NO BAIL! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#29

[itsthevibe]

I thought it was a defendants right to be aware of all of the evidence and findings before the hearing to prepare his defence? Am I wrong? Maybe..?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but they dont have to reveal all the evidence for the bail hearing, only enough to achieve the result they wanted which was to prevent him getting bail. Then there is the committal hearing - I'm not sure but I think this is where it is decided that there is a case to answer? Again I think it's the same as with the bail hearing, the prosecution only have to reveal enough to show there is a case to answer, not all of the evidence they have for the entire case.

The case itself may not be for at least 18 months, maybe longer. so I'm not sure at what time the full disclosure of evidence has to occur. Is it at the time the date of a hearing is set?

And then if more information comes to hand during the trial, which it sometimes does (eg someone who knew something who didnt come forward during the early days might finally decide to do so), then does that have to be released as it is discovered?

Hopefully one of our legal eagles can enlighten us to the official process, this is just my laypersons understanding of it.

 

[Blue Bottle]

So who does she think the killer could be? If it was my friend I would ask...

To my understanding, TM is to be a witness during the trial and it wouldn't be in her interest, nor would she be advised to divulge any information to anyone outside of the trial.

 

[Makara]

Where was this claim that there were no visible signs of trauma found made and who were the reporters quoting? Was it referred to in any of the affidavit material at the bail hearing? Apart from the assertions of defense counsel in relation to a chipped tooth did any of the court material published mention the tooth?

Ah Hawkins, the voice of logic. :rocker: From memory the reports of no visible signs of trauma came from the Courier Mail. :banghead: The same tabloid that reported that Allison went for a walk at 10:00pm, went for a walk at 6:00am, went for a walk at 7:30am. The very same tabloid that reported that GBC refused to submit an affidavit for his bail hearing. Need I go on?

I had been wracking my brain about the so called 'no visible signs of trauma' combined with MSM reports of the police knowing almost immediately what was the cause of death. It just doesn't gel! I personally would like to see these so called crime investigative reporters grow some grunt and ask the real questions or elsewise state that there is no comment at this stage from investigators.

 

[ActusReus]

Can anyone share their reasoning as to the suggestion that investigators have not established a likely cause of death in this case? If that has been reported in the press, has any support for that suggestion been put forward by reporters? It seems highly unlikely to me that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the likely cause of death.

Purely a hypothesis at this stage but I believe the absence of a cause of death is due to the fragility of the available evidence.

IMO investigators have a good idea of what occurred but is just not conclusive enough. Rather than risk exposing any weakness to the defence, they would be looking to secure other forms of evidence to back up what they have or, alternatively discount other possibilities the defence might point to.

This is why I believe the discovery of the call between the accused and his father is of great benefit to the prosecutors. It exposes a chink in the armour that may lead to the corroborating evidence they are looking for in other areas including cause of death.

Having said that I thought the father might have cracked by now. I'll grudgingly acknowledge how mentally tough they all are. I've seen people crack under alot less pressure than this.

 

[Hawkins]

Hmm ... I understand your comment, however, to refer to the same example you have put forward, Harold Holt's death was declared an accidental drowning, but some people still believe he was murdered. Without a witness and the body, I guess we can never be certain of what really happy. I am a firm believer that the body tells a story, and yes, in some cases the body cannot clearly tell the whole story and other evidence will complete the picture. In some murder cases the conclusion has also been that the cause of death cannot be determined. IMO.

Yes all good points. It's just a matter of contexts. I am absolutely certain that Harold Holt drowned. That doesn't mean he did. And you are right that the cause of death doesn't need to be proved for a murder charge just to succeed. Only that the accused was responsible for the death.

 

[Elspeth]

Purely a hypothesis at this stage but I believe the absence of a cause of death is due to the fragility of the available evidence.

IMO investigators have a good idea of what occurred but is just not conclusive enough. Rather than risk exposing any weakness to the defence, they would be looking to secure other forms of evidence to back up what they have or, alternatively discount other possibilities the defence might point to.

This is why I believe the discovery of the call between the accused and his father is of great benefit to the prosecutors. It exposes a chink in the armour that may lead to the corroborating evidence they are looking for in other areas including cause of death.

Having said that I thought the father might have cracked by now. I'll grudgingly acknowledge how mentally tough they all are. I've seen people crack under alot less pressure than this.

ActusReus...Do you believe there is a possiblity they are innocent or not?? As you say one has seen people crack under much less pressure than this..

 

[Hawkins]

I'd be surprised if the chipped tooth didn't happen post mortem.

 

[CaseClosed]

I thought it was a defendants right to be aware of all of the evidence and findings before the hearing to prepare his defence? Am I wrong? Maybe..?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My understanding is that yes, for the Committal Hearing the defence should have been given all the info available in order to prepare their defence with plenty of time.

 

[ActusReus]

Yes, but they dont have to reveal all the evidence for the bail hearing, only enough to achieve the result they wanted which was to prevent him getting bail. Then there is the committal hearing - I'm not sure but I think this is where it is decided that there is a case to answer? Again I think it's the same as with the bail hearing, the prosecution only have to reveal enough to show there is a case to answer, not all of the evidence they have for the entire case.

The case itself may not be for at least 18 months, maybe longer. so I'm not sure at what time the full disclosure of evidence has to occur. Is it at the time the date of a hearing is set?

And then if more information comes to hand during the trial, which it sometimes does (eg someone who knew something who didnt come forward during the early days might finally decide to do so), then does that have to be released as it is discovered?

Hopefully one of our legal eagles can enlighten us to the official process, this is just my laypersons understanding of it.

The accused must be provided with certain things no later than 14 days before a committal hearing and 28 days before a trial. The full details of what the prosecution must hand over to the accused is at Chapter 62 of the QLD Criminal Code.
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/c/crimincode.pdf

 

[Rational]

Yes all good points. It's just a matter of contexts. I am absolutely certain that Harold Holt drowned. That doesn't mean he did. And you are right that the cause of death doesn't need to be proved for a murder charge just to succeed. Only that the accused was responsible for the death.

I always liked the communist sub marine theory. It all just added to the craziness of that decade!

 

[Hawkins]

Purely a hypothesis at this stage but I believe the absence of a cause of death is due to the fragility of the available evidence.

IMO investigators have a good idea of what occurred but is just not conclusive enough. Rather than risk exposing any weakness to the defence, they would be looking to secure other forms of evidence to back up what they have or, alternatively discount other possibilities the defence might point to.

This is why I believe the discovery of the call between the accused and his father is of great benefit to the prosecutors. It exposes a chink in the armour that may lead to the corroborating evidence they are looking for in other areas including cause of death.

Having said that I thought the father might have cracked by now. I'll grudgingly acknowledge how mentally tough they all are. I've seen people crack under alot less pressure than this.

If there is insufficient evidence to establish a cause of death beyond reasonable doubt then, in this case, I don't think that's a major problem for the Crown. All purelyMOO.

 

[Aussie_expat.sg]

I believe because of their financial situation this is why she would have asked this question. Also I believe financial stress was far more behind this terrible tragedy than the affair.

IMO when Allsion found out about the affair she would have been of course hurt/humiliated and said to him remove TM from the office which he did and that surprises me because if Allison was completely suppressed by him I do not believe he would have removed TM, so he must have had some respect for Allison or he simply would not have cared at all.

Also the photo of Allison at the C21 conference. She looks wonderful and this was after she found out about the affair. So I feel instead of going to the pack and feeling sorry for herself about the affair, she has excelled instead in her grooming and looked great and hence regained her confidence in many ways even though she would have still been hurting on the inside she was not showing it on the outside. I feel he would have been more scared of her leaving him than the other way around. I also feel Allison would have wanted to keep the family together because of the girls. Didn't her sister say at the funeral how Allison was always a devoted wife and mother to the end of her life.

In a couple of photos it shows one of the girls clinging to her father and also another poster mentioned how the eldest girl was sitting on his lap at the show. If there was DV in this house and the girls knew their Mother was missing under strange circumstances...would they have been so close to the father if they thought he had mistreated their Mother or ever seen DV in the home. I simply do not know and even though everything points to GBC there are definitely many things which simply do not ring true for me only that it is a terrible tragedy. Also I feel if he intended to make a new life with TM and was that much in love with her, he would have left a long time ago and certainly would not have been concerned about the cost of a divorce etc..I do think he would have borrowed money from TM imo..

I know many will not agree with the above, but they are just questions in my mind that I don't have answers for...

Elspeth, i totally agree. I think Allison was far more astute and made the choice to stay for the kids. Acceptance of the situation? probably not that far, maybe just tolerance and some boundaries or conditions. She wanted it to work, and probably thought that if she was patient, he would get over it.
I don't think this man was going to leave her. He was playing TM (and probably others). I know the type well. Want their cake and want to eat it too. He didn't want to lose his kids either. No,.....TM was on a string. The financials blew it all up.

 

[ActusReus]

ActusReus...Do you believe there is a possiblity they are innocent or not?? As you say one has seen people crack under much less pressure than this..

IMO based on what was presented at the bail hearing, I think he is guilty. No fence sitting here.

However I'll qualify that by saying it is another matter entirely to convince a jury. A long way to go yet.

I also think that one of the other players will eventually talk to police.......which one remains to be seen.

 

[ActusReus]

If there is insufficient evidence to establish a cause of death beyond reasonable doubt then, in this case, I don't think that's a major problem for the Crown. All purelyMOO.

That's a good point. Absence of a definitive cause of death has not stopped convictions for murder in the past. There any number of cases where no body has been found and a conviction has been achieved.

 

[grannie]

Can anyone share their reasoning as to the suggestion that investigators have not established a likely cause of death in this case? If that has been reported in the press, has any support for that suggestion been put forward by reporters? It seems highly unlikely to me that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the likely cause of death.

I haven't seen anything in the press other than

But shortly after the grim discovery of her body police had clear views on how Mrs Baden-Clay died, people close to the case have told The Sunday Mail. It is understood Mrs Baden-Clay's body was cleared for release for burial only a day after she was found, with police confident they had the information they needed.

BBM.

I am currently thinking of two possibilities:

1. Strangulation by ligature as a cause of death plus minor bleeding cuts, punctures or other wounds as a source of blood in the car.
2. A major blow to the head (?venous air embolism ) as a cause of death and a source of blood in the car. "No visible signs of foul play" - could be because the fatal wound was under hair.

In my opinion, the reason #1 is more likely (and more common) than the reason #2.

JMO.

 

[grannie]

If there is insufficient evidence to establish a cause of death beyond reasonable doubt then, in this case, I don't think that's a major problem for the Crown. All purelyMOO.

In some cases no answer is still the answer - pointing at premeditation.

 

[Seeking]

Agreed! My comment was speculating on the emotions of some on here...I can give examples but don't want to elaborate as I will identify some posters...I really do think that some people have gotten very wrapped up in all of this and are no longer looking at it as an observer but have simply become very defensive of Allison ( Not saying this is Wrong) and they are no longer able to look at anything objectively. IMO!

There are now close friends on this site which has been interesting and insightful but it has also made it very hard to be objective and have an opinion. That's OK though....!

I just wanted to voice my opinion that having an Affair is not the same as Murder and most people don't go into these things thinking that the worst thing that could happen would be that he will kill his wife if people thought this then it would never start - Just saying that it is very extreme to believe that TM knew that he was capable of this!!?

Coolcat, I am not particularly responding to only your post. I am responding to the series of posts on the topic of having an affair with someone not being the same as committing murder and issues related to that topic. It is just that I am reading your post at a time that I have to actually write my thoughts. Boy, it is hard to keep up with this site...LOL!

I agree that according to modern law courts that no one is going to go to jail for having an affair. I also agree with the posters expressing the opinion that having an affair with a person that you know is married isn't right. I'm with Dr Watkins on the value of a lifelong happy monogamous marriage. I do understand that in 2012 that our society is generally more permissive and accepting of alternative views to this, though my personal opinion is that this permissiveness etc. doesn't improve our society at all. Maybe I am old fashioned but I make no excuses for my opinion.

What I have found interesting is the notion that someone could have an affair and not expect that the result of the affair could be that a person is murdered. I know that this is an extreme scenario......and probably a rare result of an affair...however it is not a new possibility. Throughout history I am sure that it has happened repeatedly even from ancient times. The bible which is a well known historical document is full of stories of people doing such things.....particularly the Old Testament. I think Makara has on the bottom of her notes a quote referring to the fact that the web of lies and deceit/ wrong actions grows and leads to more of the same. I don't remember the exact words of Makara's apt quote.

When people make wrong choices (like affairs as an example) it has the great potential to lead to other wrong choices and more people being hurt, especially if you add to the mix people trying to cover up their wrong actions. One well known example in the bible is that of King David. He was Ancient Israel's second king. He was a well loved and respected king...however he lusted after someone else's wife...had an affair with her....got her pregnant...then to cover up arranged for her husband to be killed by positioning him in the front line of fire of a battle...so that it looked like his death was the result of war. So King David's affair ultimately led to someone's murder. In the end King David was remorseful of all of his actions which is good and demonstrates that their is hope for people who go down very wrong paths like the case that we are following. (Despite this hope for remorse and positive transformation in the lives of the person(s) responsible for Allison's demise.. I still believe that justice still needs to occur.)

Anyway, in the bible there are many other examples of the spiraling of wicked and/ or deceitful actions into greater wickedness resulting in things like murder. The book of Judges in the Old Testament is full of such sordid stories...that though ancient are full of modern relevance.

All of this makes me think about what we as a society can learn from what GBC is alleged to have done and what it has resulted in. Maybe we need to be more humbly aware of where any sneaky little wrong things that we get involved in and may try to cover up can lead, even if we don't want them to lead there........and then try and stop while we can before it snowballs out of control.

Just as a clarification...where I have used the example of "affairs" potentially leading to more wrong I believe that "affairs" can be replaced with other things like greed etc......and any other myriad of behaviors and actions. It was just simpler to explain my point using the one analogy related to affairs.

This is all just my humble opinion. I have learned so much from so many of your posts and value all of your contributions...though I don't write often. So thank you.

 

[Elspeth]

In some cases no answer is still the answer - pointing at premeditation.

Grannie when was the life insurance policy taken out, do you know? Allison of course would have had to sign when it was taken out. Also do you know if GBC also had one ?

 

[Flabbergasted]

I think I have an idea why some people in this forum are so determined to make Heartruledhead's time here difficult. It is because she definitely said that TM was also a victim here. As much as she has also expressed concern for ABC and her children in her posts tonight, this is more than her friend TM showed to them in the 4 years of her affair. Victim! No. The mob on the other forum were discussing a few nights ago that TM's eldest child is a prominent lawyer. Don't worry that she is not getting her rights and interests covered adequately HRH

 

[grannie]

Where was this claim that there were no visible signs of trauma found made and who were the reporters quoting? Was it referred to in any of the affidavit material at the bail hearing? Apart from the assertions of defense counsel in relation to a chipped tooth did any of the court material published mention the tooth?

there were no visual signs of foul play on a body found