Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 #20

[possumheart]

Go to your profile/control panel

Select Edit avatar

and use this address (below) in the www box

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...backdrop.jpg/250px-Sunflower_sky_backdrop.jpg

hwow: thanks

 

[possumheart]

That is beautiful! I took a field to represent a lot of people who believe that Alisson should have been able to be there when her daughters have babies and share in their joy at being a mother, and she was denied that.

I chose a golden possum, obviously to represent a cross between a possum and a sunflower

 

[CaseClosed]

I try to look at this whole thing from the eyes of a juror.Based on what I have read and observed so far I could not in all conscience say 'Guilty" GBC :fence: beyond a reasonable doubt.Everything I have read so far is here say and circumstantial.Does that make me a fence sitter?? If it does I'm OK with that.

Probably. I can't see things from a juror's perspective, because we don't have all the evidence they will be presented with one day (hopefully!). I can only see it as what makes sense to me when applying logic and common sense (although nothing makes sense when it comes to murder) and considering the overwhelming statistics for intimate homicide.

 

[BreakingNews]

Probably. I can't see things from a juror's perspective, because we don't have all the evidence they will be presented with one day (hopefully!). I can only see it as what makes sense to me when applying logic and common sense (although nothing makes sense when it comes to murder) and considering the overwhelming statistics for intimate homicide.

CC, believe me. The jury doesn't get all the information. Only what the legal people want you to hear. As a panel member on a murder trial a few years back, we sat bored to tears in the jury room many a time while legal debate went on.:jail:

 

[Keentoknow]

I chose a golden possum, obviously to represent a cross between a possum and a sunflower

Where would be the best place to put the cross?

 

[CaseClosed]

CC, believe me. The jury doesn't get all the information. Only what the legal people want you to hear. As a panel member on a murder trial a few years back, we sat bored to tears in the jury room many a time while legal debate went on.:jail:

Point taken. I should have worded that better. At the moment we don't have many facts, hence I cannot look at things like a juror would.

 

[possumheart]

Where would be the best place to put the cross?

I like the left hand side of the road at the beginning of the bridge going west, but that's just me. Indromum likes the other side.

 

[Anemone]

But it surely could not be possible for GBC to be charged with manslaughter after such a long and deceptive coverup. If he had called the police immediately after the "heat of the moment accidental death" then I would accept manslaughter, but he lost that chance the second he started trying to save his own skin. IMO

I've been following this story for many weeks, and this is my first time posting. I couldn't agree with you more Pseudonym. When you look at the difference in sentences for murder compared to manslaughter, the latter is significantly less. From what I understand to secure a conviction for murder requires proving premeditation?

No doubt defence for the person/s charged with Allison's murder will argue to have the charge downgraded to manslaughter. But we have to hope that the disgraceful method of disposing of her body, added to the length of time hundreds of police, SES and firies searched for her while the perpetrator sat back saying nothing, will prevent that. It just beggars belief! The sentencing will surely have to take all of what happened after to the murder into account.

I've thought that the defence may argue diminished responsibility, bringing in an argument along the lines of lack of reason (not sure what the legal term is) but these factors must be taken into account. Otherwise there is no justice. I have been told that when sentencing occurs, parole is set at the same time, and that the events after the murder - action/inaction of the accused, would also be taken into account. In other words parole period should be considerably more given the cirumstances after the murder took place. It is just such a heart-breaking case, my heart goes out to the Dickie family and the three little girls.

 

[possumheart]

I've been following this story for many weeks, and this is my first time posting. I couldn't agree with you more Pseudonym. When you look at the difference in sentences for murder compared to manslaughter, the latter is significantly less. From what I understand to secure a conviction for murder requires proving premeditation?

No doubt defence for the person/s charged with Allison's murder will argue to have the charge downgraded to manslaughter. But we have to hope that the disgraceful method of disposing of her body, added to the length of time hundreds of police, SES and firies searched for her while the perpetrator sat back saying nothing, will prevent that. It just beggars belief! The sentencing will surely have to take all of what happened after to the murder into account.

I've thought that the defence may argue diminished responsibility, bringing in an argument along the lines of lack of reason (not sure what the legal term is) but these factors must be taken into account. Otherwise there is no justice. I have been told that when sentencing occurs, parole is set at the same time, and that the events after the murder - action/inaction of the accused, would also be taken into account. In other words parole period should be considerably more given the cirumstances after the murder took place. It is just such a heart-breaking case, my heart goes out to the Dickie family and the three little girls.

:welcome:

 

[CaseClosed]

I've been following this story for many weeks, and this is my first time posting. I couldn't agree with you more Pseudonym. When you look at the difference in sentences for murder compared to manslaughter, the latter is significantly less. From what I understand to secure a conviction for murder requires proving premeditation?

No doubt defence for the person/s charged with Allison's murder will argue to have the charge downgraded to manslaughter. But we have to hope that the disgraceful method of disposing of her body, added to the length of time hundreds of police, SES and firies searched for her while the perpetrator sat back saying nothing, will prevent that. It just beggars belief! The sentencing will surely have to take all of what happened after to the murder into account.

I've thought that the defence may argue diminished responsibility, bringing in an argument along the lines of lack of reason (not sure what the legal term is) but these factors must be taken into account. Otherwise there is no justice. I have been told that when sentencing occurs, parole is set at the same time, and that the events after the murder - action/inaction of the accused, would also be taken into account. In other words parole period should be considerably more given the cirumstances after the murder took place. It is just such a heart-breaking case, my heart goes out to the Dickie family and the three little girls.

Hi and welcome! I do hope that the perp's actions after the fact weigh heavily on sentencing/parole and that the rumoured existence of an accomplice or accomplices makes it even worse for him! Unfortunately, at this stage someone has a very high powered Barrister and that will work against the prosecution. All IMO.

 

[BreakingNews]

Point taken. I should have worded that better. At the moment we don't have many facts, hence I cannot look at things like a juror would.

I didn't mean it as a criticism. Just something that I am all too aware of. We need an arrest first.
I so agree with you. We don't have many facts. We are just rehashing stuff.
I'm getting really frustrated with the QPS. Allison and her family need justice. Now! :banghead:

 

[Mothergoose]

Probably. I can't see things from a juror's perspective, because we don't have all the evidence they will be presented with one day (hopefully!). I can only see it as what makes sense to me when applying logic and common sense (although nothing makes sense when it comes to murder) and considering the overwhelming statistics for intimate homicide.

My comment was based purely on what I have read and seen so far. If concrete evidence were available to us ,there would be no need for the this forum I guess.On an emotional level everything points to GBC but based on cold hard facts as presented here....I haven't seen any that would convict without a reasonable doubt. Please point it out if I am wrong. . I think jury selection is going to be very difficult and near impossible on this one given the overwhelming lean towards GBC ,by the general public ,as being the culprit.IMHO

 

[Keentoknow]

I like the left hand side of the road at the beginning of the bridge going west, but that's just me. Indromum likes the other side.

Cross will go up Thursday with 2 dozen sun flowers......Were is Indromum? :grouphug:

 

[possumheart]

Cross will go up Thursday with 2 dozen sun flowers......Were is Indromum? :grouphug:

I think she is OS at the moment

 

[Blue Bottle]

Watsonian Institute: In some of your earlier posts you linked to articles about defamation, and I got the impression that there's no distinction made between news media and social media - that journalists and councillors and bloggers and forum-posters in Australia are all operating under the same law(s) when they publish something. Is that right?

Huge can of worms here and what I am about to post is my interpretation of how I understand it so. Much of the social media we use today are not Australian originating sites and so do not come under Australian Law. For example, Websleuths is an American site which operates under American Law.

Means that if in American Law there is something that is not permitted to be discussed or posted, then noone, regardless of what country they come from, is allowed to do so when using that American site because it is againts the law of the country (America) which hosts that particular internet site. China and North Korea being good examples of countries which keep a tight reign on what internet sites which originate from their countries, are permitted to published.

A general every day example being that in America (maybe not in all States?), you cannot supply alcohol to anyone under 21. In Australia and Europe and England it's under 18 years old. What that means is, that if you are visiting America and are between the ages of 18 and 21 you cannot freely go to pubs and buy alcohol like we can here.

If an American between the ages of 18 and 21 comes here for a visit they have nothing stopping them from buying booze and drinking in the pubs. They are no longer bound by American Laws, but by the Australian Laws here.

It's a time consuming and expensive process to try to sue or try to get another country to take off information from one of their internet sites when that information is something that that country's laws permit.

 

[Cccclllaareb]

Was that a live webcast that you guys are talking about? Is there a way to listen to it again?

 

[possumheart]

Was that a live webcast that you guys are talking about? Is there a way to listen to it again?

It was live, and I don't know actually.

 

[marlywings]

Was that a live webcast that you guys are talking about? Is there a way to listen to it again?

It's now been added to this report...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...cessory-rejected/story-e6freon6-1226391562829

Edit...the video which was shown earlier has now been removed from above link...woww Courier Mail what are you doing !?!??!

 

[CaseClosed]

My comment was based purely on what I have read and seen so far. If concrete evidence were available to us ,there would be no need for the this forum I guess.On an emotional level everything points to GBC but based on cold hard facts as presented here....I haven't seen any that would convict without a reasonable doubt. Please point it out if I am wrong. . I think jury selection is going to be very difficult and near impossible on this one given the overwhelming lean towards GBC ,by the general public ,as being the culprit.IMHO

From that perspective, the only facts we have is that she was murdered sometime after having a hair appointment and found under the Kohlo bridge, apparently wearing sports gear. There is another general fact though, which is statistical evidence that in 9 out of 10 cases, the partner is the culprit.

When you think of "means, motive and opportunity", I can see her husband having the opportunity and various means, but we don't know the motive at this stage.

 

[marlywings]

An interesting read from the Australian Institute of Criminology...

Homicide between
Intimate Partners in
Australia

Carlos Carcach and Marianne James

The National Homicide Monitoring Program database at the Australian
Institute of Criminology reveals that during the period 1 July 1989 to 30 June
1996, just over one-quarter of the 2024 homicide incidents, where the offender
was known, involved intimate partners. These include spouses, ex-spouses,
those in current or former de facto relationships, boyfriends, girlfriends, or
partners of same-sex relationships: in other words, all relationships where the
underlying dynamics are similar.
In almost 4 out of 5 intimate-partner homicides, the perpetrator was a
male and the victim a female. In a little over 1 in 5 incidents, the homicides
were committed by a female against a male. A small number corresponded to
killings among partners in same-sex relationships. One-third of intimatepartner
homicides resulted from conflicts associated with jealousy or the
termination of a relationship. The remaining incidents arose from domestic
arguments

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/1/3/{613390AC-6E23-43F2-8070-45095691D7F0}ti90.pdf