ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#24

Status
Not open for further replies.

SoSueMe

Former Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
8,119
Reaction score
41
Thank you for joining Websleuths! :welcome3:​


Please remember the following when discussing the Allison Baden-Clay case:
Websleuths is a moderated forum. We strive to discuss cases in a friendly environment.

Our rules can be reviewed here: The Rules (PLEASE make sure you know the rules!)


Currently, we are considering Allison's husband to be a suspected person of interest in this case. There is a possible second party involved per MSM and it is okay to discuss that aspect, but please refrain from accusing anyone of murder at this juncture. Speculating is one thing, accusing is another.


Thread 1

Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4

Thread 5

Thread 6

Thread 7

Thread 8

Thread 9

Thread 10

Thread 11

Thread 12

Thread 13

Thread 14
Thread 15

Thread 16

Thread 17

Thread 18

Thread 19

Thread 20

Thread 21
Thread 22

Thread 23




REMEMBER: No cutting and pasting of comments from other social or media websites. You may paraphrase and provide a link.

The only social media sites allowed are those belonging to the victim, Gerard Baden-Clay and any named (by law enforcement) POI or Suspect, or site created and devoted to the murder of Allison.


Media/Timeline Reference Thread: CLICK HERE



CHAT ROOM: not for case discussion!




pic_sunflower_bokay.jpg

http://www.smartwebby.com/images/tutorials/fireworks/Autoshape/pic_sunflower_bokay.jpg
 
IMPORTANT INFORMATION

For a few days in a row, there have been numerous TOS violations on this case. While it may seem harmless to some, we are getting dozens of complaints from other members who want to discuss this case constructively. From now on, there will be more time outs issued to those who repeatedly choose to ignore our guidelines.

Here are just some of the problems that occur over and over:

* Baiting /Trolling / Inciting Conflict:There are times when a member violates our rules by trying to upset other members. Please use your ALERT feature when this happens and DO NOT RESPOND TO THE POSTS. When a moderator is able to deal with the problem, it takes a LOT less time when he/she doesn't have to also deal with all the responses to the offense. Plus, it makes the one who initially started the conflict keep on going.

* Inviting/Baiting: This is when someone says they have information they can't share on the forum. Then someone else asks for them to PM the information. It's like be at a party and whispering secrets to each other and is not allowed here. If you have something private to share, then send a private message and don't announce it on the public thread.

* Dreams/Visions: WS doesn't condone dreams and visions and psychic information. There are plenty of sites out there on the WWW that do, but we are not one of them. We have not found that information to be helpful in solving cases.

* Announcing alerts: Don't announce that you are alerting. Just do your part and make the alert and move on.

* Sleuthing other members: It doesn't matter what they are doing here, we do NOT sleuth other members. Anonymity is taken very seriously on Websleuths. If this continues, a member could lose their posting privileges permanently

* Derogatory Name Changes to Case Players/General Name Calling: is not allowed here. I'm learning more and more Aussie slang, so knock this stuff off.

* “Off-Topic” Posts: Off-Topic posts are subject to editing or removal at administrative discretion, and without notification. Members that continuously post off topic may have their posting privileges suspended. There is a chat thread created just for you guys. Go there and discuss things that interest you, or just to joke around in a positive manner. This thread is for discussion of Allison's murder.

None of these rules are new and a more detailed explanation of them can be found here: Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community





From here forth, all posts directed at telling other posters what they need to do, think, type, etc. will earn a time out. There will no longer be any excuses. The personalizing posts toward one member and the generalization toward other members is over. If you are about to post about another member, all members, this forum or anything else that might sound negative towards this group, be ready to lose your posting privileges.


Everyone is now being held responsible for knowing the rules.
 
119498958977780800stop_sign_right_font_mig_.svg.med.png


Have you read the two previous posts? If not, read them now.
By posting on this thread, you are stating you know the rules!
 
A list of our verified posters can be found here...

Verified Professional Posters
If your not on our list and would like to be verified please contact Admin at the address below, its all confidential.
If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area and that you do not claim to be a professional in any area.
If a member posts with "expertise" please check to make sure they are on this list. If not, please do not take their post as professional information, but rather just as another opinion ;much as you would with any member of the general posting membership.

If a member wants to post as a professional ( a lawyer, shrink, and so on) or as an insider who knows the people involved then they must email us at the following email.
wsverify@xmission.com
Please include:
The case
Their Websleuths name
Their phone number and a good time to call
Their real name.
In the subject line please put which case they are asking to be verified on.

All info will be kept strictly confidential
Thank you!

ANYONE who posts facts and IS NOT a verified professional MUST POST A LINK TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION!

Any post without this procedure will result in the post being removed without explanation and repeated violations could result in a loss of posting privileges.
 
This posts lands at random.

From here forth, all posts directed at telling other posters what they need to do, think, type, etc. will earn a time out. There will no longer be any excuses. The personalizing posts toward one member and the generalization toward other members is over.

We are getting dozens of complaints from regulars and from those who are afraid to post. It's going to stop now.

If you are about to post about another member, all members, this forum or anything else that might sound negative towards this group, be ready to lose your posting privileges.

I will add this to the opening post.
 
We have a detailed, formal Terms of Service (TOS) posted separately, and that TOS is what you will be held to as a member here. It's long and detailed because it has to be in the world we live in, and you are expected to read it, understand it and abide by it. However, we can sum it up as follows:

1) Be a decent human being;
2) Treat your fellow posters as the decent human beings they are;
3) Keep in mind that whatever you post will likely live on forever, so think before you press "Submit Reply".
4) It's a big world. People will disagree with you. You will disagree with them. This can be done with respect, and that's what we expect.
progress.gif

Please continue here...
 
I wonder if there are going to be any more arrests this week, also if GBC will get bail on Thursday?

If he gets bail there will be a public outcry!!!
 
Something I've been wondering... The police seem to be alleging that GBC murdered his wife at their home and interfered with her body at Kolo creek. If they believe him to be guilty of those crimes then they must believe he was aware she was deceased and where her body was while they were searching for her. With the waste of police and SES resources, I'm wondering if there is not a charge or fine that could be applied for that? Anyone know?
 
Maybe read my post again carefully and then read the cases you link. Of coure intereference charges can be on any indictment. Those cases are both examples of what I am suggesting. The first involves the trial of a juvenile where there is no mandatory life sentence hence the interference charge can be relevant to sentence. The second is an example of a murder and interference conviction, but where the interference conviction has no effect on sentence due to concurrency. We have no process of joinder of the kind you suggest in Qld. Each charge must be separately identified on the indictment. The elements of a murder offence do not, and cannot include, any element of interference with a coprse. By its very nature such interference can only occur after the murder itself has been complete. That's a matter of law and logic I think. What you'd need to find, for it to be contrary to my view, would be a case where convictions for both murder and interference, on the same indictiment, for an adult, resulted in consecutive sentences.

Manslaughter is an alternative verdict to murder. But manslaughter also forms part of the elements of murder, which is why it appears as "unlawfuly killing" rather than as "manslaughter" on an indictment. Once the unlawful killing is established then a manslaughter conviction must follow, absent the success of any defences or excuses. The Crown may then attempt to prove other elements, on of which may be intention, to establish murder. If that element is not successfully proved then the jury can be instructed by the judge to convict on manslaughter, or be asked to consider manslaughter only in deliberation.

The inclusion of the interference charge here can have no effect on sentence if the accused is convicted of murder. But as I suggested, if there is a plea bargain and the Crown will accept a plea of guilty to manslaugher to the charge of murder which appears on the indictment then it may. But there are more strategic subtleties than that. Interference with a corpse will most usually be the burying, hiding or an attempt to destroy it. To have a significant effect on a manslaughter conviction, it would need to involve something less usual.

Thanks Hawkins,
Once again, i am sorry if it seems that i have been picking on your posts. I have responded to quite a few of yours lately, and not many others; this is simply due to the fact that your posts are neutral to the case, and therefore, i consider it safe to comment on them.

I certainly do not have the aim of finding caselaw / legislation etc. contrary to your view, i simply sought to reinforce my own current understanding on the matter, although, i must admit, it has been great to have these interactions with you, in the form of challenging your posts, as i am learning something new each time :peace:.

Anyway, as to the cases i mentioned, the 1st one, you are correct - a juvie- I missed that. The 2nd one, yes, i can see that what you say is correct; but i was responding to a post in which you had said that you are unaware of a murder charge which also carries a charge for interfering, so that was my relevance there. Another relevant case is the Daniel Morcombe accused. However, looking at your first post, you did say:

If there was also a conviction for interference it would not affect the sentence in any way. Although there is provision for the court to order that sentences be served consecutively, this matter doesn't fit within any of the existing common law guidelines which enliven the exercise of that discretion.
which suggests that you are aware that there are provisions for this. However, my challenge to you was with your more recent post, which said:

The charge of interference does come up now and then for adult accused but in conjunction with a manslaughter charge, not murder. If there has been interference and there is a conviction for that, then that can significantly increase the gravity of the manslaughter charge, rather then result in an additional penalty.
BBM

So, on the whole, i was attempting to convey the fact that, yes, the murder charge may still stick, as it has in previous cases, regardless of the fact that interference has no effect on sentence.

Judging by what you have said, the chances of this are not as strong as what we are led to believe via MSM, and that the charge may be mitigated to manslaughter (with increased gravity). But this is not a guarantee. We will have to wait and see.

Regarding the process of joinder, i will have to get back to you on that. I am sure i have read of it in QLD legislation somewhere... maybe not for indictable offences though?!?!?!

As for the rest, you are saying that a manslaughter charge can be increased to a murder charge, via manslaughter? I was actually aware that unlawful homicide refers to both murder and manslaughter, and so now i have completely confused myself :confused::waitasec:. I will have to go and review some legislation i think.

Anyway, cheers Hawkins. I look forward to your reply :)
 
This posts lands at random.

From here forth, all posts directed at telling other posters what they need to do, think, type, etc. will earn a time out. There will no longer be any excuses. The personalizing posts toward one member and the generalization toward other members is over.

We are getting dozens of complaints from regulars and from those who are afraid to post. It's going to stop now.

If you are about to post about another member, all members, this forum or anything else that might sound negative towards this group, be ready to lose your posting privileges.

I will add this to the opening post.

We had a lot of problems with members following these guidelines these past 12 hours. I can't stress enough how much of a problem this is for this thread.

Please remember this before you post. :please:
 
Something I've been wondering... The police seem to be alleging that GBC murdered his wife at their home and interfered with her body at Kolo creek. If they believe him to be guilty of those crimes then they must believe he was aware she was deceased and where her body was while they were searching for her. With the waste of police and SES resources, I'm wondering if there is not a charge or fine that could be applied for that? Anyone know?

I believe that there have been cases in the past, where the costs involved with misusing police resources have been charged to the responsible party. I am not 100% sure if these cases i refer to are Australian (am going off memory here), but i will look into it for you :)
I know that the US authorities were considering this for the 'balloon boy' family (remember that? :floorlaugh:), so i may be getting mixed up with that case.
 
Something I've been wondering... The police seem to be alleging that GBC murdered his wife at their home and interfered with her body at Kolo creek. If they believe him to be guilty of those crimes then they must believe he was aware she was deceased and where her body was while they were searching for her. With the waste of police and SES resources, I'm wondering if there is not a charge or fine that could be applied for that? Anyone know?

This applies, but i doubt it would be persued in this case:
CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 140

140 Attempting to pervert justice A person who attempts to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of a crime.
Maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment.
 
As for the rest, you are saying that a manslaughter charge can be increased to a murder charge, via manslaughter? :)

The confusion arises because the Criminal Practice Rules require a manslaughter charge to be written as 'unlawful killing' on an indictment. A jury can't be asked to find murder if the charge is an unlawful killing but can be asked to rule on an unlawful killing if the trial is for murder. There's not much to lose by indicting for murder. Crown can always abandon the intention element even during the actual trial if a witness doesn't come up to proof for example. IMO. Enjoying your posts btw.
 
Allison Baden-Clay's friends organise event to pay tribute and support daughters

June 18, 2012 12:00AM

FRIENDS of slain Brookfield mum Allison Baden-Clay will band together for a day of health and well-being aimed at celebrating womanhood, the 43-year-old's life and to help raise funds for her three daughters.
Former Ipswich Girls' Grammar schoolmate Deanne Hudson said she was inspired by something Mrs Baden-Clay's friend Kerry-Anne Walker said at the funeral.

"When all this happened with Allison, I just lost sleep like everybody else and I started to think about how I could bring something positive out of this whole thing," she said.

"Kerry-Anne said, 'Don't wait, do - do something with your life' and I just thought ... many of us in life put things off, we hold back from doing something."

The event, Wear it Today for Allison, on July 16, encourages supporters to wear something they've been saving for a special day that may never come.

"And at the same time, think of Allison and her daughters," Mrs Hudson said

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ls-seize-the-day/story-e6freoof-1226398057560
 
Someone wrote on the previous thread surprised that the BC didn't know the procedure at the watch house - I wouldn't know what is required to visit someone there either. I doubt if I was in the situation that they found themselves last week whether I would have the presence of mind to read the QPS website.

For most of us I would imagine, a watch house visit would be a frightening experience, coupled with all the stresses, including the last 8 weeks, I can understand them getting angry. It may not help their case and they may be sorry they did it, but IMO it is perfectly understandable, should not have been printed in the CM, and I am certain it is not the first time it would have happened.
 
I was just looking at some photos from Allison's funeral, and it just occurred to me that it was strange that Olivia husband (who is a minister) did not participate in officiating at the funeral.

I am a catholic and often ministers from other denominations participate in important life liturgies, e.g. weddings and funerals, and if I had a BIL who was a minister I would want him included in my funeral. I don't recall seeing a photo of Olivia at the funeral, but surely she was present.
 
I was just looking at some photos from Allison's funeral, and it just occurred to me that it was strange that Olivia husband (who is a minister) did not participate in officiating at the funeral.

I am a catholic and often ministers from other denominations participate in important life liturgies, e.g. weddings and funerals, and if I had a BIL who was a minister I would want him included in my funeral. I don't recall seeing a photo of Olivia at the funeral, but surely she was present.


Coincidentally the pastors last tweet was about officiating at a friends wedding at Easter time from memory.

Also just noticed the sales at century 21 for the last few weeks prior. 11th April was a good day for sales. IMO 23 properties sold in 6 months means there must have been some money coming in?
http://www.realestate.com.au/sold/by-xcekeo/list-1
 
Kimster, we seem to be causing a lot of grief to the moderators. Could you give us some examples of the posts that were "offenders" in the last thread please?

Do you think it is a "cultural" difference that is causing the problems? Australians are quite forthright and I feel embarrassed that we seem to be continually causing problems.

Some people get a bit "narky" I agree, but it only seems to me to be the same two or three posters and they seem to at times have been sent to the naughty corner (as I have been myself), so I am thinking that the understanding of what is "allowable" by yourself is very different from what the majority of posters on Websleuths are thinking. Thank you

The rules are the same on Websleuths for everyone, no matter what part of the globe. And if the posts we've been dealing with were acceptable in Australia, we wouldn't be getting the large amount of alerts that we've been receiving - all from fellow Aussies.

I am not going to point out posts and embarrass the posters, so I'll try to give a generic example.

One poster says "I think ABC killed XYZ with a rope in the library".

Next poster says "You are nuts. Go back and read the last 4 threads that include all of our hard work and maybe you won't sound so much like a yank".

Last poster says "One poster, I will have to disagree. The evidence provided in the last three threads can educate you on the error. There wasn't a library in the home and we were able to establish that was just a rumor. Our rumor post is located here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122498"


Now, in this brief example above, I'm hoping it is obvious that "Next Poster" is the one who is going to receive the time out. They said the same thing as "Last Poster", however "Next Poster" was snarky and rude and "Last Poster" was respectful and helpful.

Hope that helps.

:cheers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
1,616
Total visitors
1,814

Forum statistics

Threads
589,953
Messages
17,928,195
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top