Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #41

[marlywings]

I see that Cowan has been committed for trial in the Morcombe case. I'm sure that will happen in this case too, in March.

IF GBC is committed to stand trial, the following, on Cowan's trial, may give an indication as to when his may take place.

February 7, 2013

No date has been set, but it is hoped that the trial can be held in the second half of 2013, possibly October.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-long-years-20130207-2e0a8.html#ixzz2KC0C3ihp

 

[Maigret]

As a general rule the prosecution decides what evidence it presents to a jury and in what form, so if they chose to present a document with items blacked out for example then I don't see that would be a problem unless the defence had a problem with it. If it was info that supported innocence for eg then the defence would justifiably object to the blacked out bits.



At the bail hearing, I heard the discussion between Judge Applegarth and the defence barrister Peter Davis about GBC's explanation of the googling "the fifth" in some detail. GBC filed an affidavit explaining it. Just because he has explained it doesn't mean the prosecution accepts his explanation. I don't think Danny Boyle was too worried about this "explanation" . Just after that, I did hear the words 'Facetime call mentioned by the judge" but that was it. There was no discussion as such. So I have no idea what is going on with that facetime call.



An indemnity arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.

It would make perfect sense to me if GBC's lawyers required his parents to provide an indemnity to them for their costs as a condition of representing him. Which means they have to pay if he can't. So if there is any local gossip about an indemnity then that is likely what it is about.

Immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity, usually to a witness in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence. It is immunity because the prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence.

We will have to wait and see if anyone has been granted immunity in this case. Hopefully it will be apparent at the committal.



The face time call is not on GBC's telstra phone records, it was extracted from his actual phone just prior the first bail hearing. This is because it uses internet, and is not a normal call. The texts he sent to Allison that morning were similarly sent as imessages not SMS as they both had iphones so they didn't show up in his SMS telstra records either. The face time and those imessages clearly show on the phone extraction record as I have seen them. They were exhibited to an affidavit filed by the police in that bail application.

Bolded by me ( yay it's not easy on the iPad) I have imessaging and it only works if both phones are on wifi or good 3G - it's very patchy and I keep it turned off ( I'm in sydney with pretty good 3G most places)

 

[alioop]

I have been trying to work our how to bold on my iPad. Whats the secret Maigret

 

[Maigret]

I have been trying to work our how to bold on my iPad. Whats the secret Maigret

I quoted and then -
I held down till it goes blue - then moved the little dots till it encompassed all the text I wanted to bold and then just hit the little capital B on the top left under fonts - hope that helps

 

[redlightthroughpaper]

As a general rule the prosecution decides what evidence it presents to a jury and in what form, so if they chose to present a document with items blacked out for example then I don't see that would be a problem unless the defence had a problem with it. If it was info that supported innocence for eg then the defence would justifiably object to the blacked out bits.



At the bail hearing, I heard the discussion between Judge Applegarth and the defence barrister Peter Davis about GBC's explanation of the googling "the fifth" in some detail. GBC filed an affidavit explaining it. Just because he has explained it doesn't mean the prosecution accepts his explanation. I don't think Danny Boyle was too worried about this "explanation" . Just after that, I did hear the words 'Facetime call mentioned by the judge" but that was it. There was no discussion as such. So I have no idea what is going on with that facetime call.



An indemnity arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.

It would make perfect sense to me if GBC's lawyers required his parents to provide an indemnity to them for their costs as a condition of representing him. Which means they have to pay if he can't. So if there is any local gossip about an indemnity then that is likely what it is about.

Immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity, usually to a witness in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence. It is immunity because the prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence.

We will have to wait and see if anyone has been granted immunity in this case. Hopefully it will be apparent at the committal.

Thanks alioop. Much appreciated post. It has confirmed for me that both of the rumours - regarding the Facetime call being unable to be used and the Indemnity/Immunity mixup - have most likely resulted from information incorrectly reported (or headlined) in MSM.
The Tully blogs probably didn't help either! (Not that locals would lend much weight to anything in those though).

 

[Obsessor]

Thanks alioop. Much appreciated post. It has confirmed for me that both of the rumours - regarding the Facetime call being unable to be used and the Indemnity/Immunity mixup - have most likely resulted from information incorrectly reported (or headlined) in MSM.
The Tully blogs probably didn't help either! (Not that locals would lend much weight to anything in those though).

I may be overthinking the non-contact visit allowed to NBC when visiting GBC, but I keep wondering whether that is relevant to him being tied up in this case somehow, and maybe???? there is some immunity agreement????

...unless he is actually allowed contact visits now and we haven't heard.


I've looked on the qld corrective services inforamtion pages, under policies and procedures, and it explains why a non-contact visit might be stipulated. The following is from that page,


"Contact during personal visit


A personal visit must be a non-contact visit, unless the chief executive approves that the visit be a contact visit.
In deciding whether to give the approval, the chief executive must consider the following -
1. the requirements of any court order relating to the prisoner;
2. whether the prisoner has previously escaped or attempted to escape from custody;
3. whether the prisoner has previously given a positive test sample;
4. information about the prisoner or visitor that indicates a risk to the security or good order of the corrective services facility."

http://www.correctiveservices.qld.g..._Security/documents/sasprovisitpris.shtml#1.1

I cant see that 2,3,or 4 would be likely to apply, so I'm wondering whether there is any court order requiring this??

Alioop, do you know of any, in this case?

Sorry if this is all irrelevant.

 

[KG1]

I believe the evidence and case against GBC is mostly circumstantial. However IMO, unless she is totally deluded, TM shapes up as a likely prosecution witness. She willingly gave 3 or 4 statements to police, all before Allsion's body was found I think.

 

[BreakingNews]

IF GBC is committed to stand trial, the following, on Cowan's trial, may give an indication as to when his may take place.

February 7, 2013

No date has been set, but it is hoped that the trial can be held in the second half of 2013, possibly October.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-long-years-20130207-2e0a8.html#ixzz2KC0C3ihp

Marlywings, I cannot believe that things take soooo long in our legal system. The poor families - having to wait so long for closure. It just isn't fair. Then I guess there will be the adjournments for various reasons. I can't understand that if things are in place for the committal, then why can't the trial be sooner?

This frustrates me. Time our legal system was overhauled. :banghead:

 

[BreakingNews]

I don't know what the supreme court backlog of trials is at present though hopefully with the extra judge appointed last year it is reducing. I can only guess but maybe a wait of 3 to 6 months, possibly longer, from being committed to trial. If i find out any better estimate I will post it.



Yes he will have to be there sitting in a special seat with security nearby. He won't be saying much at all. It will be very embarrassing for him I imagine to be in the position he will be in, particularly knowing the media will be all over it. Whether he killed Allison or not he would never have expected this would happen to him.

Very embarrassing, indeed. And rightly so. No one is above the law, no matter who your ancestors were. I was a witness once where a doctor was on trial for rape and injecting drugs into many women. Bet he was embarrassed too. And he did the time. :jail:

 

[Berry]

It would be interesting to know when OW booked her flight (that's if she did fly) - whether it was months or just days prior. Also did she have any checked in baggage - was she planning to stay for sometime or simply return asap. Thoughts only.

This sister, OW flew down for easter holidays before this happened as she was at the long distance running race at the girls school. She home schools her own children.

Allison was not at the school race that day but GBC was, with his red eyes and some scratches on his face seen by other witnesses. This was the day before the day of the night that her murder happened remember folks?????

They were fighting the night before too.

Olivia was at Skull camp for easter hols previous to this happening.

 

[Obsessor]

This sister, OW flew down for easter holidays before this happened as she was at the long distance running race at the girls school. She home schools her own children.

Allison was not at the school race that day but GBC was, with his red eyes and some scratches on his face seen by other witnesses. This was the day before the day of the night that her murder happened remember folks?????

They were fighting the night before too.

Olivia was at Skull camp for easter hols previous to this happening.

Yes, I remember the scratches being discussed by people who saw him at the cross-country.
Weird though that he has since attributed them to shaving "that" morning. There must have been other scratches???

Actually, wasn't there something about those scratches being from the caterpiller bites?

Also, you would think that if they had been fighting to that extent, that Allison would have had some marks too, but the hairdresser said she didn't have any that she could see.
Odd.

 

[marlywings]

Marlywings, I cannot believe that things take soooo long in our legal system. The poor families - having to wait so long for closure. It just isn't fair. Then I guess there will be the adjournments for various reasons. I can't understand that if things are in place for the committal, then why can't the trial be sooner?

This frustrates me. Time our legal system was overhauled. :banghead:

I agree BreakingNews. The wait is far too long but I guess it comes down to a whole lot of red tape.... & far too many criminals!!

 

[marlywings]

I just posted in our Timeline thread if you'd all like to check out our Committal Hearing countdown clock

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171094&page=6

 

[alioop]

I may be overthinking the non-contact visit allowed to NBC when visiting GBC, but I keep wondering whether that is relevant to him being tied up in this case somehow, and maybe???? there is some immunity agreement????

...unless he is actually allowed contact visits now and we haven't heard.


I've looked on the qld corrective services inforamtion pages, under policies and procedures, and it explains why a non-contact visit might be stipulated. The following is from that page,


"Contact during personal visit


A personal visit must be a non-contact visit, unless the chief executive approves that the visit be a contact visit.
In deciding whether to give the approval, the chief executive must consider the following -
1. the requirements of any court order relating to the prisoner;
2. whether the prisoner has previously escaped or attempted to escape from custody;
3. whether the prisoner has previously given a positive test sample;
4. information about the prisoner or visitor that indicates a risk to the security or good order of the corrective services facility."

http://www.correctiveservices.qld.g..._Security/documents/sasprovisitpris.shtml#1.1

I cant see that 2,3,or 4 would be likely to apply, so I'm wondering whether there is any court order requiring this??

Alioop, do you know of any, in this case?

Sorry if this is all irrelevant.

Obby, I have no idea if NBC is currently allowed contact visits with GBC and if not, I have no idea why that would be. Sorry I can't help with this one.

 

[possumheart]

Timing of the scratches: could TM have inflicted them (pressure and deadline were on)? Could G have avoided A so she wasn't aware of the marks, and then A observed them after the hairdresser appointment causing confrontation? Also might the caterpillar story be BS to cover the fact he purchased antihistamines at the chemist to sedate the kids? I tend to think dumb details get played up only when they are part of a script ie. OW biting her lip in video interview ... I think she had rehearsed G on what to say to the media and was terrified that he was ad-libbing. Sorry if I'm raving. Sleep time. MOO

 

[Fuskier]

... Allison was not at the school race that day, but GBC was, with his red eyes and some scratches on his face seen by other witnesses. This was the day before the day of the night that her murder happened remember folks????? ...

Can witnesses identify scratches present on GBC at the school sports day? Did he explain the red eyes and scratches? We look for an explanation. We assume they had been physically fighting, but is it possible that those scratches were put there by somebody else? Somebody who put pressure on GBC?

 

[possumheart]

Can witnesses identify scratches present on GBC at the school sports day? Did he explain the red eyes and scratches? We look for an explanation. We assume they had been physically fighting, but is it possible that those scratches were put there by somebody else? Somebody who put pressure on GBC?

And god forbid if A was intending to confront that person at the conference

 

[ozazure]

I think the most likely scenario is Allison inflicted any scratches seen at the cross country. I think he would have needed to really get his courage up. It was premeditated but not well planned. It is a schoolboy's daydream type of solution ... so I can see him having either a false start or only getting enough guts to do it once she laid into him in return, with the conference and his self-inflicted deadline looming.

 

[Maigret]

This sister, OW flew down for easter holidays before this happened as she was at the long distance running race at the girls school. She home schools her own children.

Allison was not at the school race that day but GBC was, with his red eyes and some scratches on his face seen by other witnesses. This was the day before the day of the night that her murder happened remember folks?????

They were fighting the night before too.

Olivia was at Skull camp for easter hols previous to this happening.

I thought the cross country was on the Thursday and Allison was last seen on Thursday night

 

[Mountain Misst]

Yes, I remember the scratches being discussed by people who saw him at the cross-country.
Weird though that he has since attributed them to shaving "that" morning. There must have been other scratches???

Actually, wasn't there something about those scratches being from the caterpiller bites?

Also, you would think that if they had been fighting to that extent, that Allison would have had some marks too, but the hairdresser said she didn't have any that she could see.
Odd.

Scratches on the face would more than likely be the result of a reaction, striking out. Serial abusers tend to leave their evidence "out of sight'' Bruises on the body and legs.