ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #21

Ahhh, don't abandon me!

OK, taking the financial angle, what would be the reasons someone would kill ABC?

The simplest would be not wanting to divide assets (if any) with a divorce, or the spouse having an insurance policy.

Then it gets more complicated. Why would it matter if ABC was dead if it were a company matter? Did she find out something shady and was threatening to expose? Was she refusing to sign something if she was a shareholder or partner? Was she threatening to sell her share of something?

That's about as far as my thinking seems to go on financial matters. All these are good motives. All of them have been mentioned before on WS.

Are there any other financial motives?

Also, a financial motive may not have to be the primary motive for a murder, whether planned or unplanned. It may just have been a "bonus" for the murderer(s).

Go Maroons!

Nads said:

Ahhh, don't abandon me!

OK, taking the financial angle, what would be the reasons someone would kill ABC?

The simplest would be not wanting to divide assets (if any) with a divorce, or the spouse having an insurance policy.

Then it gets more complicated. Why would it matter if ABC was dead if it were a company matter? Did she find out something shady and was threatening to expose? Was she refusing to sign something if she was a shareholder or partner? Was she threatening to sell her share of something?

That's about as far as my thinking seems to go on financial matters. All these are good motives. All of them have been mentioned before on WS.

Are there any other financial motives?

Also, a financial motive may not have to be the primary motive for a murder, whether planned or unplanned. It may just have been a "bonus" for the murderer(s).

Go Maroons!

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. The argument on Thursday night (if it happened) is likely to have covered a lot of territory. That's what generally happpens in long term marriages/relationships - we bring up ALL the issues and combine them together (we know we shouldn't do so, but we can't help ourselves. We need to prove our point!). However, the trigger may have been the credit card rejection. Perhaps there was a deeper realisation of the true scale of their financial woes.
I think there is a web of financial transactions through different companies and loans from people that come right down to "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" - over and over again. Poor financial management, taking way too much risk, and not willing to settle for what they have (which was very basic indeed).

I value members with alternative viewpoints on here and I would not want to lose members just because I disagreed with what they had to say.

I do have an alternative belief to the majority here and have posted that re the pelting of fruit etc.

However, even though I have a different view, I have found respect and consideration here.

Greg made some lovely comments about me the other night and he is right; I do not like to bag anyone out. I do sometimes get frustrated like everyone else though.

However, I would ask each one of you to see the beauty in those posts that oppose your own..........diamonds in the rough maybe?

I for one would miss so much the intelligence and wit of some 'alternative' posters on here and just because they might not fit in with the mainstream, I uphold and will fight for their right to post alternatives.

Otherwise, where is my sense of integrity?

Peace Out! x

Morning....have we done something wrong re: the sunflowers

ollijack said:

Morning....have we done something wrong re: the sunflowers

Click to expand...

NO! its cool ollijack!

I know some will feel this link is off topic; but I have posted it here purely as food for thought.

These statements particularly grabbed my attention:

"If you smile that's dreadful, you should be crying. And if you don't smile you're hard-hearted and if you cry all the time you're a drama queen.

"The other thing is when you're walking through a crowd who are hissing and booing and cheering and congratulating you; you've got those that love you and those that hate you.

"I suggest you you try walking into a hostile crowd and see what you do. You sort of try and remain as neutral as possible."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/good...-says-sorry-20120613-2091e.html#ixzz1xdDZOFmE

Although some believe they know GBC is guilty; please remember, many thought that they knew Lindy Chamberlain was guilty too. There is a chance this case will not go the way you are thinking, and you need to be prepared for that.

I fully respect the fact that strangers would feel the need to grieve for Allison (although I think it would be more appropriate that it were done on a memorial website).

This is a "sleuthing" forum; and with the lack of available news/information on the case, the vigil here is often being drawn off track and there are people/businesses/information being sleuthed/discussed that appears to be totally unrelated to Allisons' death; it is also drawing unfavourable public attention from others, including those directly involved in the case. It has even been mentioned that sites such as this may have a negative impact on Allisons' case...and I'm sure no one here would want to be responsible for that.

To maintain respect for Allison (and for this forum), maybe it is time some people took a break. No one will feel you are "giving up" on Allison. It's just time, there is no more to be done here for now. Live your lives for Allison, get out in the sun and love your families.

mum73 said:

I know some will feel this link is off topic; but I have posted it here purely as food for thought.

These statements particularly grabbed my attention:

"If you smile that's dreadful, you should be crying. And if you don't smile you're hard-hearted and if you cry all the time you're a drama queen.

.....snipped
This is a "sleuthing" forum; and with the lack of available news/information on the case, the vigil here is often being drawn off track and there are people/businesses/information being sleuthed/discussed that appears to be totally unrelated to Allisons' death; it is also drawing unfavourable public attention from others, including those directly involved in the case. It has even been mentioned that sites such as this may have a negative impact on Allisons' case...and I'm sure no one here would want to be responsible for that.

snipped.

Click to expand...

Mum73 - by chance i was reading the same article. And now i'm reading Lindy's own site to get further perspective.
I do agree that no one can KNOW that GBC is guilty, but I don't think it is wrong for people to "sleuth" options for motive. It may be that the path though "people/businesses/information" leads to another perp being more likely. I don't think it is unrelated to her death. Money is often a key motivator. We just don't know in this situation.

Aussie_expat.sg said:

Mum73 - by chance i was reading the same article. And now i'm reading Lindy's own site to get further perspective.
I do agree that no one can KNOW that GBC is guilty, but I don't think it is wrong for people to "sleuth" options for motive. It may be that the path though "people/businesses/information" leads to another perp being more likely. I don't think it is unrelated to her death. Money is often a key motivator. We just don't know in this situation.

Click to expand...

I'm usually all for "sleuthing" too. But I must admit, recent matters being discussed in the media have caused me concern as to where this case is heading, which has given me a new personal perspective as to why information is being withheld. If withholding information at this time is going to ensure that the person/people responsible for Allisons' death are held accountable...I'm happy for that information to remain a secret.

mum73 said:

I'm usually all for "sleuthing" too. But I must admit, recent matters being discussed in the media have caused me concern as to where this case is heading, which has given me a new personal perspective as to why information is being withheld. If withholding information at this time is going to ensure that the person/people responsible for Allisons' death are held accountable...I'm happy for that information to remain a secret.

Click to expand...

Yes, i think you are right, and you give me cause for concern.

by the way, a curious coincidence - like Allison, Lindy Chamberlain was also a member of Pathfinders
"In her pre-teen years Lindy had been a member of a church club called 'Pathfinders', very similar to Boy Scouts or Girl Guides. Amongst the badge honours she had done was one on dogs. After discussing the various domestic dogs, she was then required to name and discuss five wild members of the canine family. The Australian dingo was one of the five she chose, and the topic was just a paragraph. It is an indicator of the unbalanced judgment applied to the Chamberlains that this was labelled a 'thesis'; in one book, printed after Lindy was jailed, it was said to have been a thesis for her college education"
http://www.lindychamberlain.com/content/rumours_and_facts

Just looking up the kind of financial arrangement that was OF (better not use the real name of the fund?) that the BC family owned and found it was a Discretionary Investment Trust. I have no idea about financial matters but this is what came up when I googled.

http://ntaacorporate.com.au/documents/Discretionary_Trust_Info.pdf

What if ABC was the trustee or the settlor (for tax purposes perhaps)? Or tell me to go get a brain if you like! I told you I had no idea!

I wouldn't have thought the family would have any capital to worry about though, what with the RE business grinding into the ground.

Rational said:

Thanks Fuskier
Strangely enough I was strongly leaning towards the DV angle until I started reading through some old threads yesterday and read the one (sorry cannot remember the poster) who relayed the overheard comment from GBC at the Brookfield show where he was telling someone, apparently fairly blasé, that the MSM had found out about the affair and was going to publish it.

I was amazed that someone at their first public outing (at the Brookfield Show ground where the command post for the search had been established and which he did not attend once), and only shortly after the funeral of his daughter's mother, could come out with something like that.

I thought to myself if someone can be so 'Teflon coated' against general feelings, and so totally unfeeling towards his daughters and the Dickies (they will read the papers in years to come and will see their father coming out openly about the affair irrespective of what he may be telling them in private) that there had to be far more to this murder than DV, or the affair with TM.

What a terrible web some people can weave. IMHO

Click to expand...

Rational, can you elaborate on who MSM is please ?

Love the Sunflower Idea....!:woohoo:

Detect said:

Rational, can you elaborate on who MSM is please ?

Click to expand...

MSM = MainStream Media

Off topic (forgive me Kimster)
from Lindy Chamberlain's site. I really do remember this cartoon. It shows the sheer frustration of the public and the media in the lack of answers. And it makes me wish someone would TALK in this case.

Mani said:

Greg made some lovely comments about me the other night and he is right; I do not like to bag anyone out.

Click to expand...

lovely comments....???? was I on something???? can I retract them???

:doh:

illowfight2:

mum73 said:

I'm usually all for "sleuthing" too. But I must admit, recent matters being discussed in the media have caused me concern as to where this case is heading, which has given me a new personal perspective as to why information is being withheld. If withholding information at this time is going to ensure that the person/people responsible for Allisons' death are held accountable...I'm happy for that information to remain a secret.

Click to expand...

GENERAL COMMENT - Nobody can stop the general public from discussing a case or whatever it is. The internet has been available to many people for over 20 years and this is not the only case (nor will it be the last) that will generate forum discussions all over the place. The authorities, whether it be police or government, know this and are expecting people's speculation. I agree that QPS should keep many details secret, but what has been released to the public through media is very much what they want us to know. If the authorities thought that any information released would be detrimental to someone or to a prospective trial, they would not have released any details about anything and would have put a total ban on the media reporting on this case (or any other case).



This forum has moderators and if they believe that a particular post or comment is inappropriate (according to their TOS), they will promptly delete them, as we have experienced. But we still have the right to express our opinions, with respect for the victim and all involved, including respect for members of this forum. I believe expressing certain grieve for the death of woman (with whom many here identify with and for various reasons) is perfectly acceptable.

If authorities are so concerned about what is being discussed in forums like this, WHY haven't they come out and confirm they have eliminated certain player(s) from their investigation? Because they HAVEN'T eliminated them. All they above is my personal opinion only.

I still stand by my own theory: Allison died as a result of a DV incident. IMO.

well said CaseClosed

mum73 said:

I know some will feel this link is off topic; but I have posted it here purely as food for thought.

These statements particularly grabbed my attention:

"If you smile that's dreadful, you should be crying. And if you don't smile you're hard-hearted and if you cry all the time you're a drama queen.

"The other thing is when you're walking through a crowd who are hissing and booing and cheering and congratulating you; you've got those that love you and those that hate you.

"I suggest you you try walking into a hostile crowd and see what you do. You sort of try and remain as neutral as possible."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/good...-says-sorry-20120613-2091e.html#ixzz1xdDZOFmE

Although some believe they know GBC is guilty; please remember, many thought that they knew Lindy Chamberlain was guilty too. There is a chance this case will not go the way you are thinking, and you need to be prepared for that.

I fully respect the fact that strangers would feel the need to grieve for Allison (although I think it would be more appropriate that it were done on a memorial website).

This is a "sleuthing" forum; and with the lack of available news/information on the case, the vigil here is often being drawn off track and there are people/businesses/information being sleuthed/discussed that appears to be totally unrelated to Allisons' death; it is also drawing unfavourable public attention from others, including those directly involved in the case. It has even been mentioned that sites such as this may have a negative impact on Allisons' case...and I'm sure no one here would want to be responsible for that.

To maintain respect for Allison (and for this forum), maybe it is time some people took a break. No one will feel you are "giving up" on Allison. It's just time, there is no more to be done here for now. Live your lives for Allison, get out in the sun and love your families.

Click to expand...

Wise lady !!!!! Very wise words !!!! EXCELLENT POST !!!!!!!:tyou::tyou::tyou:

CaseClosed said:

GENERAL COMMENT - Nobody can stop the general public from discussing a case or whatever it is. The internet has been available to many people for over 20 years and this is not the only case (nor will it be the last) that will generate forum discussions all over the place. The authorities, whether it be police or government, know this and are expecting people's speculation. I agree that QPS should keep many details secret, but what has been released to the public through media is very much what they want us to know. If the authorities thought that any information released would be detrimental to someone or to a prospective trial, they would not have released any details about anything and would have put a total ban on the media reporting on this case (or any other case).



This forum has moderators and if they believe that a particular post or comment is inappropriate (according to their TOS), they will promptly delete them, as we have experienced. But we still have the right to express our opinions, with respect for the victim and all involved, including respect for members of this forum. I believe expressing certain grieve for the death of woman (with whom many here identify with and for various reasons) is perfectly acceptable.

If authorities are so concerned about what is being discussed in forums like this, WHY haven't they come out and confirm they have eliminated certain player(s) from their investigation? Because they HAVEN'T eliminated them. All they above is my personal opinion only.

I still stand by my own theory: Allison died as a result of a DV incident. IMO.

Click to expand...

Internet forums/rumour/innuendo have been around for a long time, but there have also been several cases where they've been raised as having a negative effect on investigative processes. I feel it is only a matter of time before forums such as this one are brought in to grant a mistrial in a major case.

Please also remember that this is an American website, and I think you will find that the owners/moderators will not/cannot guarantee that your input here will have no legal repercussions under Australian law.

Please understand that I am not defending anyone, nor am I saying any of you don't have the "right" to do as you please. I am just suggesting that some of the matters I have raised should be considered; both for the health and well being of posters here, and to protect the case against Allisons' killer/s.

About the CMC. They can be asked by QPS or AFP to conduct a hearing to ask someone questions about a serious crime that has been committed, where the police believe that person has knowledge that will assist in the prosecution of the crime. The person to be asked the questions wont usually be the suspect themselves. It’s a bit like a court hearing, but with important differences.

It’s an offence for the person called to answer questions in the CMC not to take the oath or affirmation to tell the truth. It’s also an offence for that person not to answer a question, unless they have a reasonable excuse. The only excuse that usually works is that you’re a lawyer or a politician who would be breaking parliamentary or legal professional privilege if you answered the question.

If you combine the rules requiring you to take the oath, with the rule about being required to answer questions, then you’ve got a situation where the person will have to answer a question and if they don’t they get fined or imprisoned. If they do answer and lie (and that is found out) then they’ll be charged with perjury and go to a real court and either be fined or imprisoned for that offence.

That strategy sometimes works, but for hardcore crims such as bikies, the threat of a year in prison or a fine is of little consequence. They’ll take the punishment rather than spill the beans. You could also have an accomplice or a family member who’d take the relatively lighter penalty for perjury than to incriminate the other person.

An important caveat on this compulsion to answer questions though, is that any answer given can’t be used in evidence against that person, appearing in the CMC, in a court.

In a real court there’s a powerful and essential protection which allows a person to refuse to answer a question if in doing so they would incriminate themselves in some offence. This is based on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that they don’t have to say anything to police. They don’t have to prove their innocence, the Crown has to prove their guilt.

Here’s a highly hypothetical example. A fellow goes on trial in the Supreme Court for the murder of his wife. A person is subpoenaed to give evidence as a prosecution witness. The witness is told that there is a record of him having had a phone conversation with the accused on the night of the alleged killing. The witness is asked by the prosecutor what the substance of that conversation was. The witness must answer the question, just like in the CMC. But, in the court, unlike in the CMC, the witness can refuse to answer the question on the grounds that in answering it he would incriminate himself in some offence. The conversation could, for example, have been about how to dispose of the body. Answering the question truthfully would implicate the witness in an offence, so he could refuse to answer it on the grounds of the self-incrimination privilege. And if the state believes the witness has committed any offence it’s up to them to prove it, not for him to admit to it. Like it or loathe it, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. All just IMO. MOO.