Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #45

[AAAA]

Wow. This ended up way longer than intended. Sorry. Especially sorry to Ma'am Marlywimgs for being a bit OT :-/


This is exactly what happened to me. The little bits seemed so little in their own right but over time that carping criticism, the little pushes, the undermining..... I only really started to notice when he'd start hiding the toys he saw my girls and I having fun playing together or when I saw the fear on their little faces as they scuttled to hide under the bed when he rampaged and threw me against walls and doors. Funny because he was getting more physically violent and more insulting and controlling - you know.... But I didn't notice any of that, or at least I wouldn't admit it to myself. And when I appealed to his family about the violence they told me it was nothing....DV is so insidious. 7 years later I can see it so clearly but at the time, even if you start to wonder, there's a "but what if he's right?" shame about it. I actually believed I was a bad mother, that I deserved no friends because I was a horrible useless worthless person. Then came the whole but how do I get out of this alive scenario.

I won't bore you with the rest including forced terminations but suffice to say, when I came home one day after attending a conference & seeing family in Sydney, I was half an hour later than he expected despite having taken two little girls all the way from Sydney to rural Victoria via a plane & a 5 hr drive all in one day. He opened the door, yelling at me so loudly the neighbours across the street came out to see what was going on. His face was priceless when I said "good thing I don't have to put up with this s*** anymore, I have my own place". I had been secreting away bits & pieces in a storage unit & had quietly secured a house & had all the services connected. I grabbed the girls, got in the car & went to our new peaceful home. Still a long journey from there but I am so glad I had the inner strength (tks to a very close friend) to do it.

The worst thing was he never displayed it front of other people, although it started to slip out in little bits in the end. His stress about losing control really showed at the perfect time when many years later I finally got the Consent Orders to the Family Court & he exploded at his and my Barristers, yelling abuse and threatening them and me if they didn't make me lose all my money, my car, my job & the kids and NOW! He was the sort that would be about 4 inches from your face as he yelled abuse, spraying spittle over you face as his angry eyes would narrow & projected the most awful out of control anger. Of course he was perpetually escorted in the court from then on. It was great confirmation that his behaviour was indeed really bad and it wasn't just me.

When I read the bail documents I got the shivers. I'm used to rather intimately dealing with deceased persons after road trauma so it wasn't the details in the autopsy report. All of the detail about their life that is being revealed, the phone calls and emails, the comments from TM. It all adds up to a lot of DV for both ABC & TM. I think they both suffered. If TM was so unable to cope without him (someone mentioned that previously) he had a type of control over her as well, she probably thought it was love. In my opinion ABC knew full well about the affairs and had, in amongst her depression, found a clarity and therefore strength, to leave him, probably through her counsellor sessions. She most likely announced it that night when the girls were not in earshot. It escalated....and the rest is history. TM may not have had the wherewithal to participate but I believe she knows far more than she is letting on. She may well still be operating out of fear of losing him - part of the insidious all consuming control & drive to appease the perpetrator that comes with this type of psychological DV.

End of rant. A big Easter Sunday thank you to those that read it all. :-*

I'm so glad you got away, take special care of you and your girls. Enjoy your Easter, hope the Easter Bunny came...

 

[Oberammergau]

Yes and don't forget he let everyone think they owned that house - including good ole Tone - she thought that he and Allison could take turns living in it - when he eventually came to live with her

I think Tm would know exactly what gbc and abc and the rest of the bc clan owned as she would have access to RP Data at her fingertips!!!

 

[Maigret]

I think Tm would know exactly what gbc and abc and the rest of the bc clan owned as she would have access to RP Data at her fingertips!!!

In one of her statements - she says he doesn't spend money on the house - generally if renting you can't 'do things '. So I believe she thought he and Allison owned it- he may have spun some 'company rents it so its a tax write off ' or similar

 

[Oberammergau]

In one of her statements - she says he doesn't spend money on the house - generally if renting you can't 'do things '. So I believe she thought he and Allison owned it- he may have spun some 'company rents it so its a tax write off ' or similar

You may be right, however , I would assume most people with access to that information and were planning a future relation ship would like to have a sneak preview of what life holds for them , I would!!!
But maybe she is just stupid!!

 

[Happygolucky]

I took a peek where I read it:- http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/tears-for-girl-next-door/story-fn6ck45n-1226347238522 (possibly she didn't graduate)

She spoke five foreign languages. She picked up Danish and Swedish after high school, on a Rotary exchange trip to Denmark. She boned up on French, German and Japanese while studying psychology at the University of Queensland.

Career Goals: To continue study in psychology and practice either organisational or clinical psychology then eventually open her own psychology clinic.

I found this article a fascinating read. No doubt Alison was a beautiful, talented and caring woman. However, with all my reading I am getting glimpses of a different Gerard. Such as the description here as a regular churthgoer and Gerard coming to the music group if Alison couldn't make it and he would "rock 'n' roll with all the mums."

Leaving the office at 5.15 to have "couch time with his daughters", taking them on holdays when his brother visited, bringing sausages back to his parents for a family BBQ etc. does not exactly add up the the picture of a distant and very disnonnected father that some have tried to paint.

There are many reasons why a partner stays in a dysfunctional marriage and maybe, he stayed to remain close to his girls. What became clear the first day of committal was that Alison had a long and recurrent history of depression. Once explanation could be Gerard felt he needed to stay to support the girls during the times Alison was depressed.

Which brings me back to my "gut feeling" all along. Despite the horrendous circumstancial evidence, those awful facial scratches (yes I recoiled when I was at the committal and saw those photos on the court screen!) I have the nagging feeling that "something is missing" in the equation. How could a loving father murder their mother while his daughters were home?? And I accept they were home because the police stated they were home. Maybe I am just hoping it wasn't Gerard because I could think of no more awful legacy than losing your mother through murder and losing your father because he was the murderer.

I have gone back and read every entry on Websleuths (when I found the site a few weeks back), followed the case, read every article I could find etc. and yet I have this nagging doubt that I can't necessarily put my finger on. I watched when Danny Boyle gave his opening address and could see Gerard from where I was sitting and he gave a slow shake of his head when Danny outline the case for murder. To me his body language did not equate to guilt and I have read how others have interpeted his demeanour differently. (However I recognise there is much more to guilt than body language) He sat well back in the glassed in dock but I went to look and that is where two seats are situated. From the far left front of the court where I could see him for the morning session I observed his body language closely and I did not discern "arrogance".

I am concerned despite thorough examination by the coroner that there is no cause of death and there does not appear to be any concrete evidence of Gerard disposing of Alison. (DNA in the Festiva was circumstancial and damning but not positive proof).

Alison was not seen walking but neither was Gerards car identified on that night. I am concerned that there does not appear to me any evidence within the home --and yes I recognise the 6 plant species found on Alison are the same as 6 species near the back porch.

Its obvious Gerard is not telling the entire truth. Logic tells me he is probably guilty and his lies are intended to cover up his guilt but..........is there some other explanation? TMs statement and evidence do not make sense to me either. And the police obviously went back for more and more questions and statements because it was obvious she was lying and witholding some information. What is she hiding? Surelly after being strung along for 4 years, she didn't really believe Gerard would be committed entirely to her, even if he did eventually did leave his wife. She was obviously angry with Gerard about Alison attending the conference, especially after Gerard had sacked TM and Alison now occupied her desk. What did she actually say to him when she rang him the afternoon of the 19th? We only have her word and is that the truth?.

Thinking outside the square for a possible alternative explanation--Did Gerard stay for the BBQ or could he have arranged to meet TM before taking the girls home because he was concerned TM was going to confront Alison at the conference??? Could TM have scratched Gerards face in anger. What are her finger nails like? Did the police test underneath them for DNA? Why did Gerard ring TM on the 20th--to collaborate stories regards scratches?

Does OW know something the rest of us don't know? Is she deluded by family loyalty and love of her brother and blinded to reality or is she referring to "insider knowledge" regards the truth.She was at the house that morning and spoke with Gerard before the police did. Either she has good reason to accept his explanation, is privy to additional information or is severely deluded and has done herself and her family no favours by her outburst outside court.

I have had this nagging doubt since the beginning. Although the circumstancial evidence all points in one direction, I was hoping the commital evidence would clarify the missing elements. I would hate to be on the jury trying to reconcile the difference between some doubt with reasonable doubt.

Peter Davis role at trial will be quite different to his role at committaleg. He spent time establishing evidence but not necessarily honing in on the inconsistencies. Times of human noises and screams in the night varied. Local residents did not go and investigate, however Bruce Flegg who actually lived > than the 1km (this can be established by looking at goodle maps) stated in court went outside when he heard blood curdling screams.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ommittal-hearing/story-e6freoof-1226595994364

Could this support the theory of an attack by a random stranger?? As Bruce actually went outside to investigate but the local neighbours did not, this perhaps supports the fact the screams were louder close to Fleggs residence.

I think we will see a very different Peter Davis at trial, honing in on any inconsistencies that he can find and highlighting the fact that no cause of death has been established. That is if the family can afford to continue to pay Peter Davies--I imagine the trial would take several weeks and his services do not come cheaply.

I look forward to reading more statements as they become available. I am sure more gaps will be filled in. You can also count me in on making a contribution towards this if WS administration give their approval to buying them.

 

[Maigret]

I found this article a fascinating read. No doubt Alison was a beautiful, talented and caring woman. However, with all my reading I am getting glimpses of a different Gerard. Such as the description here as a regular churthgoer and Gerard coming to the music group if Alison couldn't make it and he would "rock 'n' roll with all the mums."

Leaving the office at 5.15 to have "couch time with his daughters", taking them on holdays when his brother visited, bringing sausages back to his parents for a family BBQ etc. does not exactly add up the the picture of a distant and very disnonnected father that some have tried to paint.

There are many reasons why a partner stays in a dysfunctional marriage and maybe, he stayed to remain close to his girls. What became clear the first day of committal was that Alison had a long and recurrent history of depression. Once explanation could be Gerard felt he needed to stay to support the girls during the times Alison was depressed.

Which brings me back to my "gut feeling" all along. Despite the horrendous circumstancial evidence, those awful facial scratches (yes I recoiled when I was at the committal and saw those photos on the court screen!) I have the nagging feeling that "something is missing" in the equation. How could a loving father murder their mother while his daughters were home?? And I accept they were home because the police stated they were home. Maybe I am just hoping it wasn't Gerard because I could think of no more awful legacy than losing your mother through murder and losing your father because he was the murderer.

I have gone back and read every entry on Websleuths (when I found the site a few weeks back), followed the case, read every article I could find etc. and yet I have this nagging doubt that I can't necessarily put my finger on. I watched when Danny Boyle gave his opening address and could see Gerard from where I was sitting and he gave a slow shake of his head when Danny outline the case for murder. To me his body language did not equate to guilt and I have read how others have interpeted his demeanour differently. (However I recognise there is much more to guilt than body language) He sat well back in the glassed in dock but I went to look and that is where two seats are situated. From the far left front of the court where I could see him for the morning session I observed his body language closely and I did not discern "arrogance".

I am concerned despite thorough examination by the coroner that there is no cause of death and there does not appear to be any concrete evidence of Gerard disposing of Alison. (DNA in the Festiva was circumstancial and damning but not positive proof).

Alison was not seen walking but neither was Gerards car identified on that night. I am concerned that there does not appear to me any evidence within the home --and yes I recognise the 6 plant species found on Alison are the same as 6 species near the back porch.

Its obvious Gerard is not telling the entire truth. Logic tells me he is probably guilty and his lies are intended to cover up his guilt but..........is there some other explanation? TMs statement and evidence do not make sense to me either. And the police obviously went back for more and more questions and statements because it was obvious she was lying and witholding some information. What is she hiding? Surelly after being strung along for 4 years, she didn't really believe Gerard would be committed entirely to her, even if he did eventually did leave his wife. She was obviously angry with Gerard about Alison attending the conference, especially after Gerard had sacked TM and Alison now occupied her desk. What did she actually say to him when she rang him the afternoon of the 19th? We only have her word and is that the truth?.

Thinking outside the square for a possible alternative explanation--Did Gerard stay for the BBQ or could he have arranged to meet TM before taking the girls home because he was concerned TM was going to confront Alison at the conference??? Could TM have scratched Gerards face in anger. What are her finger nails like? Did the police test underneath them for DNA? Why did Gerard ring TM on the 20th--to collaborate stories regards scratches?

Does OW know something the rest of us don't know? Is she deluded by family loyalty and love of her brother and blinded to reality or is she referring to "insider knowledge" regards the truth.She was at the house that morning and spoke with Gerard before the police did. Either she has good reason to accept his explanation, is privy to additional information or is severely deluded and has done herself and her family no favours by her outburst outside court.

I have had this nagging doubt since the beginning. Although the circumstancial evidence all points in one direction, I was hoping the commital evidence would clarify the missing elements. I would hate to be on the jury trying to reconcile the difference between some doubt with reasonable doubt.

Peter Davis role at trial will be quite different to his role at committaleg. He spent time establishing evidence but not necessarily honing in on the inconsistencies. Times of human noises and screams in the night varied. Local residents did not go and investigate, however Bruce Flegg who actually lived > than the 1km (this can be established by looking at goodle maps) stated in court went outside when he heard blood curdling screams.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ommittal-hearing/story-e6freoof-1226595994364

Could this support the theory of an attack by a random stranger?? As Bruce actually went outside to investigate but the local neighbours did not, this perhaps supports the fact the screams were louder close to Fleggs residence.

I think we will see a very different Peter Davis at trial, honing in on any inconsistencies that he can find and highlighting the fact that no cause of death has been established. That is if the family can afford to continue to pay Peter Davies--I imagine the trial would take several weeks and his services do not come cheaply.

I look forward to reading more statements as they become available. I am sure more gaps will be filled in. You can also count me in on making a contribution towards this if WS administration give their approval to buying them.

Good points

 

[AAAA]

:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost:

I found this article a fascinating read. No doubt Alison was a beautiful, talented and caring woman. However, with all my reading I am getting glimpses of a different Gerard. Such as the description here as a regular churthgoer and Gerard coming to the music group if Alison couldn't make it and he would "rock 'n' roll with all the mums."

Leaving the office at 5.15 to have "couch time with his daughters", taking them on holdays when his brother visited, bringing sausages back to his parents for a family BBQ etc. does not exactly add up the the picture of a distant and very disnonnected father that some have tried to paint.

There are many reasons why a partner stays in a dysfunctional marriage and maybe, he stayed to remain close to his girls. What became clear the first day of committal was that Alison had a long and recurrent history of depression. Once explanation could be Gerard felt he needed to stay to support the girls during the times Alison was depressed.

Which brings me back to my "gut feeling" all along. Despite the horrendous circumstancial evidence, those awful facial scratches (yes I recoiled when I was at the committal and saw those photos on the court screen!) I have the nagging feeling that "something is missing" in the equation. How could a loving father murder their mother while his daughters were home?? And I accept they were home because the police stated they were home. Maybe I am just hoping it wasn't Gerard because I could think of no more awful legacy than losing your mother through murder and losing your father because he was the murderer.

I have gone back and read every entry on Websleuths (when I found the site a few weeks back), followed the case, read every article I could find etc. and yet I have this nagging doubt that I can't necessarily put my finger on. I watched when Danny Boyle gave his opening address and could see Gerard from where I was sitting and he gave a slow shake of his head when Danny outline the case for murder. To me his body language did not equate to guilt and I have read how others have interpeted his demeanour differently. (However I recognise there is much more to guilt than body language) He sat well back in the glassed in dock but I went to look and that is where two seats are situated. From the far left front of the court where I could see him for the morning session I observed his body language closely and I did not discern "arrogance".

I am concerned despite thorough examination by the coroner that there is no cause of death and there does not appear to be any concrete evidence of Gerard disposing of Alison. (DNA in the Festiva was circumstancial and damning but not positive proof).

Alison was not seen walking but neither was Gerards car identified on that night. I am concerned that there does not appear to me any evidence within the home --and yes I recognise the 6 plant species found on Alison are the same as 6 species near the back porch.

Its obvious Gerard is not telling the entire truth. Logic tells me he is probably guilty and his lies are intended to cover up his guilt but..........is there some other explanation? TMs statement and evidence do not make sense to me either. And the police obviously went back for more and more questions and statements because it was obvious she was lying and witholding some information. What is she hiding? Surelly after being strung along for 4 years, she didn't really believe Gerard would be committed entirely to her, even if he did eventually did leave his wife. She was obviously angry with Gerard about Alison attending the conference, especially after Gerard had sacked TM and Alison now occupied her desk. What did she actually say to him when she rang him the afternoon of the 19th? We only have her word and is that the truth?.

Thinking outside the square for a possible alternative explanation--Did Gerard stay for the BBQ or could he have arranged to meet TM before taking the girls home because he was concerned TM was going to confront Alison at the conference??? Could TM have scratched Gerards face in anger. What are her finger nails like? Did the police test underneath them for DNA? Why did Gerard ring TM on the 20th--to collaborate stories regards scratches?

Does OW know something the rest of us don't know? Is she deluded by family loyalty and love of her brother and blinded to reality or is she referring to "insider knowledge" regards the truth.She was at the house that morning and spoke with Gerard before the police did. Either she has good reason to accept his explanation, is privy to additional information or is severely deluded and has done herself and her family no favours by her outburst outside court.

I have had this nagging doubt since the beginning. Although the circumstancial evidence all points in one direction, I was hoping the commital evidence would clarify the missing elements. I would hate to be on the jury trying to reconcile the difference between some doubt with reasonable doubt.

Peter Davis role at trial will be quite different to his role at committaleg. He spent time establishing evidence but not necessarily honing in on the inconsistencies. Times of human noises and screams in the night varied. Local residents did not go and investigate, however Bruce Flegg who actually lived > than the 1km (this can be established by looking at goodle maps) stated in court went outside when he heard blood curdling screams.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ommittal-hearing/story-e6freoof-1226595994364

Could this support the theory of an attack by a random stranger?? As Bruce actually went outside to investigate but the local neighbours did not, this perhaps supports the fact the screams were louder close to Fleggs residence.

I think we will see a very different Peter Davis at trial, honing in on any inconsistencies that he can find and highlighting the fact that no cause of death has been established. That is if the family can afford to continue to pay Peter Davies--I imagine the trial would take several weeks and his services do not come cheaply.

I look forward to reading more statements as they become available. I am sure more gaps will be filled in. You can also count me in on making a contribution towards this if WS administration give their approval to buying them.

Excellent and thought provoking post!

 

[toe]

I feel sure if TM was in fact the gift giver of the facial scratches GBC would have told the police when he admitted the affair with TM, I believe those scratches were from Allison, when she fought for her life.

 

[Anonthemouse]

Respectfully snipped to not fill the page...
But I have got to answer this. Firstly, please, it's Allison - two lls.
Secondly, how about you balance the "Gerard telling the world how wonderful Gerard is" with Allison's diary entries where he mocked her - told her that she smelled and laughed at her undies.
How about you balance that with a workmate who tells of his rigid control of those children and how they seemed abnormally well behaved. You know what, I grew up abnormally well behaved too - you know why, because either I or my mother would cop it later when the doors were shut. Reading about this family rings all kinds of alarm bells and shivers of recognition and yes, the veneer is all lovely isn't it? Guess it depends on who's telling the story.
Yes Gerard was so wonderful that he'd shag other women in the back of a 4WD in a secluded street. So wonderful that he had more than one woman on the side.. Bloody marvellous father figure...:sick:
One holiday with his brother doesn't make him an angel and quite frankly, it's easy to spend time with young children who are slightly scared of you... would have been interesting to see how the teenage years would have gone.

 

[Anonthemouse]

Sorry Happygolucky - I hope my tone hasn't come off as rude. It was not meant that way.
I don't buy the Gerard is a nice guy / good dad act at all.

 

[Thinking]

I found this article a fascinating read. No doubt Alison was a beautiful, talented and caring woman. However, with all my reading I am getting glimpses of a different Gerard. Such as the description here as a regular churthgoer and Gerard coming to the music group if Alison couldn't make it and he would "rock 'n' roll with all the mums."

Leaving the office at 5.15 to have "couch time with his daughters", taking them on holdays when his brother visited, bringing sausages back to his parents for a family BBQ etc. does not exactly add up the the picture of a distant and very disnonnected father that some have tried to paint.

There are many reasons why a partner stays in a dysfunctional marriage and maybe, he stayed to remain close to his girls. What became clear the first day of committal was that Alison had a long and recurrent history of depression. Once explanation could be Gerard felt he needed to stay to support the girls during the times Alison was depressed.

Which brings me back to my "gut feeling" all along. Despite the horrendous circumstancial evidence, those awful facial scratches (yes I recoiled when I was at the committal and saw those photos on the court screen!) I have the nagging feeling that "something is missing" in the equation. How could a loving father murder their mother while his daughters were home?? And I accept they were home because the police stated they were home. Maybe I am just hoping it wasn't Gerard because I could think of no more awful legacy than losing your mother through murder and losing your father because he was the murderer.

I have gone back and read every entry on Websleuths (when I found the site a few weeks back), followed the case, read every article I could find etc. and yet I have this nagging doubt that I can't necessarily put my finger on. I watched when Danny Boyle gave his opening address and could see Gerard from where I was sitting and he gave a slow shake of his head when Danny outline the case for murder. To me his body language did not equate to guilt and I have read how others have interpeted his demeanour differently. (However I recognise there is much more to guilt than body language) He sat well back in the glassed in dock but I went to look and that is where two seats are situated. From the far left front of the court where I could see him for the morning session I observed his body language closely and I did not discern "arrogance".

I am concerned despite thorough examination by the coroner that there is no cause of death and there does not appear to be any concrete evidence of Gerard disposing of Alison. (DNA in the Festiva was circumstancial and damning but not positive proof).

Alison was not seen walking but neither was Gerards car identified on that night. I am concerned that there does not appear to me any evidence within the home --and yes I recognise the 6 plant species found on Alison are the same as 6 species near the back porch.

Its obvious Gerard is not telling the entire truth. Logic tells me he is probably guilty and his lies are intended to cover up his guilt but..........is there some other explanation? TMs statement and evidence do not make sense to me either. And the police obviously went back for more and more questions and statements because it was obvious she was lying and witholding some information. What is she hiding? Surelly after being strung along for 4 years, she didn't really believe Gerard would be committed entirely to her, even if he did eventually did leave his wife. She was obviously angry with Gerard about Alison attending the conference, especially after Gerard had sacked TM and Alison now occupied her desk. What did she actually say to him when she rang him the afternoon of the 19th? We only have her word and is that the truth?.

Thinking outside the square for a possible alternative explanation--Did Gerard stay for the BBQ or could he have arranged to meet TM before taking the girls home because he was concerned TM was going to confront Alison at the conference??? Could TM have scratched Gerards face in anger. What are her finger nails like? Did the police test underneath them for DNA? Why did Gerard ring TM on the 20th--to collaborate stories regards scratches?

Does OW know something the rest of us don't know? Is she deluded by family loyalty and love of her brother and blinded to reality or is she referring to "insider knowledge" regards the truth.She was at the house that morning and spoke with Gerard before the police did. Either she has good reason to accept his explanation, is privy to additional information or is severely deluded and has done herself and her family no favours by her outburst outside court.

I have had this nagging doubt since the beginning. Although the circumstancial evidence all points in one direction, I was hoping the commital evidence would clarify the missing elements. I would hate to be on the jury trying to reconcile the difference between some doubt with reasonable doubt.

Peter Davis role at trial will be quite different to his role at committaleg. He spent time establishing evidence but not necessarily honing in on the inconsistencies. Times of human noises and screams in the night varied. Local residents did not go and investigate, however Bruce Flegg who actually lived > than the 1km (this can be established by looking at goodle maps) stated in court went outside when he heard blood curdling screams.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ommittal-hearing/story-e6freoof-1226595994364

Could this support the theory of an attack by a random stranger?? As Bruce actually went outside to investigate but the local neighbours did not, this perhaps supports the fact the screams were louder close to Fleggs residence.

I think we will see a very different Peter Davis at trial, honing in on any inconsistencies that he can find and highlighting the fact that no cause of death has been established. That is if the family can afford to continue to pay Peter Davies--I imagine the trial would take several weeks and his services do not come cheaply.

I look forward to reading more statements as they become available. I am sure more gaps will be filled in. You can also count me in on making a contribution towards this if WS administration give their approval to buying them.

I agree with others, this is very thought-provoking, thanks HGL. I do believe we have to try to keep our minds as open as possible.

I too look forward to reading more statements as they become available. However, I understand we won't be reading one made by GBC. Can you think of any reason why he wouldn't have provided one, to put his version on the record and assist police in finding his wife's murderer? I struggle with this.

 

[Flinders]

Random post here about the cost of the conference.

REIQ Conference on April 20th. The cost of the tickets were REIQ members $175, non-members $230 (incl. GST).

http://reiq.informz.net/reiq/archives/archive_506266.html

Are staff required to wear their uniforms?

 

[Flinders]

The Conference Expense

So $175 x 2= cheap if you combine the ATO small business tax deduction for: education, technical or professional qualification expenses.

http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.aspx?menuid=0&doc=/content/00266008.htm&page=5&H5

 

[Deleted member 83851]

I have had this nagging doubt since the beginning. Although the circumstancial evidence all points in one direction, I was hoping the commital evidence would clarify the missing elements. I would hate to be on the jury trying to reconcile the difference between some doubt with reasonable doubt.

Thank you for your doubt. And I applaud you for reading every single post on every single thread in this forum. That's quite a commitment.
You have probably become aware that such attention to the mass of comments and facts really hones an appreciation to nuance and pattern.
Many here will be very interested in where you are going in your thinking.

To me, the Court documents are my touchstone to the facts.

I look forward to reading more statements as they become available. I am sure more gaps will be filled in. You can also count me in on making a contribution towards this if WS administration give their approval to buying them.

Good on ya.

 

[Chief of Funtime]

Random post here about the cost of the conference.

REIQ Conference on April 20th. The cost of the tickets were REIQ members $175, non-members $230 (incl. GST).

http://reiq.informz.net/reiq/archives/archive_506266.html

Are staff required to wear their uniforms?

Thanks Flinders , I was going to ask this .Do you pay before you go ? Does century21 cover the cost ? Would gbcs office have booked in two people from their office beforehand ?and it was paid for so gbc must have known the arrangements for that day .

 

[Flinders]

A recent article about the food behind bars.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...life-behind-bars/story-e6frexnr-1226609066503

Prison Food

You make breakfast from the rations they supply. You get your litre of milk every couple of days and they supply toast and butter.

"You're out by seven, straight to work. You can take food for the smoko break then you finish at 2pm."
The food was so bad he spent most of his weekly wage on fresh meat.

"They supply dinner but it's absolute rubbish," he said. "It's shocking. I don't know how some blokes survive on it.

 

[Flinders]

Thanks Flinders , I was going to ask this .Do you pay before you go ? Does century21 cover the cost ? Would gbcs office have booked in two people from their office beforehand ?and it was paid for so gbc must have known the arrangements for that day .

Hey FunT, I have not attended this conference but many others. Seriously, this was a frebie on a platter. Mine cost an excess of $300. As a general rule you do have to pay before and get a special discount if you pay early. You may also get a discount if you recommend others. Eg sleuth potential.

I don't know if C21 would cover the cost because I am not in this industry. I posted the link to demonstrate small business can have this fee reduced. And if TM could bicker about the peanut cost of this before hand every expense now comes to the table.

Your question about would GBC's office have booked 2 beforehand.. Was it his office.. Did GBC know the arrangements for the booking? I don't know.

 

[Crime and punishment]

Random post here about the cost of the conference.

REIQ Conference on April 20th. The cost of the tickets were REIQ members $175, non-members $230 (incl. GST).

http://reiq.informz.net/reiq/archives/archive_506266.html

Are staff required to wear their uniforms?

Looking at the blurb about this REIQ conference, I can't understand why TM was so upset about Allison attending. It must have been a huge event attended by hundreds. Surely they could have both attended without having to be near each other? It sounds like TM went off her head about Allison attending- as if she was in a state of near panic about it! Weird. She really had it bad didn't she? I don't get it- but her reaction may have been the catalyst for what happened on the 19th April.

 

[Couldbe]

(Respectfully snipped) .....Could TM have scratched Gerards face in anger. What are her finger nails like? Did the police test underneath them for DNA? Why did Gerard ring TM on the 20th--to collaborate stories regards scratches?


Does OW know something the rest of us don't know? Is she deluded by family loyalty and love of her brother and blinded to reality or is she referring to "insider knowledge" regards the truth.She was at the house that morning and spoke with Gerard before the police did. Either she has good reason to accept his explanation, is privy to additional information or is severely deluded and has done herself and her family no favours by her outburst outside court.
(Snipped).......

Thank you Happygolucky for your summation .... I do have to ask though:
If OW does 'know something the rest of us don't know', I really cannot understand why she hasn't conveyed this to the Police BEFORE GBC was arrested; or NOW for that matter ..... to PREVENT her brother languishing in Arthur Gorrie awaiting his Trial. If Olivia can provide an alibi for GBC .... do it! If it is just 'knowing within her heart', and because she was the last one to talk to Allison (on the phone on that fateful night of 19 Apr), then why WITHHOLD any information that may assist in proving GBC's innocence..... and wait until the Trial? Could it be that there is NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS INNOCENCE, or a GRAND PERFORMANCE by Olivia is ahead!

 

[Flinders]

Looking at the blurb about this REIQ conference, I can't understand why TM was so upset about Allison attending. It must have been a huge event attended by hundreds. Surely they could have both attended without having to be near each other? It sounds like TM went off her head about Allison attending- as if she was in a state of near panic about it! Weird. She really had it bad didn't she? I don't get it- but her reaction may have been the catalyst for what happened on the 19th April.

With great respect they might have caught up at these quick morning teas and lunch. The food is free but you mingle in the same space.