Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #46

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tishy said:
I understand but am open to correction that this prelim hearing may be a type of 'voir-dire' where the admissibility of contentious evidence may be tested in order to avoid tainting a trial - the principle of 'once something's said, it can't be un-said'.
Apparently this is not uncommon.
Click to expand...

Hi Tishy. I am wondering if this prelim hearing is in a closed court. I'm thinking it is, otherwise I'll be on the train in February.

I was a witness once in a drugged rape case and I slipped in (pun intended) something that was totally unrelated to the question but I wanted to jury to know. Defence shut me up quickly, but the jury could not un-hear what I had said. They could disregard it, but not un-hear it. Hahaha. I'm a sneaky *****.
 
A good and an expected decision by Judge Douglas to order Carmel Ritchie to give evidence.
His full judgement is here. http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QSC13-351.pdf

Basically he says that the references in the Family Law Act sections 10 D and E that prohibit giving of evidence in "any court" are limited to Family Court proceedings. This is because the definition of "court" in sec 4 is limited to proceedings instituted under the Family Law Act. Obviously the criminal trial is not in that category!

If you look at the ruling in the very last paragraph of the judgment it clearly says that The counsellor has to give evidence at the preliminary hearing. It does not refer to the trial, though it doesn't exclude the trial. So I would say she can be called to give evidence in the trial as well.
 
Re the pre trial hearing in February, here is the relevant legislation about the matters that can be dealt with at those hearings.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s590aa.html

Their main purpose is to sort out issues to avoid complicating or delaying the trial to try to streamline the running of the trial. So if there are going to be challenges to evidence admissibility for eg, sort that out at the pretrial. It is a type of voir dire ( preliminary examination without the jury) as Tishy correctly pointed out.

They may seek a direction at the pre trial hearing for eg for the jurors to be taken to various locations such as the bridge where Allison was found. GBC may apply for a judge only trial, which I doubt. Several witnesses may be called. It's only set down for 2 days so its not going to be too substantial in that there isn't time for many witnesses. The prosecution and defence would be going in to the pretrial hearing with a likely agreed list of issues they seek direction about.

I don't believe it will be a closed hearing, however there may be a non publication order to the media in order for potential jurors not to hear about evidence that may be held inadmissible at trial. I believe a non publication order was made in the recent pre trial hearing for the trial of Daniel Morcombe's alleged killer as there has been nothing that I can find online in MSM about the hearing. Not even that there was a non publication order. Even that hasn't been published by the media!
 
Fuskier said:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...llison-badenclay/story-fnihsrf2-1226787331912

Judge rules marriage counsellor to give evidence in murder trial of Gerard Baden-Clay for death of Allison Baden-Clay
DAVID MURRAY THE COURIER-MAIL DECEMBER 20, 2013 12:47PM
Click to expand...

I think this is a part of her job. What's the problem? Maybe she's embarrassed about Allison and 'the incarcerated' having to draw diagrams and discuss the love nest aka TMc's unit.
There should be NO loyalty to the one who hires & pays? Did GBC go see her after impressing the local doctors?
"Whaaaabooohooo I was attacked by a murderous shaver" Shameful stuff.

Poor poor Allison! No woman/wife could handle that absolutely disgraceful rot!
The bloody hide of some people!!:banghead:

HANG YOUR HEAD IN SHAME GBC!
 
Definitely the right decision for this case! Can't imagine how this has been kept from the barristers for so long. If both sides want answers then I cannot see why it needed to go in front of a judge. A bit more time wasting in the system as far as I am concerned.

The severity of this case with Allison being dumped unceremoniously after only days before 'perhaps' earnestly working through how to bring about good change in her marriage ,makes me speculate that she had finally come to the conclusion that she had to make a move and divorce GBC. She seemed to be one to make sure she dotted her i's and crossed her Ts in everything she did - so it was likely that she wasn't going to rush out and announce the fact to all and sundry. I wonder if CR kept this from GBC or if GBC was privy to this piece of info and decided to chat to TM about it. Then the two of them got together and started planning. GBC usually didn't too much on his own and if he did it was announced to the world. So I simply can't see him carrying this heinous crime all on his own. There had to be something that signaled the time was right to do the deed (he had all the time in the world) and there had to be help - and I think GBC received help from more than just his family.
 
Liadan said:
(Respectfully snipped)
GBC usually didn't too much on his own and if he did it was announced to the world.
So I simply can't see him carrying this heinous crime all on his own. There had to be something that signaled the time was right to do the deed (he had all the time in the world) and there had to be help - and I think GBC received help from more than just his family.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation Liaden:

"GBC usually didn't too much on his own; and if he did it was announced to the world."

A leopard doesn't change it's spots. Neither can a tiger change it's stripes.
 
LadyBird1 said:
Hmph! So this is the "norm" for killers who expect to get away with murder?
Click to expand...

Hmm... And on that note, both Simon and Gittany and BC's were very ready to tout the suicide spiel. (Rehearsed?) Without showing any signs of grief first. Spin Doctor comes to mind.
I wonder if such unseemly hastiness at suggesting suicide is admissible in a Court of Law?
 
LadyBird1 said:
Interesting observation Liaden:

"GBC usually didn't too much on his own; and if he did it was announced to the world."

A leopard doesn't change it's spots. Neither can a tiger change it's stripes.
Click to expand...

... and a Baden-Clay rarely changes his shirt or mustard jacket.:floorlaugh:
 
Hi All ..... just popped in to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

There will no doubt be lots of exaggerations and lies during the trial in June next, of Gerard Baden-Clay. It is my sincere hope that the truth of what happened can make its way through it all, and there can be justice for Allison ..... and hopefully bring about an element of peace in the hearts of so many people who really care.
 
:christmastree:
Hope all sleuthers have a wonderful Christmas and I look forward to being here next year. I particularly feel for Allison's children but hope they can find some joy in their lives with the wonderful Dickie family. :santahat:
:christmastree:

To GBC, just another day locked up for you. Right where you belong!:jail:
 
Porridge for <modsnip>

Countdown according to my notes - E&OE

3rd and 4th February - Pretrial hearing
24th February - recording of evidence (John Chardon is also in court this day - in Southport)
9th June - bums on seats

Happy Christmas all.
 
Merry Christmas everyone, everywhere !!
 
Tishy said:
Merry Christmas everyone, everywhere !!
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas to you all. Let's hope the Dickies, the girls had a lovely day, and that there is a good outcome for Allison and her family next year.
 
alioop said:
A good and an expected decision by Judge Douglas to order Carmel Ritchie to give evidence.
His full judgement is here. http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QSC13-351.pdf

Basically he says that the references in the Family Law Act sections 10 D and E that prohibit giving of evidence in "any court" are limited to Family Court proceedings. This is because the definition of "court" in sec 4 is limited to proceedings instituted under the Family Law Act. Obviously the criminal trial is not in that category!

If you look at the ruling in the very last paragraph of the judgment it clearly says that The counsellor has to give evidence at the preliminary hearing. It does not refer to the trial, though it doesn't exclude the trial. So I would say she can be called to give evidence in the trial as well.
Click to expand...

Alioop thank you for posting the Judge's full ruling. I enjoyed reading the full judgement and emerge with an expanded knowledge of this area in Law. Professional counselling confidentiality has always been 'limited confidentiality' and never 'absolute confidentiality'. So pleased that the 'limits' of The Family Law Act (1975) in this regard have been clarified. As Section 10D(2) states: "a family counsellor must disclose a communication if the counsellor reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of complying with a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory".
 
possumheart said:
The photographs taken of their home by the police have been flashing in my mind for the last few days. And also the images of GBC carrying things out of the home in clothes baskets. I have been pondering whether either Allison or GBC was a hoarder ... It would be a good reason to rent because if you move periodically you have to throw things out. It can also be a huge strain on a relationship speaking from my own experience. Just pondering.
(Apart from GBC's hoarding of women)
Click to expand...

Hi Possum - havent been on here for a long time, but felt the need to read and catch up. I agree with you, and even though I had seen them before...the photos of the rental Brookfield house seem so very incongruous with the Allison we want to know. It looks almost derelict and full of junk at the back and grass overgrowing play equipment. I want to ask...do we definitely know what their (ABC and GBC) living arrangements were before her death? Both were living there fulltime with the children? It just seems the photos are at odds with the type of mother that Allison would be. The first 3 pics in the series below are what concern me...

http://multimedia.aapnewswire.com.au/search.aspx?search=baden+clay+arrest+brisbane%26(importdate%3E20120613)&gallery=BADEN+CLAY+ARREST+BRISBANE

I guess I just find it odd, but I dont mean any disrespect to Allison at all. But sometimes things that appear out of character can be a clue to whats happening in that persons life.

All MOO
 
I don't know what sort of person she was, but I do know she had a job, three young kids who also did extracurricular activities, a ****** cheating husband, depression and huge money worries. I imagine she would have poured her finite energy into the kids and not had much time or money or help to spruce up the house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 78 more.
Total: 1,408 (members: 79, guests: 1,329)

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
1,329
Total visitors
1,408
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,790
Messages
17,958,901
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top