Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > Hot Cases > Allison Baden-Clay of Australia > Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads

Notices


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:16 PM
Detect's Avatar
Detect Detect is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational View Post
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 blasť, 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
Rational, can you elaborate on who MSM is please ?
The Following User Says Thank You to Detect For This Useful Post:
  #52  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:17 PM
coolcat's Avatar
coolcat coolcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 305
Love the Sunflower Idea....!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to coolcat For This Useful Post:
  #53  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:21 PM
Nads's Avatar
Nads Nads is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detect View Post
Rational, can you elaborate on who MSM is please ?
MSM = MainStream Media
__________________
you do the crime, you do the time.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nads For This Useful Post:
  #54  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:28 PM
Aussie_expat.sg's Avatar
Aussie_expat.sg Aussie_expat.sg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Singapore
Posts: 179
wish someone would talk

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.
media---give-the-dingo-10K.jpg
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aussie_expat.sg For This Useful Post:
  #55  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:46 PM
Greg's Avatar
Greg Greg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani View Post

Greg made some lovely comments about me the other night and he is right; I do not like to bag anyone out.
lovely comments....???? was I on something???? can I retract them???



The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Greg For This Useful Post:
  #56  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:49 PM
CaseClosed's Avatar
CaseClosed CaseClosed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by mum73 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
*** The above comment is my personal opinion and may be based on known facts or just my imagination ***

Last edited by CaseClosed; 06-12-2012 at 10:57 PM. Reason: Added heading
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to CaseClosed For This Useful Post:
  #57  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:56 PM
possumheart's Avatar
possumheart possumheart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: South East Queensland, AU
Posts: 1,400
well said CaseClosed
__________________
A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.
― Albert Camus
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to possumheart For This Useful Post:
  #58  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:09 PM
Mothergoose's Avatar
Mothergoose Mothergoose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by mum73 View Post
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-...#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.
Wise lady !!!!! Very wise words !!!! EXCELLENT POST !!!!!!!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mothergoose For This Useful Post:
  #59  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:14 PM
mum73 mum73 is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseClosed View Post
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.
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.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to mum73 For This Useful Post:
  #60  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:16 PM
Hawkins Hawkins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 153
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.
  #61  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:19 PM
factfinda factfinda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseClosed View Post
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.

But I wonder to what extent the desire to discuss every minutia of the case, including numerous speculations not mentioned in MSM, is risking the long-term outcome of the investigation? I know everyone is free to make their own decisions regarding what they want to discuss, but it would be a terrible shame if the (hopefully) eventual court case is somehow impacted upon by this - even in a small way. Everyone's motivation is justice for Allison but the worst outcome for her family would be to find that this compulsion, while not actually solving the crime, could in fact create a problem down the track. It is reasonable for the media to report on the facts that come to light via the QPS, but I'm not sure how reasonable it is for people to publicly sleuth every family member, friend, business associate, company, etc. This is not intended as a criticism of any individual here, but more as food for thought about taking a long-term approach to the investigation to ensure it has optimal success. (IMO of course)
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to factfinda For This Useful Post:
  #62  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:27 PM
CaseClosed's Avatar
CaseClosed CaseClosed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by mum73 View Post
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.
Yes, I am aware that we have to be careful with accusations because libel laws take into account the locality where the comment was made, and not where the internet forum is based.

I think we must also consider that many people live isolated lives (whether due to location, age, circumstance, etc.) and internet forums are basically their only arena to establish certain relationships (virtual) with the outside world, i.e it becomes their way of holding a "conversation" with other people. Some are more emotional than others and some are more restrained. It's just how these forums work.
__________________
*** The above comment is my personal opinion and may be based on known facts or just my imagination ***
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to CaseClosed For This Useful Post:
  #63  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:33 PM
louisepiglet louisepiglet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by factfinda View Post
But I wonder to what extent the desire to discuss every minutia of the case, including numerous speculations not mentioned in MSM, is risking the long-term outcome of the investigation? I know everyone is free to make their own decisions regarding what they want to discuss, but it would be a terrible shame if the (hopefully) eventual court case is somehow impacted upon by this - even in a small way. Everyone's motivation is justice for Allison but the worst outcome for her family would be to find that this compulsion, while not actually solving the crime, could in fact create a problem down the track. It is reasonable for the media to report on the facts that come to light via the QPS, but I'm not sure how reasonable it is for people to publicly sleuth every family member, friend, business associate, company, etc. This is not intended as a criticism of any individual here, but more as food for thought about taking a long-term approach to the investigation to ensure it has optimal success. (IMO of course)
I understand the discussion on this site could possibly be a problem regarding jury selection for a trial, but im sure that people, especially locals, would be discussing this case at length and many of them would know those involved personally. Aren't we really doing the same thing, just not in person? Afterall, everything we talk about is only our opinions and thoughts.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, if you are selected for a jury doesn't the judge advise you not to access the media during that time.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to louisepiglet For This Useful Post:
  #64  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:34 PM
CaseClosed's Avatar
CaseClosed CaseClosed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by factfinda View Post
But I wonder to what extent the desire to discuss every minutia of the case, including numerous speculations not mentioned in MSM, is risking the long-term outcome of the investigation? I know everyone is free to make their own decisions regarding what they want to discuss, but it would be a terrible shame if the (hopefully) eventual court case is somehow impacted upon by this - even in a small way. Everyone's motivation is justice for Allison but the worst outcome for her family would be to find that this compulsion, while not actually solving the crime, could in fact create a problem down the track. It is reasonable for the media to report on the facts that come to light via the QPS, but I'm not sure how reasonable it is for people to publicly sleuth every family member, friend, business associate, company, etc. This is not intended as a criticism of any individual here, but more as food for thought about taking a long-term approach to the investigation to ensure it has optimal success. (IMO of course)
I understand what you are saying. Do you know of any criminal case in the world (since the availability of the internet) where a forum discussion has resulted in a failed outcome? I personally don't know of any.
__________________
*** The above comment is my personal opinion and may be based on known facts or just my imagination ***
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to CaseClosed For This Useful Post:
  #65  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:36 PM
CaseClosed's Avatar
CaseClosed CaseClosed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisepiglet View Post
I understand the discussion on this site could possibly be a problem regarding jury selection for a trial, but im sure that people, especially locals, would be discussing this case at length and many of them would know those involved personally. Aren't we really doing the same thing, just not in person? Afterall, everything we talk about is only our opinions and thoughts.
Agree. I personally don't think it will be that difficult to find 12 jurors in a city of 2 million people, where probably only a very insignificant number of residents are discussing this case in forums.
__________________
*** The above comment is my personal opinion and may be based on known facts or just my imagination ***
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to CaseClosed For This Useful Post:
  #66  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:37 PM
LostSock's Avatar
LostSock LostSock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
People are judged by their peers in a court of law, no one should be judged in a public forum unless all the facts are known especially when the info on that forum will be available forever and a day wether the person is guilty is not. But people are people, we all want our opinions heard and we all feel the need to let the rest of the world know how clever we are. Sadly the world is a dog eat dog world and people will say what they want when they want all we can do is ignore what we disagree with and accepts peoples opinion. I have alwys been of the opinion that if you like who you are and what you stand for no one elses opinions matter.
__________________
Never pretend to be something your not... Sooner or later you'll be found out.
It is human nature to peel away the layers to find what lays beneath

The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to LostSock For This Useful Post:
  #67  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:44 PM
louisepiglet louisepiglet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseClosed View Post
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.
I agree. I have always felt that this is a case of DV that spun out of control.
IMO
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to louisepiglet For This Useful Post:
  #68  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:45 PM
factfinda factfinda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisepiglet View Post
I understand the discussion on this site could possibly be a problem regarding jury selection for a trial, but im sure that people, especially locals, would be discussing this case at length and many of them would know those involved personally. Aren't we really doing the same thing, just not in person? Afterall, everything we talk about is only our opinions and thoughts.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, if you are selected for a jury doesn't the judge advise you not to access the media during that time.
I think the problem with having such a myriad of information online, available to everyone to see at any time, is that there is understandably a hybrid of facts, rumour and speculation that could potentially influence a jury. While jurors are supposed to base their decisions solely on what they have seen and heard in court, it would be a huge temptation to have a good dig around online when you get home. I know I probably would! So my personal opinion is that it's the easy availability of all the opinions and information that could be troublesome, as opposed to perhaps overhearing the odd conversation around town. But I do agree that this is the nature of the online world these days and perhaps the laws need to change to accommodate this. I'm not saying that people shouldn't discuss the case; it's more about the extent and depth of the speculation that could have an impact.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to factfinda For This Useful Post:
  #69  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:48 PM
CaseClosed's Avatar
CaseClosed CaseClosed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by factfinda View Post
I think the problem with having such a myriad of information online, available to everyone to see at any time, is that there is understandably a hybrid of facts, rumour and speculation that could potentially influence a jury. While jurors are supposed to base their decisions solely on what they have seen and heard in court, it would be a huge temptation to have a good dig around online when you get home. I know I probably would! So my personal opinion is that it's the easy availability of all the opinions and information that could be troublesome, as opposed to perhaps overhearing the odd conversation around town. But I do agree that this is the nature of the online world these days and perhaps the laws need to change to accommodate this. I'm not saying that people shouldn't discuss the case; it's more about the extent and depth of the speculation that could have an impact.
If worst come to worst, the jury could be ordered to be sequestered in a hotel without access to media or others.
__________________
*** The above comment is my personal opinion and may be based on known facts or just my imagination ***
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaseClosed For This Useful Post:
  #70  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:49 PM
Mothergoose's Avatar
Mothergoose Mothergoose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisepiglet View Post
I understand the discussion on this site could possibly be a problem regarding jury selection for a trial, but im sure that people, especially locals, would be discussing this case at length and many of them would know those involved personally. Aren't we really doing the same thing, just not in person? Afterall, everything we talk about is only our opinions and thoughts.
Before the internet people discussed cases such as this, in person to person conversations, as in small talk (excuse the phrase) over a cuppa then probably didn't discuss it again until the Newspapers came out with something new. Sleuthing is something that the internet has enabled. Good or bad the thoughts we have are expressed and put in print for ALL to see thus keeping the rumors ,speculation and theories alive and well (and growing) day to day.The capacity to create a very biased public is far greater now. You can rest assured there is a junior law clerk (at GBC's lawyers office) who's job it is , is to read every forum and blog online regarding this case. All there in black and white..........not here say.Please don't think I am being critical of anyone in particular. I have been more an observer than a contributor on this forum.IMO of course.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mothergoose For This Useful Post:
  #71  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:52 PM
factfinda factfinda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseClosed View Post
I understand what you are saying. Do you know of any criminal case in the world (since the availability of the internet) where a forum discussion has resulted in a failed outcome? I personally don't know of any.
I'm not a solicitor and I haven't Googled any other cases, but I know it's an issue that is widely discussed behind closed doors in the media. I don't think it's an overstatement to say the potential is there. If erring on the side of caution would prevent a future injustice then it's probably worth considering, IMO.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to factfinda For This Useful Post:
  #72  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:01 AM
LostSock's Avatar
LostSock LostSock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
IMO forum speculation and comment is least likely to affect a court case than the long term reputation of the person it is aimed at should it be proved they are innocent.

Having said that IMO GBC is guilty as sin.
__________________
Never pretend to be something your not... Sooner or later you'll be found out.
It is human nature to peel away the layers to find what lays beneath

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to LostSock For This Useful Post:
  #73  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:09 AM
KatiKutloose's Avatar
KatiKutloose KatiKutloose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Outback Australia
Posts: 39
Just checking my Avatar, hope nobody else has it (let me know if you do and I'll change it) Cheers
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to KatiKutloose For This Useful Post:
  #74  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:14 AM
Keentoknow's Avatar
Keentoknow Keentoknow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostSock View Post
People are judged by their peers in a court of law, no one should be judged in a public forum unless all the facts are known especially when the info on that forum will be available forever and a day wether the person is guilty is not. But people are people, we all want our opinions heard and we all feel the need to let the rest of the world know how clever we are. Sadly the world is a dog eat dog world and people will say what they want when they want all we can do is ignore what we disagree with and accepts peoples opinion. I have alwys been of the opinion that if you like who you are and what you stand for no one elses opinions matter.
That is the best looking sock ever.......

Sometime today there will be a yellow cross laden with sunflowers at Kholo Bridge.
__________________
"We, your family, pledge to you that we will have these questions answered. We will bring you justice, because you deserve nothing less," she said.
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Keentoknow For This Useful Post:
  #75  
Old 06-13-2012, 12:23 AM
Greg's Avatar
Greg Greg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothergoose View Post
Before the internet people discussed cases such as this, in person to person conversations, as in small talk (excuse the phrase) over a cuppa then probably didn't discuss it again until the Newspapers came out with something new. Sleuthing is something that the internet has enabled. Good or bad the thoughts we have are expressed and put in print for ALL to see thus keeping the rumors ,speculation and theories alive and well (and growing) day to day.The capacity to create a very biased public is far greater now. You can rest assured there is a junior law clerk (at GBC's lawyers office) who's job it is , is to read every forum and blog online regarding this case. All there in black and white..........not here say.Please don't think I am being critical of anyone in particular. I have been more an observer than a contributor on this forum.IMO of course.
Maybe the forum needs to be members only and not available for public view with some form of copyright terms and conditions???

But in saying that the ability of the WS forum to influence the general public opinion is zero with 300 odd lurkers ...Australia wide...... any influence will come from MSM or high profile blogs from politicians and the like.

MOO
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Greg For This Useful Post:
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #11 SoSueMe Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads 1489 05-22-2012 10:22 AM
Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #10 SoSueMe Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads 1582 05-20-2012 11:42 AM
Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #6 Kimster Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads 1199 05-12-2012 11:53 AM
Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #4 bessie Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads 1123 05-08-2012 02:39 PM
Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 kiwijayne Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads 1240 05-03-2012 12:10 AM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!