Discussion in 'Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads' started by SoSueMe, May 18, 2012.
My apologise Marly.....:tos: xxxx
Not sure if this has been discussed here. I should add that I have no idea who Greg Hallett is, or if he is correct or if history has been written to suit..
There are however other writers who discuss plagiarizism BP and Seton.
It seems awfully similar to the case in question. Court case, not budging an inch for honesty or integrity. Murder, mayhem and no repentence. In the end the thing that mattered was how the law saw it all.
There is much more to do with Ernest Thompson Seton Seton.
It was mooted that Baden Powell plagiarized Seton's ideas and Court battles were fought out.
Seton was "astounded to find my ideas taken, all my games appropriated, disguised with new names, the essentials of my plan utilized, and not a word of acknowledgement to me, or explanation why I should be left out of a movement that I began."
- Ernest Thompson Seton, January 1910
Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener - Greg Hallett and Spymaster
www.greghallett.com/.../STALIN'S BRITISH TRAINING-%2...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
If this link doesn't work, then a copy and paste into your search bar should give the link. Astounding.
I think she was at home - she would have been getting dinner and bathing he girls
A few times after trying to call GBC Allison's phone then uses the Internet - ? Find my Friends app??
On Aussie criminals a poster put a run down of a posters experience in the courtroom OMG so interesting!!
Marley I'm not sure if I'm out of line here but it's vital to see.
Is OW. Going to be a witness and if how can she be so arrogant towards our judicial system? She was blatantly there speaking worth GBC but ran out when the judge came in. Our WS reported this. Surely the judge should know about this? This family seems to have a law unto themselves. Like the bikes are running roughshod over our law WRONG!!
Please keep in mind we don't discuss comments on other sites...they're considered rumour on WS.
You can link to it & paraphrase but we don't discuss them.
I know how much time you have spent doing this, and Your efforts are beyond all expectations. I bow to you ( purrr purrr) and can only offer you my words of thanks, until the day we meet, if and when, and I will offer you a big hug. ... And a glass of mmmmm well cheers to you. X
Yes. Thank you! I'll also be in there with a hug and cheers. Thanks for all your effort CC.
Wow, you guys are so good at sleuthing. And there I was thinking that there wouldn't be much happening here until the trial. Thanks everyone.
HoneyDog and Lantern Come join us. Don't be shy
Thank you so much CC. Absolutely great work on a painstaking task. Makes it so easier to read and decipher for all of us. You deserve a :goldcrown::gift:
Thanks for the invite Aunty. I've been lurking from the beginning and whilst I have only just joined, I have enjoyed all of the sleuthing from the outset. As someone who grew up in the western suburbs of Brisbane (now live interstate) I have been following the case from the beginning with immense interest.
An excellent question. <modsnip>
Alas, for poor Allison his superficial BS and vacuous gestures seemed to hit their mark. She was far from unintelligent, but perhaps not the best judge of character. And she is not alone with that trait.
Hi CC, 3rd last number above should have a 1 on the end. Not that that will make us any wiser anyway on those numbers.
BBM. Although he appears as guilty as sin in general, this is one piece of "evidence" that I feel has been explained well enough to be discounted. He gave a very reasonable explanation for this and from an unbiased perspective (which a jury should be) it does not seem suspicious at all within the context given.
I find it interesting that the googling self incrimination is the only thing he chose to explain in his affidavit for the second bail hearing. The silence about every other thing is deafening.
He looked it up twice...once some days prior to the crime, and once a few minutes before calling the police. We differ on what we think is a reasonable explanation.
He has given an explanation for it, but we don't know if the prosecution believes his explanation.
I wonder how the hearsay testimony will be handled in the trial - will it be admissable? Such as TM stating what GBC told her at various times. Because it is secondhand information, will the jury be allowed to consider it?
I would say his explanation is reasonable - from what I understand, web pages can reload when the internet is accessed - the last visited site can show up. I guess it will depend on if and what he accessed between the two occasions. If it all looks legit, I don't think this is going to help the prosecution's case.
The page reloaded minutes before calling the police about his missing wife. What a terrible coincidence for him.