....when it comes to family you automatically support them....its human nature....thats just MO....you write what you like....

 

[Jillie]

In response to CuriousasaCat, Not sure myself but this is what Wikipaedia says:

"A respondent is a person who is called upon to issue a response to a communication made by another. In legal usage, this specifically refers to the defendant in a legal proceeding commenced by a petition, or to an appellee, or the opposing party, in an appeal of a decision by an initial fact-finder. In non-legal or informal usage, the term refers to one who refutes or responds to a thesis or an argument." (my bolding)

Any legal-eagles out there clarify what this means?

 

[J-Diggety]

Can you explain what it's like? I have no idea!

Ina Pysch ward, you're watched 24/7, you can be medicated/treated/restrained at any time, you essentially are deemed not mentally suitable to make any decisions about your own well being; emotional, mental or physical. They decide what they can do to you, when they want and how they want. All within the law of course.

In a jail cell, you do have limited privileges, but you are free to move around the yard, the mess and have certain privileges within your own jail cell. You are locked up, but you make your own life, limited to what available. Its still no picnic and would be hell on earth.

 

[ozazure]

In response to CuriousasaCat, Not sure myself but this is what Wikipaedia says:

"A respondent is a person who is called upon to issue a response to a communication made by another. In legal usage, this specifically refers to the defendant in a legal proceeding commenced by a petition, or to an appellee, or the opposing party, in an appeal of a decision by an initial fact-finder. In non-legal or informal usage, the term refers to one who refutes or responds to a thesis or an argument." (my bolding)

Any legal-eagles out there clarify what this means?

It means the person who doesn't want to be there. i.e. not the person initiating the action, the person responding to it.

 

[Jillie]

They never do!

hahaha...yeh, they always are pretty ordinary in my observation....thinking "Duchess Camilla"

There really is no accounting for men's choices sometimes.