Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #41

[alioop]

BTW, its so annoying how quickly websleuths logs you out. It often happens when I'm typing a post and I go to post and I lose it all. Wish it would save it til you re-log in.
Maybe thats their way of saying I'm typing too much!!! lol

Hi obsessor, I don't have that problem. If I go to submit a post and it says I need to log in which I do then it posts my post, it seems to keep it til I log in again which is good. Check with Marly why yours doesn't do same as for me.

 

[Fuskier]

No more premiums would be payable on Allisons policies as she is deceased so they are payable and have now been paid out by way of payment into the court. One of the polices was overdue when she died but the policy was still valid. I think insurance companies have a grace period of at least one month before the policy lapses.

Unless someone is paying the premiums on GBCS own policies , they will lapse when they become due for renewal. Hopefully someone is paying them. At the time of Allisons death he had income protection and a few life insurance polices as well as business insurance. So if he died Allison would have got about $2 million. He was twice as much insured as Allison. Their insurances were not unusual for a couple who owned their own business and had young children.

Thanks for your reply to the Insurance/Investments query Alioop. Appreciated.

 

[Obsessor]

Just adding to the evidence discussion, it is rather surprising that nothing has surfaced that can place GBC or anyone else at Kholo that night.
One would think there would be evidence on the car/cars- the wheels, tyres, the wheel arches, the floor mats, somewhere. (I know we heave heard that he had washed the car prior to police arriving but I dont know if this was verified).
Also, you would think that on GBC's clothing or shoes there would have been blood, mud, grasses, something?
Not to mention witnesses. It was a minimum of a 20 min drive each way, maybe more if he went via the roundabout, and then there was a trip to dispose of the phone, and the phone never being found???

Also, nothing on Allisons body pointed to him, ie belt owned by him around neck or anything.

Just saying, he's been pretty lucky that nothing SEEMS to have come out of all that yet. Thats a lot of really crucial evidence that hasn't surfaced when you think about it.

 

[Fuskier]

I am disappointed to hear that the TAL policy has not already been paid to the estate.
<respectfully snipped>
He clearly does not want the insurances paid to the estate in case he is acquitted.
Now that the girls, by way of a litigation guardian, have filed an family provision application to ensure they are adequately provided for in the event of an acquittal, he doesn't want to have to have a legal fight with them to get the money.
But be careful what you wish for GBC as you have creditors lurking!

Alioop, could this mean that GBC has been instructing TAL Insurance Company on his preferences for the payout from jail? The case is due to be hard on 6th Feb 2013. Could the Federal Court direct that the payout be paid into the estate then?

 

[Liadan]

Oh how I wish our suspicions and the story inconsistencies could be used to build a strong case against GBC. But I guess in the end - it will be based only on verifiable facts that have been established from police investigation and a lot of the info that we have put together here that convinces us that GBC has done Allison in will not really be able to be used.

Is that right Alioops? How does a case proceed for the prosecution - do they follow a specific case pattern and aim to keep the facts to a central theme or do they work from the defense perspective as well and follow through on every argument that the defense sets up? I am totally novice at court issues and so where do they start how will court begin for GBC?

 

[DrWatson]

Just adding to the evidence discussion, it is rather surprising that nothing has surfaced that can place GBC or anyone else at Kholo that night.
One would think there would be evidence on the car/cars- the wheels, tyres, the wheel arches, the floor mats, somewhere. (I know we heave heard that he had washed the car prior to police arriving but I dont know if this was verified).
Also, you would think that on GBC's clothing or shoes there would have been blood, mud, grasses, something?

If he just stopped on the bitumen on the bridge, popped her over the edge, and then drove off, there wouldn't be any evidence on the car or his shoes. That would require an assumption that he drove OFF the road into the scrub near the bridge, then walked in the grass, dirt, etc. The lack of evidence on the car wheel arches or his shoes would seem to suggest that he either wasn't there, or he just stopped on the bitumen for the 30 seconds it would have taken.

 

[Obsessor]

Just reading some info on the Australian Institute of Criminology website about intimate partner homicide. Look at his quote from the site....

It has been suggested that intimate partner homicide is at the extreme end of a continuum of domestic violence (Websdale 1999). In his research, Websdale found that the male perpetrators of intimate partner homicide had all used violence as a form of control against their female partners for a considerable time prior to the homicide. He likened his work to that of Hanmer, who noted that male violence against women is "designed to control, dominate and express authority and power" (Hanmer 1996, cited in Websdale 1999, p. 207). Wallace (1986, p. 23) similarly noted in her study of homicide in New South Wales that men killing their spouses was a reflection of the ultimate attempt of the males to exert "their power and control over their wives".


note the word ALL

from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/241-260/tandi255/view paper.html

 

[Obsessor]

If he just stopped on the bitumen on the bridge, popped her over the edge, and then drove off, there wouldn't be any evidence on the car or his shoes. That would require an assumption that he drove OFF the road into the scrub near the bridge, then walked in the grass, dirt, etc. The lack of evidence on the car wheel arches or his shoes would seem to suggest that he either wasn't there, or he just stopped on the bitumen for the 30 seconds it would have taken.

Yes, you are right. I keep thinking she was under the bridge, as some photos seemed to show, but I do remember another of the police photographer taking a pic looking down from the bridge, presumaby at the body.

Still no definite witnesses for the drive out or back or the brief time it did take too dump her. Lots of luck his way I say.


...OR, he wasn't there, as you say.

 

[alioop]

Alioop, could this mean that GBC has been instructing TAL Insurance Company on his preferences for the payout from jail? The case is due to be hard on 6th Feb 2013. Could the Federal Court direct that the payout be paid into the estate then?

I think he would be instructing lawyers from remand who are then dealing with TAL and their lawyers. It would likely be the same lawyers who represented him at the suncorp hearing. I can't remember who they were but they weren't his criminal lawyers. No doubt they have enough to do for him.

Yes the court could direct it be paid to the estate on the 6th Feb or just order it be held by the court until the criminal charges are finalised like the suncorp insurance. Mr Dickie will likely be arguing through his lawyer that it be paid into the estate. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[marlywings]

BTW, its so annoying how quickly websleuths logs you out. It often happens when I'm typing a post and I go to post and I lose it all. Wish it would save it til you re-log in.
Maybe thats their way of saying I'm typing too much!!! lol

Sorry this is happening to you Obsessor. When you first log on & type in your name/password, do you put a tick in the little "remember me" box located next to your name??. Doing this keeps you logged in until you either log out or clean out cookies.

 

[Obsessor]

Sorry this is happening to you Obsessor. When you first log on & type in your name/password, do you put a tick in the little "remember me" box located next to your name??. Doing this keeps you logged in until you either log out or clean out cookies.

Thanks Marly, I dont think I do. :blushing: I will take note next log-in and make sure I tick it. thanks for the tip.

 

[Couldbe]

Just adding to the evidence discussion, it is rather surprising that nothing has surfaced that can place GBC or anyone else at Kholo that night.
One would think there would be evidence on the car/cars- the wheels, tyres, the wheel arches, the floor mats, somewhere. (I know we heave heard that he had washed the car prior to police arriving but I dont know if this was verified).
Also, you would think that on GBC's clothing or shoes there would have been blood, mud, grasses, something?
Not to mention witnesses. It was a minimum of a 20 min drive each way, maybe more if he went via the roundabout, and then there was a trip to dispose of the phone, and the phone never being found???

Also, nothing on Allisons body pointed to him, ie belt owned by him around neck or anything.

Just saying, he's been pretty lucky that nothing SEEMS to have come out of all that yet. Thats a lot of really crucial evidence that hasn't surfaced when you think about it.

........ could make you wonder if there was an accomplice (not related to the BC family) who, for a fee agreed to meet in the vicinity of the roundabout and take over disposing of Allison's body. Why up there?..... hard to find GBC home ....car park area at the back. NBC may/may not have been involved in handover.

 

[Thinking]

If he just stopped on the bitumen on the bridge, popped her over the edge, and then drove off, there wouldn't be any evidence on the car or his shoes. That would require an assumption that he drove OFF the road into the scrub near the bridge, then walked in the grass, dirt, etc. The lack of evidence on the car wheel arches or his shoes would seem to suggest that he either wasn't there, or he just stopped on the bitumen for the 30 seconds it would have taken.

Or the cars were given a good clean after arrival back at the BC residence? Although, would decent testing detect that they had been cleaned I wonder?

 

[alioop]

Oh how I wish our suspicions and the story inconsistencies could be used to build a strong case against GBC. But I guess in the end - it will be based only on verifiable facts that have been established from police investigation and a lot of the info that we have put together here that convinces us that GBC has done Allison in will not really be able to be used.

Is that right Alioops? How does a case proceed for the prosecution - do they follow a specific case pattern and aim to keep the facts to a central theme or do they work from the defense perspective as well and follow through on every argument that the defense sets up? I am totally novice at court issues and so where do they start how will court begin for GBC?

I think we will get some idea on strategy from how the committal is conducted. If he is committed for trial, the basic procedure is the prosecution presents its case first. Explains to the jury how they are going to present evidence then they call each of their witnesses they want to call. They only have to call the ones they want. They then question each witness and any reports by the witness such as the autopsy or particular forensics become exhibits and are shown to the jury. Here the prosecution can ask questions to address stuff the defence may raise like the suicide theory with certain witnesses such as medical witnesses about how the liver concentrates drugs etc.

The defence can cross examine each witness if they want. The prosecution can then re examine the witness if they want to clarify something. When the prosecution has presented all its evidence, the defence then presents its case. That will be very interesting. They may call witnesses of their own including GBC. But whatever witnesses they call also can be cross examined by the prosecution so this is risky for the defence. I doubt any BCs would be witnesses for the defence.

Then when all defence witnesses ,if any, are done, the prosecution and defence in turn do a summary of their positions, then the judge will give directions to the jury about various things and then the jury goes out and makes a decision.

So that's it in a nutshell! Hope that gives you a bit more of an idea of the basic trial procedure.

 

[Snails]

I think we will get some idea on strategy from how the committal is conducted. If he is committed for trial, the basic procedure is the prosecution presents its case first. Explains to the jury how they are going to present evidence then they call each of their witnesses they want to call. They only have to call the ones they want. They then question each witness and any reports by the witness such as the autopsy or particular forensics become exhibits and are shown to the jury. Here the prosecution can ask questions to address stuff the defence may raise like the suicide theory with certain witnesses such as medical witnesses about how the liver concentrates drugs etc.

The defence can cross examine each witness if they want. The prosecution can then re examine the witness if they want to clarify something. When the prosecution has presented all its evidence, the defence then presents its case. That will be very interesting. They may call witnesses of their own including GBC. But whatever witnesses they call also can be cross examined by the prosecution so this is risky for the defence. I doubt any BCs would be witnesses for the defence.

Then when all defence witnesses ,if any, are done, the prosecution and defence in turn do a summary of their positions, then the judge will give directions to the jury about various things and then the jury goes out and makes a decision.

So that's it in a nutshell! Hope that gives you a bit more of an idea of the basic trial procedure.

Hi Alioop. Thanks for your input. It's always appreciated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but GBC has the right NOT to be cross examined in court. If that does end up being the case, can you explain the benefits or disadvantages to both the defence and prosecution. Thank you in advance. Love your work!

 

[Thinking]

I think we will get some idea on strategy from how the committal is conducted. If he is committed for trial, the basic procedure is the prosecution presents its case first. Explains to the jury how they are going to present evidence then they call each of their witnesses they want to call. They only have to call the ones they want. They then question each witness and any reports by the witness such as the autopsy or particular forensics become exhibits and are shown to the jury. Here the prosecution can ask questions to address stuff the defence may raise like the suicide theory with certain witnesses such as medical witnesses about how the liver concentrates drugs etc.

The defence can cross examine each witness if they want. The prosecution can then re examine the witness if they want to clarify something. When the prosecution has presented all its evidence, the defence then presents its case. That will be very interesting. They may call witnesses of their own including GBC. But whatever witnesses they call also can be cross examined by the prosecution so this is risky for the defence. I doubt any BCs would be witnesses for the defence.

Then when all defence witnesses ,if any, are done, the prosecution and defence in turn do a summary of their positions, then the judge will give directions to the jury about various things and then the jury goes out and makes a decision.

So that's it in a nutshell! Hope that gives you a bit more of an idea of the basic trial procedure.

Thanks as always for this explanation Ali. So do you think it is likely that TM will appear in person at the committal, as a witness for the prosecution (sorry if this is a silly question)?

 

[alioop]

Hi Alioop. Thanks for your input. It's always appreciated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but GBC has the right NOT to be cross examined in court. If that does end up being the case, can you explain the benefits or disadvantages to both the defence and prosecution. Thank you in advance. Love your work!

Thanks Snails, good to see you back. Yes GBC has the right to not give evidence in his own defence and most people charged with murder don't. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so in fact the defence could do absolutely nothing. But it is usual for the defence to try to challenge the prosecutions evidence where they can and present some evidence of their own though not necessarily by the accused person. The advantage to the prosecution if GBC gives evidence is that they then get to cross examine him. Even an innocent person can be made to look guilty under cross examination so it is risky. They can be caught out in lies for example or stuff up their lawyers defence strategy. Juries watch and listen very carefully particularly to an accused and will form opinions based on their mannerisms, etc as well as their answers. It is all very risky to the defence. The accused cant refuse to answer questions if he is giving evidence. Imagine the questions that the prosecution would ask of GBC. If he doesn't have good believable explanations for every one, the jury are going to think he is lying. It's best for defence strategy I think for him to not be put in that position. Things are already bad for GBC, the ability for him to be cross examined under oath could only make things worse.

 

[SouthAussie]

Or the cars were given a good clean after arrival back at the BC residence? Although, would decent testing detect that they had been cleaned I wonder?

Wasn't there a rumour, or perhaps something said by an insider, way back in the beginning about the car being cleaned by NBC early in the morning? Somewhere back in my vague memory I seem to recall something being said about this. :waitasec:

 

[alioop]

Thanks as always for this explanation Ali. So do you think it is likely that TM will appear in person at the committal, as a witness for the prosecution (sorry if this is a silly question)?

Not a silly question thinking. Yes she almost certainly will be one of the prosecutions main witnesses and she will be cross examined no doubt. But there are a lot of witnesses and it is a short comittal so I don't think her cross examination will be too long.

 

[Snails]

Thanks Snails, good to see you back. Yes GBC has the right to not give evidence in his own defence and most people charged with murder don't. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so in fact the defence could do absolutely nothing. But it is usual for the defence to try to challenge the prosecutions evidence where they can and present some evidence of their own though not necessarily by the accused person. The advantage to the prosecution if GBC gives evidence is that they then get to cross examine him. Even an innocent person can be made to look guilty under cross examination so it is risky. They can be caught out in lies for example or stuff up their lawyers defence strategy. Juries watch and listen very carefully particularly to an accused and will form opinions based on their mannerisms, etc as well as their answers. It is all very risky to the defence. The accused cant refuse to answer questions if he is giving evidence. Imagine the questions that the prosecution would ask of GBC. If he doesn't have good believable explanations for every one, the jury are going to think he is lying. It's best for defence strategy I think for him to not be put in that position. Things are already bad for GBC, the ability for him to be cross examined under oath could only make things worse.

Thanks Ali. So it would be fair to say that it will be doubtful that GBC will take the stand then. But what about others such as NBC or EBC et al?Wouldn't that be contempt of court if they refused?