***Day 3 -Committal Hearing*** 11th,12,13th March 2013

[redlightthroughpaper]

2.46pm: Sue Heath, a friend of former Housing Minister Dr Bruce Flegg, has told the court she gave Baden-Clay a mobile phone.

Prosecutor Danny Boyle asked whether Ms Heath agreed with her statement that Dr Flegg was not aware of her handing over the phone.

''You say that you had not asked Dr Flegg,'' he said.

''That's not quite right,'' Ms Heath told the court.

''We did discuss it.

''We agreed that I'd lend him the phone."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eam-in-the-night/story-e6freoof-1226596271477

Wow! After three days of feeling absolutely sick to the pit of my stomach - this made my eyes pop! Did BF himself actually deny knowledge of the phone loan does anyone know? Or did that solely originate from Ms Heath's statement? Would much appreciate info if anyone has links or was in court when he was cross examined?

 

[Snails]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eam-in-the-night/story-e6freoof-1226596271477

4.21pm: Mr Broom said he was more focused on the business than Baden-Clay's personal life - which was ever changing.

''(He talked about) being with Toni at one point and not being with Toni at one point,'' he said.

''And him being with Allison at one point and him not being with Allison at one point.

''At some point Gerard was leaving his wife to be with Toni, at other points he was leaving Toni to be with his wife.''

But Mr Davis said despite Mr Broom's claims that they had had many conversations about Baden-Clay's affair, he could only detail one specific conversation.

''Your business relationship with Mr Baden-Clay didn't end well,'' Mr Davis said.

''I wouldn't say it ended badly but I wouldn't say it ended beautifully either,'' he replied.

''You don't like him do you?'' Mr Davis continued.

''Why would you say that?'' Mr Broom asked.

''I did have a very fond affection for him.

''The day I walked out of the business we had a conversation...(we said) if we ran into each other in a bar, I'd like to think I'd buy him a drink.''

But Mr Davis disagreed.

''You're here to sink the boot, aren't you?'' he said.

 

[Trooper]

Yeah, that bugged me a little. What right do business partners have to give, what appears to be an ultimatum regarding the personal life of a business partner? It was affecting the business somehow, clearly but in what way?

when, or if one is allowed to post the statements both partners made to the police that question will be made crystal clear, bj... [ublic documents, statutorily verified.

of course, their statements are registered and available at a cost at court.. its not a large cost..

but there it all is, laid out in black and white.. this questioning by Davies is but the tip of the iceberg.. his job is to get a no case to answer...

 

[possumheart]

Flash mob
all stand and turn towards Brisbane and say "Gerard you are a sad *advertiser censored*"

 

[linette]

Yeah, that bugged me a little. What right do business partners have to give, what appears to be an ultimatum regarding the personal life of a business partner? It was affecting the business somehow, clearly but in what way?

Maybe they just couldn't morally continue, there was the affair, obviously dodgy dealings, him not telling them anything. Maybe they thought it was all centred around his deceit with TM?
I don't think they were necessarily telling him what to do, just letting him know that they didn't want to be a part of it with him the way he was. IMO

 

[marlywings]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eam-in-the-night/story-e6freoof-1226596271477

''You're here to sink the boot, aren't you?'' he said.

BBM

I think it's safe to say we all would like to do the above

 

[Mystique75]

well, its rather odd that Mr Davies would say that, he chooses whom he is going to question, why call someone to the committal who you think will 'sink the boot'?? ...

Snipped most respectfully - could he be trying to suggest that Mr Broom has ulterior motives? A personal grudge? IMO

 

[Snails]

Kate Kyriacou ‏@KateKyriacou
And that's all for today - we're adjourned until next Monday. I'll be back in court at 9.30am with continued coverage.

 

[SydneySleuth]

Businesses are 'sold' for $1 when they are worth nothing. I would assume that the business partner wanted out of the business upon the realisation that GBC couldn't come up with the remaining $180,000, coupled with the fact their clients were 'leaving a sinking ship'. I also assume the business was in debt (couldn't pay staff etc). In order to relinquish her interest in the business and any responsibility for the business debt, she would have to sell it to him for minimum of $1.

 

[BJsleuth]

Wow! After three days of feeling absolutely sick to the pit of my stomach - this made my eyes pop! Did BF himself actually deny knowledge of the phone loan does anyone know? Or did that solely originate from Ms Heath's statement? Would much appreciate info if anyone has links or was in court when he was cross examined?

I have to say, this bit seems odd to me really. I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[linette]

Snipped most respectfully - could he be trying to suggest that Mr Broom has ulterior motives? A personal grudge? IMO

Yep, I reckon... then we could all think "Oh maybe his statement isn't true either... he's just upset at losing all those thousands of dollars." pfft!!

 

[Woodstock]

OK, so ruling out the suicide theory defense, what's left? Gerard did it or a random stranger did it for no apparent reason. Which one looks more probable?

When you put it like that, BJ, it's a no-brainer! IMO ...

 

[they'll get you]

A bigger car So he could take them all overland? Good grief.

Maybe that's what overland really meant
Take off to 'anotherland'
Flight risk

 

[nowvoyager]

Back on topic:
Kate Kyriacou @KateKyriacou
''You're here to sink the boot, aren't you?'' - defence barrister to Baden-Clay former business partner Phillip Broom.

I would think that is a sure sign of both desperation and frustration by Davis.....

Hello all I've been lurking again since the committal started, I wish there were a way to paste a STICKY at the top of each page, that this IS only a commital.

Defense job, to suggest witness testimony is unreliable... for any means... in this case, prejudice/ ill will

 

[redlightthroughpaper]

Businesses are 'sold' for $1 when they are worth nothing. I would assume that the business partner wanted out of the business upon the realisation that GBC couldn't come up with the remaining $180,000, coupled with the fact their clients were 'leaving a sinking ship'. I also assume the business was in debt (couldn't pay staff etc). In order to relinquish her interest in the business and any responsibility for the business debt, she would have to sell it to him for minimum of $1.

The payment would have been due in June last year - with a 3 month extension if he needed it. Before that deadline was up, he was already in jail on remand and there was effectively no business left to 'revert' back to her. Selling for $1 would be a much less stressful way of doing your $180k than being a part owner of a bankrupted business I would think.

 

[BJsleuth]

Thanks Trooper, Linette and SydneySleuth! That all makes sense!

 

[Makara]

Flash mob
all stand and turn towards Brisbane and say "Gerard you are a sad *advertiser censored*"

I just did! :floorlaugh:

 

[FruitTingles]

Good job today guys. Catch you all later.

 

[Bayside]

The payment would have been due in June last year - with a 3 month extension if he needed it. Before that deadline was up, he was already in jail on remand and there was effectively no business left to 'revert' back to her. Selling for $1 would be a much less stressful way of doing your $180k than being a part owner of a bankrupted business I would think.

Exactly, no point letting him get them deeper in debt.

 

[alioop]

Can I just say that Peter Davis is just doing the job that he has been paid to do. He has to work with what he has got. He is not being nasty in his cross examination just a bit sarcastic at times to try to make his point. Thats what barristers do, its part of the theatre so to speak.

He gets paid regardless of the outcome so it is not personal for him. He will keep representing GBC whilst he is being paid, regardless of how things are progressing.