Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #39

[alioop]

Hi all
Reporting in as I was at the court today. I've been busy with children and baby this afternoon and tonight so that is why I'm late checking in.

MSM has covered the mention nicely however after reading all your posts I just wanted to clarify one point. The purpose of the adjournment this time to 5/11/12 was to allow DPP time to go through the 466 statements and work out which ones they would be relying on more-so than giving defense time to sort out cross-examination. At least that's what the prosecution requested at today's mention.

Mahony sought a tentative date for the hearing emphasising that his client was 'still' held in custody.

Also, the parties agreed that if there were any issues of cross-examination that could be agreed to by consent then the matter could vacate on 15 November next. I didn't really understand this terminology so perhaps Alioop could help me out?

I was hoping to meet any of you interested in attending today at the cafe but my friend just wanted the two of us to go.

We did meet a woman who was at the last mention also and had a chat outside the court with her for a good 15 mins. She had a number of insights on a personal level however I cannot elaborate here on her comments can I? Is that against the rules?

As reported in MSM already but just to clarify from my own personal note-taking today, a date has been set for the Committal Hearing for the purpose of cross-examining witnesses in court 39 on 20/11/12 at 9am. The parties agree that they are expecting to announce readiness to proceed to hearing by the next mention on 5/11/12.

Hope I've worded this clear enough. Feel free to ask away.

Cheers!

Hi Chekout, thanks for going to court today. What was reported back to me was that the defence is to provide list of witnesses for cross-exam by 15 Oct and prosecution's response is to be by 29 Oct. The mention on the 5th november would be to see where that was up to. My understanding of what normally happens is that if the prosecution does not agree to all of the defence's cross examination requests, then the defence makes an application and the magistrate has to decide, presumably on the 20th Nov if there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the requested witness who made the statement should attend court to give oral evidence or be made available for cross-examination.

To link all that with what you heard, perhaps it was just the defence suggesting they have a chat with the prosecution about the witnesses and they come to an agreement about which ones are the most appropriate to cross examine which I guess would be whichever are the key witnesses with the main evidence against GBC. Then if there is agreement there would be no need to have an application heard on the 20th and that date could be vacated which means invalidated or cancelled. But a committal hearing would still have to be held at some date to be determined. A committal hearing can take days or weeks even.

So I don't think the committal itself is set for the 20th is what I am trying to say.

 

[Thinking]

I would bet considerable money on an immunity deal having been done with OW given that the police travelled to Townsville to see her the DAY BEFORE the arrest. I have said this several times before. I think it's significant. Why? I suspect OW intercepted the call from GBC intended for NBC on the 19th. Regardless, I think she quickly knew/suspected something because her demeanor in interviews quickly changed and police knew she'd be the weak link in an otherwise tight family.

Radster I have wondered along these lines too - but wouldn't this mean that she would have to stand up and give evidence against her brother at the ultimate trial, which potentially could land him a murder conviction? It would be an amazing twist if she did this, but I'm not sure it is likely...?

 

[they'll get you]

I would bet considerable money on an immunity deal having been done with OW given that the police travelled to Townsville to see her the DAY BEFORE the arrest. I have said this several times before. I think it's significant. Why? I suspect OW intercepted the call from GBC intended for NBC on the 19th. Regardless, I think she quickly knew/suspected something because her demeanor in interviews quickly changed and police knew she'd be the weak link in an otherwise tight family.

I'm agreeing Rads, her demeanour and body language changed, maybe she showed the same symptoms as her brother, quivering chin, blubbering mouth, business as usual & maybe she was attacked by caterpillars too. :what: Must have been a plague of the little mongrels up there. :what:
Would be interesting to see 'twisted sister' on the stand.

Could have got the wind knocked outta her sails by our wonderful boyz in blue-I love our cops:woohoo:

 

[Mountain Misst]

Radster I have wondered along these lines too - but wouldn't this mean that she would have to stand up and give evidence against her brother at the ultimate trial, which potentially could land him a murder conviction? It would be an amazing twist if she did this, but I'm not sure it is likely...?

OW served in the Australian Defence Force for many years. She's as tough and as hard as nails. She was biting her lip (so as not to butt in) in that interview, no quivering lips there.

At least if she takes the stand / does the swearing in, if she's for real as the wife of a man of the cloth, we know she will tell the truth.

 

[chekoutchik]

Hi Chekout, thanks for going to court today. What was reported back to me was that the defence is to provide list of witnesses for cross-exam by 15 Oct and prosecution's response is to be by 29 Oct. The mention on the 5th november would be to see where that was up to. My understanding of what normally happens is that if the prosecution does not agree to all of the defence's cross examination requests, then the defence makes an application and the magistrate has to decide, presumably on the 20th Nov if there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the requested witness who made the statement should attend court to give oral evidence or be made available for cross-examination.

To link all that with what you heard, perhaps it was just the defence suggesting they have a chat with the prosecution about the witnesses and they come to an agreement about which ones are the most appropriate to cross examine which I guess would be whichever are the key witnesses with the main evidence against GBC. Then if there is agreement there would be no need to have an application heard on the 20th and that date could be vacated which means invalidated or cancelled. But a committal hearing would still have to be held at some date to be determined. A committal hearing can take days or weeks even.

So I don't think the committal itself is set for the 20th is what I am trying to say.

Thanks for this Alioop! It seems I have misunderstood the roles of the two parties in this stage of the game. Upon reading your comments and referring back to my notes it is much clearer. My Miss 4 month old is very hard to please at the moment too which is not helping me wrap my head around all of this. Anyway, I hope to rehash my blurb now in light of your professional input and repost later.

Nice work - Thanks again! :rocker:

 

[The Observer]

I would bet considerable money on an immunity deal having been done with OW given that the police travelled to Townsville to see her the DAY BEFORE the arrest. I have said this several times before. I think it's significant. Why? I suspect OW intercepted the call from GBC intended for NBC on the 19th. Regardless, I think she quickly knew/suspected something because her demeanor in interviews quickly changed and police knew she'd be the weak link in an otherwise tight family.

Whilst I agree detectives heading to Townsville the day before is very suspicious, I can't quite see an immunity deal. For her to get immunity she'd have to of given them very incriminating evidence against her brother (you don't get immunity just by admitting to a facetime call) and the high possibility to be called to the stand.

So that poses the question why she took over as his power of attorney!? Why handle all his personal business and be a part of his legal team if she 'betrayed' him!? The family will find out eventually and if he/they are 'murderers' wouldn't she be afraid for her life? IMO

 

[they'll get you]

OW served in the Australian Defence Force for many years. She's as tough and as hard as nails. She was biting her lip (so as not to butt in) in that interview, no quivering lips there.

At least if she takes the stand / does the swearing in, if she's for real as the wife of a man of the cloth, we know she will tell the truth.

I agree, I'm hoping the hard exterior cracked for our boyz in blue. Hopefully 'the truth' was seen.
I wonder if they have their lines well rehearsed for the big play?
Business as usual and let the show begin.

 

[Crime and punishment]

Whilst I agree detectives heading to Townsville the day before is very suspicious, I can't quite see an immunity deal. For her to get immunity she'd have to of given them very incriminating evidence against her brother (you don't get immunity just by admitting to a facetime call) and the high possibility to be called to the stand.

So that poses the question why she took over as his power of attorney!? Why handle all his personal business and be a part of his legal team if she 'betrayed' him!? The family will find out eventually and if he/they are 'murderers' wouldn't she be afraid for her life? IMO

I agree - I don't think Olivia is jumping off the sinking ship Baden-Clay just yet.

 

[AAAA]

Wow, it's all fired up on the FB page. Totally irrelevant and useless. Thats why I think this site helps with a mix of Hearsay, knowledge and streetsmarts to continue the search for justice for Allison. Keep it up until the end, it'll be a long haul!!! X

 

[Sleuthilicious]

Wow, it's all fired up on the FB page. Totally irrelevant and useless. Thats why I think this site helps with a mix of Hearsay, knowledge and streetsmarts to continue the search for justice for Allison. Keep it up until the end, it'll be a long haul!!! X

I find that page makes me feel an emotion somewhere between concerned and bemused! I think all of us require 'moderation'....in moderation

IMO

 

[Makara]

Whilst I agree detectives heading to Townsville the day before is very suspicious, I can't quite see an immunity deal. For her to get immunity she'd have to of given them very incriminating evidence against her brother (you don't get immunity just by admitting to a facetime call) and the high possibility to be called to the stand.

So that poses the question why she took over as his power of attorney!? Why handle all his personal business and be a part of his legal team if she 'betrayed' him!? The family will find out eventually and if he/they are 'murderers' wouldn't she be afraid for her life? IMO

Totally agree. IMO if anyone was offered immunity is was TM. She was GBC's mistress and yet she will now be a witness for the prosecution. Why? Why isn't she a witness for the defence, sticking up for her lover? The reason being, IMO is that she has been offered a deal in exchange for what she knows happened after the fact of Allison's murder. QPS would have spelled out to her that she could be charged with aiding and abetting, being an accomplice after the fact or whatever else they may have chosen to pull out of the bag. Then they dropped the big one and informed her that she wasn't the only mistress in GBC's life. I think it is a case of "Tell us what you know and any charges against you will be waivered." Hopefully TM got that in writing. The police are known to change their mind from time to time. :twocents:

 

[Mystique75]

Agree with you Makara. The "outing" of the other woman whom GBC met at the Gold Coast real estate function always seemed to be a move directly aimed at TM, to me. I imagine that the denial would've been hard to break through, without some kind of "proof" that would need to contain dates and places, remembering how strong the old "you're the only one" brainwashing can be. IMO!

 

[The Observer]

Totally agree. IMO if anyone was offered immunity is was TM. She was GBC's mistress and yet she will now be a witness for the prosecution. Why? Why isn't she a witness for the defence, sticking up for her lover? The reason being, IMO is that she has been offered a deal in exchange for what she knows happened after the fact of Allison's murder. QPS would have spelled out to her that she could be charged with aiding and abetting, being an accomplice after the fact or whatever else they may have chosen to pull out of the bag. Then they dropped the big one and informed her that she wasn't the only mistress in GBC's life. I think it is a case of "Tell us what you know and any charges against you will be waivered." Hopefully TM got that in writing. The police are known to change their mind from time to time. :twocents:

That's exactly been my thought all along too.

 

[Maigret]

That's exactly been my thought all along too.

Yes makes sense she has been keeping a very low profile - no visits to Arthur Gorrie - GBC has no Internet or phone so in my opinion there has been no communication between them even maybe since well before he was arrested

 

[bearbear]

i think everyone has gone to the jill meagher page!

 

[AAAA]

Anybody home???

 

[marlywings]

Anybody home???

We're still here AAAA And still keeping Allison in our thoughts!

 

[possumheart]

:candle:

 

[Blue Bottle]

Anybody home???

I don't think there's an awful lot to say. Namely because, no more new information is being given out and like with most cases after an arrest and a charge, there's that deathly mainstream media silence. You can hear it echoing off the walls.

Groping in the dark until it goes to trial and we get to read a summary published after each day in court.

 

[Maigret]

I don't think there's an awful lot to say. Namely because, no more new information is being given out and like with most cases after an arrest and a charge, there's that deathly mainstream media silence. You can hear it echoing off the walls.

Groping in the dark until it goes to trial and we get to read a summary published after each day in court.

Just an aside is it likely that the man arrested over Gillian Meaghers death will go to trial quicker than GBC ? Or if he pleads guilty will they just sentence him - does anyone know the minimum sentence for rape/ murder?