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

[UnfoldingTruth]

S.N.A.F.U.

Allisons brother, not Gerards lover to speak publicly.

oh dear..

this is what happens when people yell things to you from the house when one is in the shed.

:floorlaugh: so you are saying its Allisons brother talking tonight?, lol..makes more sense..

 

[Mani]

I'm uncertain but I think he told her that after the fact? But still you're right. Thank goodness she seems to be cooperating with police. Clearly she didn't know him at all. No one did. Not even his family.

All IMO

Well Pulps, it is the worst ultimatum given to anyone in Brisbane this year JMO.....

No apologies for acting like a reformed smoker!

 

[frustrated detective]

... and I wonder if TM is feeling enormous guilt and some level of responsibility for Allison's death, seeing it appears she may have pushed him to commit to a definite deadline.

Bruce O. had probably been leading TM on for a long, long time; promising to leave Allison, calling it off, promising again and so on.

If it was TM who issued the ultimatum for 1 July it was probably because she had finally had enough of being led on. The trauma of frustration, distress, futility, anger ... over and over can be so frustrating.

Bruce O. should just have had the decency to tell her the truth - that he would never be hers.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

If a guy told me that he was going to have to lay low for a while and then his wife went missing, I think I would be seriously questioning his motives IMO and did I really know this person.

Yes, the laying low..seems to mean no remorse to me on his part. On her part I would have to question what was going on and was he involved..Unless of course I knew exactly what he was talking about because I already had prior knowledge of what he was doing or planning or what happend on that night..moo

 

[Trooper]

If a guy who was 41, and was able to choose a name for an alias and he chose to call himself Bruce, that would be cause for uneasiness for me.

 

[Nads]

I agree. I don't think it would be TM if she is a witness and to partake in the trial.. It has to be - I would think someone else..maybe the Sydney woman that was interviewed by police? (The one met at gold coast conference)

Why would someone we don't even know at the moment come forward and put themselved out there to be judged?

So I think it must be TM as she has something to gain ie defending herself.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

A butterfly is a thing of beauty - a grub is a bit of a ground hugging slider of a thing or under leaf eating machine (with all due respect to grubs; I am sure their mothers love them).

Lol..beauty in the eye of the beholder..it could be said all things of nature have beauty.. and the beautiful butterfly was once a grub..

:loveyou:

 

[Bayside]

I dont know if this has been posted before, havent caught up and prob wont lol.

This is the conference Allison was to attend.

http://reiq.informz.net/reiq/data/images/eventpromos/pm_conference_doublepage_a4_cmyk.pdf

 

[memorandumtopartner]

I reckon Gerry was watching the news hosted by Bruce Paige and saw an item regarding Simon Overland and went *bazinga!*

 

[possumheart]

:floorlaugh: so you are saying its Allisons brother talking tonight?, lol..makes more sense..

Anyone know what bat time and what bat channel?

 

[kalamityk]

Ten news has footage of the day at Brookfield NOW

 

[nowvoyager]

I know of barristers who say to their clients, don't tell me if you are guilty or not. I will never ask either. But tell me everything else . . . .

I know this enables the lawyers to do their jobs of arguing for their client to the best of their ability, and I suppose it helps them sleep at night too, but it's something I just can't seem to stomach.

Is this something that lawyers are taught during Law 101? The guilt of your client is not relevant, only whether you can win the case for them or not? Your job is to get them off, period.

Not trying to cast aspersions in any way, I'm just trying to get a handle on the issue of client guilt from the brief's point of view.

Basically, the idea is that, the accused has the right to a trial, and that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the crime "beyond reasonable doubt".
It is not, IMO, a matter of the lawyer being "paid to get the client off" as it might be expressed, but simply to ensure that, the legal process is followed.
That is, that the trial is fair according to the laws of the court.
There should be, an impartial jury, untainted evidence, and a clear finding that is not unfairly prejudiced by the judge.
What I mean is that, even if someone is guilty, this should be established as truth according to the rules (and they go back a loooooong way). Not by a kangaroo court, or by pre-judgement in the papers (or in forums like this), and especially not by fabrication or lies made to fit the facts.
Yes I agree, if a person "got off" by reason of a technicality, it would be awful. But there are apparently people still sitting in jail who have supporters believing they are innocent. What is worse? I honestly don't know. Other than that, a truly guilty person who might escape a prison sentence, probably only escapes incarceration if you know what I mean? Otherwise they are forever bearing their own sentence in their heads and subject to condemnation by a lot of society.
As to the lawyers, well I would say it's a fine line. But , there are ethical rules, even if it's difficult
If a client were to admit guilt, then they are still entitled to be represented - if the lawyers walked away, wouldn't that make it glaringly obvious????
But the lawyers in that case should only be challenging the evidence that is put up against their client, they are not entitled to blame other people or put up immaginery scenarios.
Putting the client on the stand or not, has nothing to do with it.

 

[Trooper]

Stop everyone.. wrong infor mation.

its Allisons brother who is speaking publicly...

NOT ONE OF GERARDS easies.

I GAVE THE WRONG INFORMATION.

heh..

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Why would someone we don't even know at the moment come forward and put themselved out there to be judged?

So I think it must be TM as she has something to gain ie defending herself.

I don't know I was only saying it as I DO NOT believe TM could under law due to being part of the trial and witness...(And who knows regarding someone we don't know, in some peoples minds it may be a misguided chance at fame?)

Anyway, Trooper appears to have misheard, and it is Allisons brother who will be speaking.

 

[nowvoyager]

sorry there was meant to be a link to go with that... a bit long but might explain
http://www.wadsworth.com/criminalju...rces/0534629016_gaines/great_debates/ch9.html

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Stop everyone.. wrong infor mation.

its Allisons brother who is speaking publicly...

NOT ONE OF GERARDS easies.

I GAVE THE WRONG INFORMATION.

heh..

Now Trooper.. you nearly started a revolt!

 

[CaseClosed]

Channel 10 News - Coming up soon fundraising event at Brookfield.

 

[Keentoknow]

I'm uncertain but I think he told her that after the fact? But still you're right. Thank goodness she seems to be cooperating with police. Clearly she didn't know him at all. No one did. Not even his family.

All IMO

Thank God she did roll over. Helps knit everything together.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Anyone know what bat time and what bat channel?

Channel 7. I would guess on the "Sunday Night" program. starts at 6:30 pm

Hmm..maybe its just on 7 news.. at 6PM

 

[Rational]

au contrare... the more I drink, the wittier I become...... at least I think so, this is of course IMO and MOO

Au contraIre ma petite chou chou!!!