***Day 1-Committal Hearing*** 11th,12,13th March 2013

[Curiousasacat]

Forgive me for going over what has probably been gone over a hundred times, but when was the first mention of her wearing a "jacket"? Not mentioned in that article at all. I know she was found wearing one but is that the first mention of it?

Wow! Sorry. I didn't mean to start a big discussion on jumpers,sweaters,cardigans and jackets...........

I simply posted pages ago, that perhaps Allison was wearing a jacket(that had pockets to hold her phone) and that perhaps this jacket/cardigan thing has also gone missing with the phone.
There was no mention that she WAS wearing a jacket. But she must have been cold in just a top?

Sorry to post something that has caused confusion.

 

[Curiousasacat]

Re the phone in the bra - no I don't do this weird shape for starters and no room

BBM - Well, aren't you the lucky girl ; )

 

[Curiousasacat]

My last words about lime. I wouldn't want to handle it without rubber gloves.

OMG. Could he really do that?
You would store lime in a shed out the back too, wouldn't you?
I have always wondered what they were looking for in the BC seniors house shed.

 

[Daisyinthedesert]

Thanks for the lovely photo. What a superb focus for today. And right at the beginning.

Bless you Allison! May justice prevail!

 

[Red71]

DAY two of the six-day hearing to determine whether Gerard Baden-Clay will face trial for the murder of his wife will take place today.

Day one of the hearing was told, Gerard Baden-Clay's face, chest, neck and shoulder were a patchwork of scratches and bruising when forensic officers photographed his injuries in the days after his wife disappeared.

In the dramatic opening day of a hearing to determine if the former real estate agent will stand trial for the murder of his wife, the court was shown 14 photographs of the scratches that police, friends and family couldn't help but notice when he first reported her missing.

Allison's best friend, travel agent Kerry-Anne Walker, was in a morning meeting when police first called to ask if she knew of her friend's whereabouts.

She told the court she left work immediately and drove to the Baden-Clay house on Brookfield Rd, Brookfield.

There she found Baden-Clay, Allison's parents Geoff and Priscilla Dickie, two plainclothes officers and uniformed police.

Ms Walker told the court she noticed two scratch marks on Baden-Clay's face, near his jaw line.

<modsnip>

http://couriermail.com.au/news/quee...erard-baden-clay/story-e6freoof-1226595106254

 

[Curiousasacat]

This has got to be "strange behaviour"
I would love to hear from our people on here about what they think this means? Has anyone seen behaviour like this in court before?

"THE accused was in court. But you would have been excused for not realising it.

For the whole day's proceedings Baden-Clay was out of sight, away from the glare of the public gallery, visible to only two or three people in the far left of the first row."

See more here - http://www.news.com.au/national-new.../story-fncynjr2-1226595105748?from=public_rss

 

[Curiousasacat]

From the same article as above.

Olivia Walton, the sister so often by her brother's side during the media spotlight that burned for two months after Allison's disappearance on April 20 last year, was not in the gallery.
She sat in a conference room next door, slipping out of the court building briefly at lunchtime, only to be chased down George St by a pair of television cameramen.

Soon after, Mrs Walton marched resolutely back to Court 17 and waited for her brother to return to the dock, where the pair held a long and inelegant conversation, whispered through a hole in the glass wall of the dock.
And just as he was in those two months after April 20, Baden-Clay was expressionless throughout. His only concession to emotion came at the end of the opening remarks by prosecutor Danny Boyle who said while the prosecution case was circumstantial due to the significant decomposition of Allison's body, he would still show that Baden-Clay murdered his wife based on overwhelming motive.
Baden-Clay lifted his gaze and shook his head at the slow-talking prosecutor.

BBM

What a strange word to use. Inelegant - lacking in refinement, grace, or good taste.



Read more: http://www.couriermail.com.au/natio...rt/story-fncynjr2-1226595105748#ixzz2NG5QaQL5

 

[Curiousasacat]

I'm curious if the fingertip of the glove was tested for fingerprints. It can be done, whether it would give any clues or not is another story. Strange for it to be in the cardigan. Surely if one of the police lost a finger from their glove at that time they would know it and would say something about it?

Did GBC have a cut to his finger? I can't remember but I recall something about that.

This glove is a whole new mystery in my opinion.
So many questions, namely what the hell was it doing there?

I am backing away from the computer now. :blush: Sorry for all the posts. Just waiting for you all to wake up!!

 

[Curiousasacat]

Ok ok just one more, cause this is too cool.

"As she left the witness stand, Mrs Tzvetkoff chose to not walk around the back of the thicket of desks and screens of the defence and prosecution teams.

Instead she marched across the front of the court, past the bench and passing directly in front of the dock, glancing at the man perched in the corner.


Love her! I wish I could do the same, but in all honesty i'd probably be too nervous. So proud of this lady I never met.

Read more: http://www.couriermail.com.au/natio...rt/story-fncynjr2-1226595105748#ixzz2NG92Whq9

 

[Fuskier]

Ali if you're around are you able to clarify a question I have on 'privilege'?

I was under the impression that while legal professional privilege is valid between lawyer and client where it specifically relates to the case, that despite popular perceptions, there's actually no such thing a 'medical/professional/religious privilege' ?
If a court requires medical or counselling files to be admitted to evidence, then it can subpoena them, and a medical or professional - except a lawyer - subpoenaed to give evidence is required to give evidence at the direction of the court, or may be found in contempt of the court?

Puzzled as to why the counselling files would be considered inadmissible, unless the defence is trying to say they are not relevant to the case?

Hi Tishy, may I offer one explanation? Marriage or relationship counselling content can be 'privileged' under a State Government Act of Parliament if conducted by an authorised agency such as Relationships Australia who are subject to the Family Law/Services Acts. This is to allow warring couples the chance to sort out their situation in complete confidence -without being able to use the content or the Counsellor as a witness in Court actions against each other for personal gain in separation/divorce/custody settlements etc. Each couple is informed of this professional privilege at the start of Counselling. This is the reason many couples choose to use RA because the information is protected from subsequent use against each other in Court action. However, at the start of counselling couples are informed that in the case of threat to self or other, confidentiality can be breached by the counsellor as relevant. Where one marriage partner is subsequently murdered, privilege can and should be overridden in the interest of Justice being seen to be done. Professional priviledge should then be waived IMO. My opinion only.

 

[ozazure]

790 posts!!!

can someone tell me who's updating from court so I can just read their posts?

thanks!

 

[Sleuthis-maximus]

BBM - Well, aren't you the lucky girl ; )

:blushing:

Sorry! My poorly made point was that I don't think most women would have room for a phone in there?? A key or an eftpos card yes... But no dice on phone...

 

[Thinking]

I had the opportunity to observe him for the morning from where I was seated. I found his demeanour appropriate under the circumstances. I did witness a conversation at the being of a break with the officers but I did not interpret and laughing or flirting.

Hi hgl - it is interesting that you thought his demeanour was different, if you could see him when he was seated. My observations were only from when he first walked in (then promptly hid), then the other times when he stood up during proceedings, or walked around in there in the breaks. Perhaps he could relax more when all eyes weren't on him.

Were you inside for the entire break? I find it amazing that, if you saw what I saw, you wouldn't interpret it as talking and laughing. Anyway, it is interesting how we can all interpret things differently isn't it. I just am relieved that others saw it too, so sleuthers here don't think I imagined it or made it up, because I promise you all I didn't! I hesitated to post it for this reason, perhaps I shouldn't have, sorry everyone. Everything is open to interpretation and I only gave you mine.

 

[Indromum]

Yep, I remember that. It was even mentioned which side had the damage. I don't remember the details but someone here will.

Front left side (passenger) bumper and wheel arch. It was reported that the damage was done before Allison went missing.
GBC (I presume it was him) was driving towards me on Brookfield Road the day he had it returned to him from police. Can't remember being so shocked in my life as that moment in time.....needed a bex and a good lie down.

 

[Obsessor]

Hi hgl - it is interesting that you thought his demeanour was different, if you could see him when he was seated. My observations were only from when he first walked in (then promptly hid), then the other times when he stood up during proceedings, or walked around in there in the breaks. Perhaps he could relax more when all eyes weren't on him.

Were you inside for the entire break? I find it amazing that, if you saw what I saw, you wouldn't interpret it as talking and laughing. Anyway, it is interesting how we can all interpret things differently isn't it. I just am relieved that others saw it too, so sleuthers here don't think I imagined it or made it up, because I promise you all I didn't! I hesitated to post it for this reason, perhaps I shouldn't have, sorry everyone. Everything is open to interpretation and I only gave you mine.

Dont apologise, and continue to post what you see or what you believe you are seeing. We appreciate ALL the info, and realise different people will interpret things or see things differently. Thats natural.
All our sleuthers have been amazing. The more we hear the better IMO (especially for those of us that cant be there)

 

[LollyPop]

Day 2. I really hope the prosecutions story/argument gains more strength today. And I'm off to get some work done now otherwise nothing will get done!

 

[Curiousasacat]

Thanks Obsessor...my sentiments exactly. I 100% believe that he was laughing, just as you say Thinking.

 

[Champagne4lulu]

Alioop is there any strategy to how witnesses are presented? Is it in order of events? Do they like to start with the most damning or end with it or is it completely random?

 

[BigApple]

It was nice to see some fresh flowers on the bridge this morning. Thanks in advance to all in court today and others posting updates, I look forward to catching up this evening when I get home from work.

 

[KG1]

I think I have found the reason for the issue with the admissibility of the Relationships Australia info.

Section 10E(1) and (2) of the Family Law Act states that there is an absolute prohibition, in all courts, on the admissibility of evidence of anything said, or any admission made, by or in the company of, a family counsellor conducting family counselling. There is only 1 exception and that is in relation to admissions of child abuse.

We will have to see how the magistrate deals with this issue.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s10e.html

Ali, it might be allowed in under Section 10D(4)(c) - commission of an offence.