NO BAIL! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#30

[frustrated detective]

If the BC clan had put a fraction of the time/energy/money into finding Allison as they appear to be putting towards the defence of GBC it may be possible to understand what they are doing now.

The three children are also a part of their clan, but they seem to be happy to let others provide for them while they spend thousands on legal professionals.

Why all the loyalty to GBC and not to the children who are clearly innocent and vulnerable?

I suppose their answer would be that they want GBC to be freed as it would be in the children's best interests to have their father back caring for them.

Honestly, I can't figure these people out at all.

 

[angel1]

I knew about the update last night but i didn't know until today you could legally appoint more than one lawyer. Oh well i guess you learn something new everyday. :banghead:

 

[Fuskier]

Sorry to make another comment but i forgot to put something in the last one. Can someone please (in easier terms to understand) explain what this part means??

"I know very little of the case other than what I read in the newspapers, but I fear that the way this man is currently being treated by the authorities, when so far absolutely nothing has been proven against him, raises the very real spectre of a grave injustice being done to him." :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

IMO Its a load of Lawyer speak 'gobbledegook' to create doubt in the mind of the public. IMO the QPolice investigation evidence led to the alleged murderer who was subsequently charged. The alleged murderer has been detained on Remand by the Supreme Court Bail Justice. This is our Criminal legal system in action. My opinion, not fact.

 

[Nads]

Haha...an Aussie version of the movie Dumb & Dumber...

Really wanted to say Stupid & Stupider...but that's not a word...lol.

Well the second movie was Dumb and Dumberer wasn't it?

I'm sure G would love a movie. Now who will play him?

 

[grannie]

A hero's boy

One of Eddie Nyst's favourite sayings has stuck with Chris and it is an axiom that has no doubt contributed to his success. Eddie would often say to his son, particularly when he was at school: "They say it can't be done -- but they've never met Eddie Nyst." Chris Nyst, it seems, is certainly a chip off the old man's block.

Nyst work, if you can get it

WHEN CHRIS NYST was just a young lad he told his father that he wanted to be an artist. "Get a real job," came the response that most fathers seem to give in that situation. A couple of years later Nyst got the acting bug. "I want to be an actor," he told his father. This time his father pointed him in the direction of the television. No, not to study the methods of all those thespians. Rather, he suggested he should watch Perry Mason because he reckoned a lawyer was the closest thing to being an actor that could be classified as a real job.

BBM

 

[FirstTimer]

I know someone who was shown a house by NBC, as he apparently also was/is a realestate agent. During the viewing he asked the person if the house was what they were looking for; they pointed out an area of termite damage, at which he suddenly became enraged, shouting at them, and literally threw the viewers out of the property. The impression of the viewer was that he is an extremely unpleasant man and far more threatening and menacing than could ever have been expected. So everything I read about NBC is in the context that he is an extremely unpleasant individual who I would not trust as far as I could throw him.

All MOO.

It is interesting you bring up the rage thing. My father was prone to this and I could never undertsand why. He would just go off at the smallest little things and then sulk about it for a day or two afterwards. It wasnt until being on WS following this case and Narcissism was brought up for GBCs behaviour. Especially when you read Hotchkiss' 7 signs of Narcissism. As follows:

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism(Wikkipedia, quoted July 2012):

1.Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
2.Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
3.Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
4.Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
5.Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
6.Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
7.Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

Number 5 I find particularly pertitinent. My father, NBC as told by your story and the following:

My wife was in a car at traffic lights stopped at the red light, when she noticed GBC and EBC standing waiting to cross the road (yes, we know them both). GBC was in an absolute rage at EBC, tearing strips off her, shouting. Is was quite confronting.

FYI and all just MOO.

 

[angel1]

That just means he's not yet proven guilty and if he is innocent, then there has been a lot of unjust or unfair action against him.

Thankyou for explaining that. I did type it in to google to search myself but couldn't really find what i was looking for

 

[Hawkins]

possibly something dreamed up by lawyers that has gradually become an accepted "thing". .

Lawyers in Qld cannot 'dream up' defences. The only defences or excuses available are those prescribed in the criminal code. The taking of any drug, or combination of drugs, does not constitute a defence or excuse. Drug use may provide some evidence which goes toward one of the existing statutory defences such as diminished responsibility. In order for that (partial) defence to be raised, the court would require expert medical evidence to the effect that the accused was substantially impaired at the time of the offence. Not that he may have been, or that there are known negative effects of a particular offence. This evidence (if led by a defence medical expert) would also be tested by a panel of psychs assiting a judge of the Mental Health Court. The submission of a lawyer that the accused was in fact suffering such an impairment carries no weight at all.

If there is such an advice from the Mental Health Court, then that becomes part of the evidence which a jury then must weight up. They are not bound to accept that the accused did take the drug, that it had any effect, that it had the substantial effect needed for the requisite impariment, or that it was taking such effect at the actual time of the killing. To establish all that, the defence would need exceptionally strong evidence. Furthermore, any other acts or omissions of the accused which were inconsistent with the requisite deprivation of a capacity would weigh strongly against the defence.

Desperate accused persons can instruct their lawyers to make submissions about all sorts of defences, and that is purely the decision of the client. Any defence lawyer who sat around trying to concoct a defence or excuse which had no grounding in the admissible evidence, or which was frivolous, would have a very short career in Queensland. MOO.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Morning all

Just a couple of thoughts for a Monday morning:

1. The wifi thing - as far as I'm aware - and I have an iPhone - FaceTime will ONLY work on wifi, not on 3G. At least not yet - they're talking about it working on 3G, but I think the carriers are concerned about the amount of bandwidth it uses over the 3G network. Skype, I think, is the same - at least the free version is, as far as I know. The nearest McDonalds is a few Km away at Kenmore Plaza. And most people's home wifi is password protected - there has been enough publicity from our excellent head of the hitech fraud squad, Brian Hay, over the last year or more, that most people would have WPA passwords on.

2. I just hope that GBC's legal team don't try on the Stillnox defence. That way, no matter WHAT happened that night, or WHAT evidence the QPS have got that GBC did or did not do whatever, it would all be "excused" as nocturnal goings on under the influence of Stillnox. For our American friends, it is known over there by the trade name of "Ambien". The drug itself is zolpidem

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio.../2008/04/10/1207420591297.html?s_cid=rss_news

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/20/1203467158750.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1839237.htm


Just a thought - a worrying one, that I'm sure that his legal team have already thought of.... And part of that defence would, I'm sure, be the total amnesia these "victims" have of their nocturnal adventures.

Yes I thought the Mc Donalds was at Kenmore plaza, a bit of a distance.. However regarding the home wi-fi being password protected, it has been my experience, as I said, to be able to pick up at least 3 other unprotected wi-fis in a suburban street. And also to pick up a council library one, that was not that close by(admittedly the signal was not strong)- no log in needed.. So I somewhat disagree..while you would think most people password protect their wi-fi, especially with the publicity regarding it.. Many people, it appears, do not do this.

MOO

 

[Nads]

This possible new lawyer Chris Nyst. As others have mentioned, perhaps he will defend for free or low bucks in exchange for movie or book rights.

Just wondering if it then would be in his own interests (the lawyer's that is) for G to be found guilty. It would be hard to make a movie about someone who didn't commit a murder. It would only be a court case and human interest.

 

[Fuskier]

My thought...where the hell does he get the money for this??? Who on earth is bankrolling it.....

My questions as well. They only have a modest house which had allegedly been re-mortgaged to finance son's business dealings. So, what covert allegiances are there to provide finance for this?

 

[ollijack]

All MOO.

It is interesting you bring up the rage thing. My father was prone to this and I could never undertsand why. He would just go off at the smallest little things and then sulk about it for a day or two afterwards. It wasnt until being on WS following this case and Narcissism was brought up for GBCs behaviour. Especially when you read Hotchkiss' 7 signs of Narcissism. As follows:

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism(Wikkipedia, quoted July 2012):

1.Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
2.Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
3.Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
4.Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
5.Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
6.Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
7.Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

Number 5 I find particularly pertitinent. My father, NBC as told by your story and the following:

My wife was in a car at traffic lights stopped at the red light, when she noticed GBC and EBC standing waiting to cross the road (yes, we know them both). GBC was in an absolute rage at EBC, tearing strips off her, shouting. Is was quite confronting.

FYI and all just MOO.

AHA......my ex husband was JUST like this....fly into a rage....if in the car and someone annoyed him he would stalk them. Sulk for days....lock himself away in the bedroom (I had to sleep on lounge)...only come out to go to work....throw food at the wall if he didnt approve.....etc etc.....the instant rage thing....NBC....it is so creepy and scary being near someone that does that.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

This possible new lawyer Chris Nyst. As others have mentioned, perhaps he will defend for free or low bucks in exchange for movie or book rights.

Just wondering if it then would be in his own interests (the lawyer's that is) for G to be found guilty. It would be hard to make a movie about someone who didn't commit a murder. It would only be a court case and human interest.

They made a movie about Lindy chamberlain and her baby Azaria..she has been eventually aquitted. Really doubt that he would deliberately fluff it to make sure his client was found guilty. Its not in his best interests, Also I don't think it would be difficult to have a movie about a person who was found guilty and all the events surrounding the case...

I do wonder though where the money is coming from for all of his legal team.:waitasec: Some pretty big financial backers?

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

My questions as well. They only have a modest house which had allegedly been re-mortgaged to finance son's business dealings. So, what covert allegiances are there to provide finance for this?

Makes you wonder..with all GBC's publicized debt.. where is the money for a hot shot legal team coming from.. Obviously someones helping out there I would think.

 

[YoureNicked]

Is it possible that this alleged behaviour by the B C family is an extension of earlier patterns around this son? Is it possible that he can do no wrong? Is it possible that he can even murder someone and his family will defend and protect him from consequences? The B C family allegedly have been busy behind the scenes organizing more legal eagles to defend their son.

This is quoted in MSM:http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/baden-clays-lawyer-barred/story-e6freoof-1226413880866

'...It is understood Baden-Clay is bringing in three legal advisers - Mr Mahony, Mr Nyst and a third unnamed lawyer - to bolster his defence team. Mr Nyst is believed to have been approached by Baden-Clay's family...'

How are they going to finance all of these Lawyers?

Are they now planning a 'film' about it to make millions? Hypothetically, has this been discussed with the Lawyers? future financial gains?

Dealing with people who may believe that they are above The Law is never easy.

We have Laws and Courts of Law in this country to call them to account. I am hoping that Criminal Law proceedings can bring Justice and put a stop to this family, hypothetically,using this murder to 'make money' at some time in the future. A Crime has been committed. The charges are serious. They are about the killing of Allison Baden-Clay who was murdered in the prime of her life.

The Police investigation yeilded evidence and subsequently charged the alleged murderer accordingly within The Law.

Surely proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' is not reduced to being just 'a game' about the guilt or innocence depending upon the Lawyers one has acquired? A Jury of 12 selected men and women are considered to represent the average, reasonable person in the community. This assumes an average level of education, intelligence, housing, income, average decent, law abiding life, etc.

Given that The Law is an adversarial process, does it seem unfair that these average, reasonable people are pitted against several highly educated, highly trained Legal Eagles? It seems to be an unequal match right from the start. Let us hope that the Prosecuting side is matched equally to prevent this kind of disadvantage within the legal system itself. I imagine that the 'admisability of evidence' will be crucial in this case.

I hope that these 12 jurors will be educated by The Court, beforehand, about what constitutes 'reasonable doubt' and when circumstantial evidence points beyond reasonable doubt.

It is not show time. This is our Criminal Legal system in action.

It is not hard to speculate about how 'powerless' Allison may have felt within a family where allegedly the son can do no wrong. Hypothetically, if this happened to TM or any other female, we would see similar behaviour to defend and protect one who can allegedly do no wrong. If found not guilty, he can claim the Insurance and Superannuation etc. Hypothetically, we can imagine that they might sue the Police and Government for wrongful arrest and gain a huge payout in the millions, make a film out of it, write books and generate huge financial gains from it all. Then historically the name would still be famous with added extras of how clever they all were. My opinion only, not fact.

Amazing post, Fuskier. I think it's so true what you've said...The pursuit of truth and justice should not be about who can outwit or fool who.

I really do hope, as you do, that the prosecution team are excellent educators and can patiently and clearly instruct the members of the jury so that they will not be confused or distracted by the defence's attempts to minimise the accused's alleged part in this crime.

Allison deserves justice.

 

[Fuskier]

Guilty or not, this reminds me of the Greg Domaszewicz trial. Right or wrong, i will be Very surprised if GBC is found guilty!

We need independant media! I hope there is media outrage. Law and social order needs to keep pace with modern society, to protect the sanctity of human life. May be the 'right to remain silent' needs to be removed. Imagine if more suspects did what this family has chosen to do - the cost to the Police and Government?

We have become more material and if not careful, we may lose the 'value' of human life - if we just become another commodity for spare parts or for material gain from Insurance, etc. IMO there are substantial ethical dilemas now facing our Law makers both in the medical and social domains.

 

[CaseClosed]

IMO , NEVER, no cover up. How come a body has never been found??? I just won't have it. That poor family has suffered enough without being accused. STRONGLY DISAGREE

That's fine. However, I followed the case daily for over 2 years, read book published by the mother and another by detective and my opinion is different to yours.

 

[Fuskier]

Yes, of course that's true, but I thought the discussion started on this occasion because of the assertion it implied guilt. I dont think the fact that he was smart to lawyer up and keep silent was in question. It's just that some people have said over and over that it's just smart and doesn't necessarily imply guilt ie it's just what a smart person would do, not necessarily a guilty person.

What I have said all along is that i think most innocent people wouldn't lawyer up, or certainly not that early on, whether they were smart or not. You might do, but I dont think most people would.

Lawyering up early is a calculated step.

 

[Rational]

]Nyst work, if you can get it

:floorlaugh:

 

[CaseClosed]

I agree Fuskier re what appears to be "unfairness/unequal match"....it seems downright morally wrong also.

I don't know about anyone else, but I only have to look at the amount of criminals in prisons across Australia who all thought of themselves as being smarter than the law & above the law. This tells me the "12 selected men and women who are considered to be average, reasonable people in the community" are indeed intelligent enough to see right through any games these "highly educated, highly trained Legal Eagles" like to play.

I also think we cannot forget that once the Jury retires to deliberate, it becomes a group of people actually "brainstorming" about what was presented. It is their collective thinking that in the end makes a decision. IMO.