Gerard Baden-Clay Trial-Day 19


Feel free to join the conversation over at day 19.5, what we call the weekend chat until they resume on Monday, just click here !

UPDATE 4.15PM

update 3pm JURY been deliberating a total of about 10 hours now

All previous threads and history including trial can be found clicking on link below http://aussiecriminals.com.au/category/gerard-baden-clay/

List of Trial Witnesses as they appear here

ANY EVIDENCE LIKE PHOTOS, VIDEO OR DOCUMENTS THE COURT RELEASES TO THE PUBLIC WILL BE PUBLISHED in the GBC Documents Page

Brisbane Supreme Court Justice John Byrne has asked a jury to retire to consider a verdict in the trial of Gerard Baden-Clay.

Update 11/07/14 10am Jury has a Question!

Courtesy of our friends the Courier Mail

In response to a note from the jury, Justice Byrne took them through sections of his summing up.

The jury speaker said he was not able to identify the passage the jury wanted more information on, instead referring a question from Justice Byrne to another panel member.

The juror identified the section as being to do with the evidence of Baden-Clay and whether he told lies.

Justice Byrne reread the passage to the jury.

“If you conclude that the accused lied because he realised that the truth would implicate him in killing his wife, you would need carefully also to consider whether the lie reveals a consciousness of guilt merely with respect to manslaughter as distinct from also revealing an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm,” he said.

“You may only use the lie about cutting himself shaving – if it is a lie – as tending to prove the element of murder of an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm if, on the whole of the evidence, the accused lied because he realised that the truth of the matter in that respect would show that, in killing his wife, he had intended to kill her or to cause her grievous bodily harm.

“It may be that, even if you were to find that the accused lied about his facial injuries because he realised that the truth would show him to be the killer, still you would not conclude that the lie shows that he realised that her death after scratching him with her fingernails would show that he had killed her intentionally.”

Baden-Clay murder trial: Jury told not to seek outside help as it retires to consider verdict on former Brisbane real estate agent accused of murdering wife

8.30am

The Gerard Baden-Clay murder trial took a dramatic twist yesterday when the judge warned the jury not to seek outside help in their deliberations.

The former Brisbane real estate agent has pleaded not guilty to murdering his wife Allison and dumping her body under the Kholo Creek bridge in April 2012.

The jury was sent out to begin its deliberations after Justice John Byrne finished his summing up.

But after two hours of deliberations the jury came back into the courtroom and it emerged that one of them had downloaded an overseas guide to jury service from the internet.

Justice Byrne sent the jurors back with a warning not to use any outside aids or seek to receive any new information.

“Clearly the direction has not been observed by one [juror],” Justice Byrne said.

“That juror has apparently downloaded from the internet material on how a juror might approach its great responsibility on deliberating on [a] verdict.

“What was done was wrong. I am, however, grateful it was brought to my attention.”

He reiterated that assistance must come from the court only and not an external source.

“You scarcely need to know what some overseas commentator speaking about a very different system of jury trials happens to think,” he said.

The jury returned to its deliberations but was sent home for the day at about 4:00pm and will resume its deliberations on Friday.

Allison’s body was found on the creek bank 10 days after her husband reported her missing from their Brookfield home.

Prosecutors finished summing up their case on Wednesday before the jury was given directions by Justice Byrne.

The seven men and five women were told they were judges of the facts and must carefully consider the weight and quality of evidence against Baden-Clay.

They were told to consider finding the 43-year-old guilty of manslaughter, if they did not find him guilty of murder.

Justice Byrne said the defence case asserted that Allison died from suicide, falling off the Kholo Creek bridge, a drug overdose, or serotonin syndrome, while the prosecution’s case was that Baden-Clay was a liar who killed his wife and dumped her body.

He told the jury to set aside sympathy and prejudice and carefully consider the evidence against Baden-Clay.

The court heard the case against Baden-Clay was a circumstantial one, but direct evidence was not necessary to convict him of murder.

Justice Byrne concluded his address to the jury by reminding them there was no definite cause of death.

He told the court the prosecution had argued Allison had died of unnatural causes, and only the person who killed her knew the method of her death.

Earlier this week, the jury heard closing arguments from both the defence and prosecution.

In his final comments to the jury on Wednesday, crown prosecutor Todd Fuller told them to consider Baden-Clay’s actions on the day his wife disappeared along with the scratches on his face, the leaves in Allison’s hair, and the blood in her car.

Justice Byrne dismissed the three reserve jurors, thanking them for their service and dedication.

Remember this?

422 thoughts on “Gerard Baden-Clay Trial-Day 19

  1. I suppose the “anonymity” of the Internet will always allow narcissists and their ilk to find a platform to feed their needs – but, that said, icandy is totally correct; If people find something as unacceptable behaviour, then they should speak out. If you don’t, then evil will flourish and it will just continue.

    I tend to stay reasonably quiet, and just potter in the background. The reading here is fascinating, so I do hope it will continue!

    The trial of GBC has been, for the most part nauseating and my heart goes out to Allisons children and extended family. I hope no matter what the outcome, that they can eventually find some peace. As long as they carry her smile and love in their hearts, she is never totally gone.

    Liked by 5 people

      • Also remember, if too much air space is given, in my humble and uneducated opinion, to both the source and the issue, we will have massaged its ego and been distracted at this point to the single reason we are here, Justice for Allison.

        Perhaps we could leave that massive issue of education and prevention regarding narcissists, their destruction and protecting their pray as a project to be taken on after we have a result (it is something I do in my other life) in a similar format to this.

        I say dismiss, ignore and move on for Allison’s sake.

        PS. I am retiring from blogging as I lost my virginity here but there are other forums where ‘real’ people can come together with their true identities, intentions and nature transparent. No wolves in sheep’s clothing.

        Like

        • No! I enjoy hearing from you. You are very helpful and non judgemental, until you have an opinion, then you defend it, until someone proves something to you otherwise. And that’s EXACTLY how it should be. Please stay:)

          Like

  2. Yes LJC………It was very disappointing, I was looking forward to the experience of being a juror but it was certainly full of surprises. I have always had an interest in the legal system and coincidentally both my daughters have inherited my interest, one is a prosecutor and the other works in the courts. The murder case I was on was very traumatic in many ways and although I would categorise myself as a strong person it left its mark with it being necessary for me to seek medical assistance after the hearing. It certainly is more mentally demanding then I had ever imagined. The pressure from other jurors and some of their outbursts were very telling and demonstrated how some individuals just have no sense of how important the process is.

    Visiting the scene of the crime, viewing explicit photos of the deceased and hearing testimony from family evoked more emotion then I expected. Witnessing the heartache of the family is something I will never forget, I expect that there are jurors on Allison’s case that are struggling with their emotions and I really feel for them. Hopefully there will not be a need for long deliberation.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. iCandy, I left a message for you on yesterday’s page – it said, basically, that your forthrightness is admirable and sorry we disappointed you

    Very few are as they appear online and social media, which I suppose describes this site as well, encourages some to conduct social experiments

    Liked by 1 person

    • ICandy, I for one thank you and applaud you for how you handled the imposter.

      Secondly, you spoke candidly and with strength and did enough to alert others.

      I had used my finger to ignore. I too couldn’t quite fathom the massaging of its ego. I had apologized previously to the crew for wasting time and space arguing with it because you can’t win a pissing competition with a prick.

      It was obviously done to rattle the cages and it the type of person, as I have already said, would otherwise be ‘sorted’ in an alternative setting. Not the kind of creature one would spend time with however apart from expelling it from the blog, or leaving entirely oneself, it is easy to change the channel or ‘one flick and your gone’ with the finger.

      Perhaps the intention was to piss people off enough to send them packing. I appreciate the views and values of the majority here and because I have no power to eradicate, i wasn’t going to be dismissed by an arrogant, thoughtless, opinionated, bignoting know-it-all dipstick. It has the dangerous capacity to seemingly outwit with acidic language which most normals haven’t got the experience and therefore armery to combat.

      In helping children dealing with bullying from both their peers and unhealthy adults, they learn to step back if their personal space is invaded, and realise the issue belongs to the other person, and shut off access to dialogue and actions. I bully hates nothing more than not being responded to, like the hurt neglected and abused child they might have been or still are.

      One can only hope it isn’t in a relationship nor responsible for the raising of children.

      Again ‘folks’ – thanks Big Brother for that terminology:-) x – for the 3rd, I think and last time, I won’t waste valuable ‘justice for Allison’ time and space discussing or interacting with it or what I consider, an ugly situation. My apologies for my chosen language, however I have tried to be considerate and tactful, in order to acknowledge wise, insightful and sweet Candy’s sentiments.

      Mob mentality can work in odd ways….for good or for evil. I guess it comes down to individual decision and maybe sometimes politeness be damned for the sake of the greater good.

      I hope evolution works to dissolve such unsavoury character traits rather than cultivating them as if so, the world will be a sadder place.

      Like the school or workplace bully, they aren’t targeted nor singled out as they may profess in their defense, they single themselves out due to their behaviour disorder.

      AMEN and apologies again to the 99% percent of decency personified.

      Won’t re-read for errors cos I ain’t perfect but needed to quickly support ICandy who has virtually stood alone in standing her ground and valuing hers and others’ intelligence and integrity.

      Sweet Candy, you may have already packed your bags and moved to healthier ground and if you have, may this message transcend time and space for you to know you are not alone sweety. You can lead my army any day. Go and do your good work for the next couple of months and with some luck and common sense, the universe will allow you to rest easy knowing justice has been done and that every now and again, a narcissist gets their just desserts. They are hard-wired, so will never be cured however if their potential damage be kept as minimal as possible, people like our Candy will have served the greater good.

      AMEN, and apologies, yet again.

      Fingers crossed for all of Allison’s loved ones, that this element of the nightmare is soon over with the right result so they are allowed to grieve and heal in some small way.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Well, day 19 (significant to me as a lucky number) let’s hope it is too for Allison’s family and friends.
    I’m going out on a limb here and saying we will have a verdict by 3pm….
    Here’s hoping!

    Liked by 4 people

    • Hey BellaBrissie

      I’m heading into the court today, hoping to see the verdict. Where is the best place to wait in hope that the jury arrives back?

      Thanks in advance :)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hello ndbris, sorry I didn’t respond earlier, I have a new phone (non apple) and I’m still trying to work out how to drive it. It’s a shame because it would have been nice to say hello (if we could work out who each other was) haha

        Like

        • I waited outside and kept an eye on twitter. Then I went up to floor five for a while, then back outside again, so on and so forth :)

          Like

    • We found it inexplicable when this expert witness was raised last week and all I can think is that he was there for one reason, or maybe two only:

      Firstly, desperation:
      Money, money, money;
      Must be funny;
      In a rich man’s world.
      Arrrrr, arrrrrhhhh, in a rich man’s world.

      NPD. FULLSTOP.

      Like

  5. The Baden Clay’s themselves have connections to Freemasonry , many people think Freemasonry is satanic or it’s occult, but most people haven’t read about what the freemasons do, freemasons aren’t even allowed to discuss politics or religion, freemasonry originated from the stone masons, one can be easily be shunned from the organisation, look at freemasonry on Wikipedia and read all about it before making any judgement.

    Like

    • My grandfather was a freemason. It’s nothing but a boys club to network & get away from their wives to hang out with the lads lol

      Like

  6. Tick-tock, tick-tock!
    The longer this goes, the closer GBC gets to thumbing his nose at us, society and most sadly, the Dickies. C’mon jurors…

    Tick-tock
    Tick-tock
    The murder’s in the dock!

    Liked by 1 person

    • “The murderer’s in the dock”…I’ll rephrase that otherwise BR will be wont to thrash me with wet lettuce!

      I’ll change it to “The killer is in the dock”.

      No difference to the outcome of the victim though, is there?

      Like

    • Robbo, it’s interesting how one of the jurors wanted a paragraph referring to Manslaughter, so that’s a hint he may get convicted of manslaughter, but if he does, don’t forget about him dumping the body, that in it self carry’s a sentence, so if he does get convicted of manslaughter he will probably be in there for around 3 or 4 years and then he will get parole.

      Like

          • In your mind TCR.

            The sentence you’ve quoted is ‘bottom of the range’ i.e. Someone who’s killed another without intent and then admitted his/her guilt…..with no Trial and certainly no interfering with the corpse.

            The Judge will know the ‘range’ and sentence appropriately to avoid either side appealing on ‘sentence’.

            Liked by 2 people

  7. I love this tweet comment on what the juror’s were asking the judge:

    “The comments related to Gerard’s facial injuries, and what it means if the jury concludes he lied about them”

    Boom!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. I am so nervous about this jury. Seems there are a couple of “less-that-up-to-it” people among them. No understanding of court protocol – ie speak when spoken to – foreman speaks for the jury etc. No understanding of judge’s clear instructions not to look/investigate outside court room. No understanding there is difference between our law and USA’s.

    Like

      • When did OW approach the jury? I never heard or saw that written anywhere and I’m sure the judge would have done something about it if it was true. Honestly can not imagine OW doing that. She is not stupid.

        Like

        • Hi Dora. She was certainly stupid when she asked a police officer if was ok for GBC to tell his children that “mummy fell down a hole……”

          What hope is there if she didn’t learn her lesson from that one?

          I never had a good feeling about her the minute she stood next to GBC chewing her lip. Gut instinct? I don’t know. I just don’t trust her for some reason and this is after trying to separate the “guilt by association” (to GBC) thing. I just can’t shake it.

          Like

        • Who says it was stupidity? There is nothing these people will not try – perhaps they are nervous about the verdict and trying to void the trial? (although I agree with dd397 below)

          Like

    • I actually don’t blame them for making a couple of mistakes. The consideration of murder vs manslaughter (which it seems they are doing – fingers crossed) is far more important than looking up the exact protocol of who’s allowed to speak to the judge. Perhaps they are a bit overwhelmed at all the stipulations on what can considered ‘intent/murder’ etc (I know I would be from what the judge said in summary) and their focus is simply on that, not all the periphery rules around a courtroom.
      I’ll cut them a bit of slack at this point. If it comes back not-guilty though, I’ll retract this statement and consider them all fools. Heh.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Hi Dora, you are right, The yanks have been watching live trials forever compared to our ancient system of so called open justice. Apart from big sensational trials like this, public galleries are pretty much empty these days.

      We want instant information in 2014, An entrepreneur who gets live trials running here in oz would be a smart man.

      So you could say yanks are somewhat more educated from watching trials on TV and maybe knowing what is expected of them, and not so overawed when they get called up. Aussies may of never even seen a courtroom before jury duty.

      Gee over there, it is almost an opportunity to write a book post trial!

      Like

  9. GBC is in court awaiting his verdict, he could be looking at his watch,
    Tick-tock
    Tick-tock
    Tick-tock
    Tick-tock
    Mr Baden Clay has been found Guilty of murdering His wife and interfering with her corpse.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Having read the section of summing up that was re-read (see CM) – it is actually quite a good question – one discussed here and it is a bit hard to understand….clearly the jury is trying to distinguish between manslaughter and murder – which is not easy in this case (despite gut feelings) – a not guilty verdict looks out of the question. IMHO

    Like

  11. Hi guys here is what the judge read to them

    The juror identified the section as being to do with the evidence of Baden-Clay and whether he told lies.

    Justice Byrne reread the passage to the jury.

    “If you conclude that the accused lied because he realised that the truth would implicate him in killing his wife, you would need carefully also to consider whether the lie reveals a consciousness of guilt merely with respect to manslaughter as distinct from also revealing an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm,” he said.

    “You may only use the lie about cutting himself shaving – if it is a lie – as tending to prove the element of murder of an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm if, on the whole of the evidence, the accused lied because he realised that the truth of the matter in that respect would show that, in killing his wife, he had intended to kill her or to cause her grievous bodily harm.

    “It may be that, even if you were to find that the accused lied about his facial injuries because he realised that the truth would show him to be the killer, still you would not conclude that the lie shows that he realised that her death after scratching him with her fingernails would show that he had killed her intentionally.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Okay, so I’ve tried my best to decipher that passage and this is what I’ve come up with in a nutshell: They can use the LIE (about the scratches) as proof of guilt of murder – if the scratches add to the overall evidence of guilt of murder/intent.

      I believe they do. Because Allison was alive when she gave him the scratches – the scratches were the only way Allison could defend herself and ‘tell’ him to stop his actions (smothering/killing) her. Her scratching was his signal to stop (causing him return pain)…yet he didn’t. He refused to heed her signal/plea to stop – he wanted her dead.
      I guess it would depend on how or when the jury think the scratches were inflicted. Eg: if she lashed out before he even had hold of her, then the scratches don’t implicate him for intent, but if she did it during as a means of defence (as they appear)…then they do. I think.

      Liked by 2 people

        • Trouble is KenmoreMum…’smothering’ hasn’t been proven….nor ‘strangling’.

          Along with most things it’s just a couple of possible causes because they can’t find anything else. Not through want of trying….through decomposition.

          Liked by 1 person

          • No I know BR thats why I said IF…I thought they ruled out strangulation because no damage to the throat area…you would think smothering would be the only thing not to leave marks, no evidence. I know we will never know because IF he did it he’ll never tell.

            Like

            • Sorry K Mum I missed your caps IF. (I’ve had a biiiig day)

              Smothering perhaps, but there’s been a lot of discussion about Vagal Inhibition in the last few years. Death can occur in seconds….from the Vagal nerve on the side of the neck being pinched which in turn stops the heart. I saw a poster mention that she let her son demonstrate on her a similar technique to see if it would disable (which it did). I thought to myself…..I don’t think I’d be doing that!

              Imagine if she fell down dead….he’d be charged with Murder and then go through all of this trying to get a Manslaughter conviction for…..Unlawful Killing through recklessness.

              Wow…..Craziness.

              Liked by 1 person

              • All good BR…I think it was a big day for us all. I was a bit meh most of the day.
                OMG!! I’ve never heard of that! I don’t think I’d be testing it out. I’ll read up on it. Although I don’t think we’ll ever know what really happened.
                I’m going to try & have a GBC-free day today…might catch up later tonight. :)

                Like

  12. The Thinker on July 10, 2014 at 11:36 am said:
    Hi everyone……..have been busy reading all the posts and haven’t commented earlier as I’m more or less the silent type, but thought I would share this.

    I was on a jury for a murder trial and I was gob smacked by the behaviour of some of the other jurors. We were not given the option of manslaughter to begin with and because of so much arguing amongst us we spoke to the judge who finally decided we could have that option. Our deliberating started on a Thursday and by Friday the pressure from some jurors to find a verdict by Friday afternoon was nothing short of traumatic. We were to be sequestered over the weekend and that was such an issue with some as it interfered with their drink time!!!!!!

    My point is that strangers are suddenly put in such an intimate and pressurised situation to decide ones fate. I don’t expect this is always the case but I was very disappointed with my experience.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I too have had a similar experience. Not murder but recklessly cause grievous bodily harm. The victim did not die and the assault was during a robbery. Some of the jury were so overpowering the others and those same ones complained about needing to wrap it up as they had various things to attend to. I was shocked by this and being a bit outspoken as I am, I asked one young mother why she did not apply to get out of jury duty if she had young children for whom she could not find carers she could afford. Her answer was that she just wanted the experience of being on a jury.

      Like

    • It’s a bit of a worry to think people have to place their lives in the hands of jurors who just want to move on and get it over with, whichever way achieves that for them, rather than spend the time to get the right verdict sorted. Makes one wonder about the system’s robustness, compared to a judge only trial…???

      Like

      • RIP Allison, In the case I was involved in, the whingers who carried on about wanted it over as they had things to do, did not get their way as all the other jury members ignored them. Having 12 on the jury seem to sort out the odd couple/few that are not doing their best.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. This process of waiting certainly wreaks havoc with the mind. I just want to run into the courthouse, fling open the jury room doors and say ‘it’s cut and dried, people’…but trying to keep in mind we know things they don’t. But really, how do you get past the scratches/gouges? How?!?!

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Hi All……….thought i would repost this from yesterday.
    I can feel parallels from the case I was on…
    When we were deliberating and there were vast opinions we could see that we were never going to agree, we then asked the judge about the possibility of manslaughter. It was the bargaining tool in the jury room, the ones wanting ‘not guilty’ of murder and the ones wanting ‘guilty’ met in the middle
    and after much door slamming and fist pumping ‘guilty of manslaughter’ was our verdict.

    Like

  15. I find the process of jury selection bizarre and interesting… I’ve always wondered if in Australia we do any kind of screening before confirming an appointed jury member. I understand Elliott Roger had been asked to do jury duty just months before he went on his planned killing spree in LA. He refused jury duty saying he was leaving the state, then he went on to carry out his attack. That’s the US of course but I wondered after the random process of selection, do we have any kind of screening here in Australia? I find it amazing that these jury members were given clear instructions, have listened to all the evidence over weeks and yet someone on the jury is seeking advice on the internet?

    Like

    • The legislation that applies is called (strangely enough) the Jury Act Qld.
      There is no screening process as such.
      Certain persons are excluded.
      There are also provisions about sequestration.

      Like

      • Thanks Donna. So I guess the ‘certain persons excluded’ would include those with criminal backgrounds, but not those who are yet to have criminal backgrounds. It’s an interesting process to say the least and I would imagine sequestration brings about its own problems too.

        Like

    • Should all be given basic IQ and personality tests… Standard. But I guess those people who are intelligent or too many personal responsibilities manage to get out of jury service… Often left with the bottom of the barrel. I know not always the case but may be for this one! Egad!

      Like

      • Hi BSD70
        That’s one of the arguments that’s been mounted for changes to the system. The main one is that the available (those that haven’t argued to get out of it) Jurors tend to be retirees keen to fill their day in with a bit of excitement and ‘responsibility’.

        The argument then goes that Retirees are generally more conservative in nature and aren’t a true reflection of society as a whole.

        Like

        • I actually agree with you. They are! And they find it very hard to convict, like they think they are sending someone to the electric chair. And this can just be receiving stolen goods. They always want to see more evidence. They’re just not sure. It’s so frustrating.

          Like

    • My understanding is that they are saying if the jury accept he lied about the marks on his face it would definitely show he killed her but it doesn’t necessarily show an intent to kill her if that makes sense. So basically they cannot deduce anything about the scratches or the lies about the scratches as intent, just as killing.

      Like

      • That is what I got out of it sleepless but notice in the 2nd arm: “if, on the whole of the evidence, the accused lied because he realised that the truth of the matter in that respect would show that, in killing his wife, he had intended to kill her or to cause her grievous bodily harm.”

        I then take that to say his lying (if they believe so) shows he killed her. It does not show the intent, but on the whole of the evidence, intent may be shown.

        I think the judge is telling them the answer here. Allison is dead – no dispute. He killed her as evidenced by his lies to cover up, AND intent to kill her as evidenced by the whole of the evidence -which I take to be the affair, the financial pressures and the threat to him from Allison coming in contact with Toni the next day where she might learn of his continued deceit AND the fact that she died after inflicting those scratches on his face – ie fought for her life but he continued.

        Liked by 1 person

        • This is exactly how I see it Dora, but I found the judge’s explanation not clear and I did not get this message from it, I actually started worrying that he is ferrying them down the manslaughter path…. I sincerely do hope you are right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Like

    • I read the Justice Byrne’s statement to suggest that if the jury believe he has lied in his testimony, then it was reasonable to conclude that he’s lying to cover up his involvement in Alison’s death. – Manslaughter

      However if they believe he has lied about the scratches on his face, then it’s reasonable for the jury to conclude that the scratches are a sign of intent or grievous bodily harm. – Murder

      It definitely sounds like the jury don’t believe GBC’s testimony, they’re close to a verdict and they’re trying to figure out if the scratches were made by Alison therefor murder. If they can’t all agree re: scratches, it sounds like they’re considering manslaughter.

      Sounds like it will be one or the other, he won’t get not guilty.

      Like

  16. Jury Act 1995 (Qld)
    Section 4
    Qualification to serve as juror
    Citizen’s obligation to perform jury service
    (1) A person is qualified to serve as a juror at a trial within a jury district (qualified for jury service) if—
    (a) the person is enrolled as an elector; and
    (b) the person’s address as shown on the electoral roll is within the jury district; and
    (c) the person is eligible for jury service.
    (2)A person who is enrolled as an elector is eligible for jury service unless the person is mentioned in subsection (3).
    (3)The following persons are not eligible for jury service—
    (a) the Governor;
    (b) a member of Parliament;
    (c) a local government mayor or other councillor;
    (d) a person who is or has been a judge or magistrate (in the State or elsewhere);
    (e) a person who is or has been a presiding member of the Land and Resources Tribunal;
    (f) a lawyer actually engaged in legal work;
    (g) a person who is or has been a police officer (in the State or elsewhere);
    (h) a detention centre employee;
    (i) a corrective services officer;
    (j) a person who is 70 years or more, if the person has not elected to be eligible for jury service under subsection (4);
    (k) a person who is not able to read or write the English language;
    (l) a person who has a physical or mental disability that makes the person incapable of effectively performing the functions of a juror;
    (m) a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence, whether on indictment or in a summary proceeding;
    (n) a person who has been sentenced (in the State or elsewhere) to imprisonment.

    Like

  17. I’ll fess up. I made a very healthy living out of writing, but for the life of me,I have no real idea about what the Judge said. Yes I appreciate he must exercise extreme caution in covering himself…but he has done so at the expense of clarity of message.

    I’ll bet the house the jurors went back into the room stating “what the hell does that mean?”

    At the core of his statement (I think) was this

    If you think (this)

    Then you also need to consider (this too)

    To arrive at (this) conclusion.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Agreed, Shadow. He’s got to be so cautious that this doesn’t come back and bite him in the backside. And it is, in a somewhat garbled way, stepping out the process of how to reach a conclusion. As I just said to someone before though, the time for manslaughter was April 20, 2012. That time has come and gone; the scratches, the charger at 1:48, the leaves, the blood, the post-offense conduct all equal a consciousness of guilt. And murder. Intent.

      Liked by 1 person

        • They are… But the scratches in and of themselves I believe show intent. He was harming her. She was striking out. He had time to stop. He didn’t. We know this because she’s no longer alive. He’s distanced himself as far as possible from the murder of his wife, even so far as to say nothing of note occurred on the 19th and they never fought and he doesn’t know what happened to her. If he suffocated or strangled her, that takes a long time. Up to 4 mins from my research. He had time to stop. But he didn’t. He intended to end her life.

          Liked by 2 people

          • You make an excellent point LJC! Thank you! ;-) I Hadn’t actually joined the dots on that one. I hope the jury are thinking like you are! “she was striking out. he had time to stop. he didnt” that’s absolutely an intention to kill or ‘harm’. Oh please god let him be guilty!!! I don’t know who we are all going to cope if he isn’t found guilty given everything we now know…

            Liked by 1 person

          • Agreed LJC2013, I just hope that is what the jurors took from his message, because I found it totally unclear and I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person. I actually worried that he is steering them to manslaughter….hope not, he murdered her IMO.

            Like

  18. I think you’re confusing abrupt & straight to the point personality with narcissism..

    A narcissist will suck you in with charm, charisma & ‘prince charming’ like speech/demeanor then destroy you when you’re completely sucked into the con..

    I like straight to the point people, you’re never left in the dark about how they feel.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree there may be some confusion, but I also think it’s more than abrupt and straight to the point. It’s disrepectful and close-minded, spouting opinions whilst deriding others’. However words look different than they sound.
      I definitely thought charm was lacking, and you’re right there was no fooling trying to be nice or sugary (narcissists always start on people like that). I have my own suspicions about it all, but as they are unsubstantiated opinions it I not appropriate for me to express them here.

      Like

  19. If he is found guilty of manslaughter or murder, do the police have an option or duty of care to pursue any accessories to murder based on ‘evidence’ from the 300 witnesses which may implicate NBC?

    Like

      • What is the “evidence” that NBC was involved?
        Speculation, instinct, probably reasonable assumption that someone assisted to clean up – but is there any evidence?

        Like

        • It could be all of what you mentioned, Donna. Having said that, if more arrests are to follow, it could be the glove finger tip that was found, tested and is now being held as evidence for the further trial/s. From memory (and correct me if I’m wrong), it was mentioned in the media and then we didn’t hear much else from it.

          Like

          • Hope you’re right, Daydreamer. A couple of them could well be accessories, imo.
            Whether or not they assisted in any way, don’t know. But not for a moment do I believe they knew nothing about it

            Liked by 2 people

            • I have also been wondering this. My thoughts have gone to the roundabout and the eyewitness who spotted 2 vehicles following closely near the Kholo bridge. None of this has been mentioned as evidence. Could just be there’s nothing to it, who knows? All I care for at this point in time is Guilty anything for Gered.

              Like

              • Hi Millie. Great to see you back 😊

                Oh yes – I forgot about the 2 car witness at Kholo and the Kenmore roundabout. Those things were also mentioned in the media briefly and never to be spoken about again (atleast until further arrests, I’m sure).

                Like

          • Absolutely! This finger glove tip was found in her jumper and on autopsy report. Not mentioned by any of the forensic people who retrieved her body which they would have to do by protocol. Surely there was DNA obtained from this?

            Like

            • Correctomundo, BSD70 😊 They’d have tested it, for sure.

              What better way to finish this GBC trial than to have the accomplices (in my mind) rounded up as they leave Court today with detectives flashing Arrest Warrants! Kill two birds with 1 stone. Hee hee.

              Im convinced that a lot of the questions asked by AC posters that weren’t addressed at this Trial are going to get answered down the track.

              Like

              • I think if they could have used any of the ‘missing’ evidence they should have and would have to convict GBC. So for whatever reason, what was sighted in the Kenmore roundabout, the 2 car sighting at the Kholo bridge, the mysterious face time calll to NBC that was ‘retracted’, etc, etc, could not have had strong enough links to the case to use it, no mater how compelling it seems that they are likely connected.

                If witnesses noted down license plate numbers, it may have been a different story, so let that be a lesson for us all – to note and report suspicious activities in sufficient detail that they can be useful. Ditto for hearing blood-curdling screams. If everyone reported those on the night, the outcome too may have been very different.

                I too have suspicions that he may have had one or two assistants involved at least with the disposal, but I think suspicion is one thing, proof is another. I have a feeling GBC is the only conviction we may see, hopefully for what it was – murder.

                Like

                • I guess the other way to look at it might be that one has to be convicted of a crime before someone can be charged as an accessory to that crime? Meaning, if the jury established (because they didn’t have eyes, ears or a brain) that ABC killed herself, there would be no crime with which to charge someone as an accessory. Does my convoluted thinking make sense?

                  Like

                • Agree RIP Allison. Have no doubt that with a circumstantial case, every possible piece of evidence that may assist build the picture and point to GBC would have been used – when I say possible, pieces that were not going to be immediately pulled apart and discredited – put too many of those pieces before the court and your whole case becomes tainted.

                  Like

        • Agreed, JK. We all knew he was guilty the second he opened his mouth in that interview. If we know he did it, she certainly does, too. To me, when she looks at him while he’s speaking with narrowed eyes, she appears to not only be giving off “shut up” vibes, but “I know you’re lying and you did this” vibes, too.

          Liked by 1 person

      • This video of them always makes me quietly chuckle…. GBC clearly came over to this girl because she was good looking… being the serial womaniser he is… and then he realises there’s a camera :) If you watch him closely, you can see this realisation and his very slight change in demeanour but always keeping up the charm. And yes Olivia looks awfully nervous and is noticeably making her physical presence known to Gerard leaning on him from behind. I think it was RIP Allison who described her as the ‘lip biting’ sister so I think that is an apt description here.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Sorry KenmoreMum, I was writing my post as you posted yours – the lip biting thing is very noticeable and you’re so right – it’s exactly what kids do when they are lying! :) I thought it was a very funny ‘description’ RIP Allison gave her in an earlier post.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Yes daydreamer, it’s amazing… he has just (allegedly as we wait for the verdict) strangled his wife and dumped her body…. but he sees a pretty girl, and there’s that smile. Mind boggling.

            Liked by 2 people

        • That is something I do agree with you on. The interviewer is gorgeous and GBC almost stumbles in his haste to speak with her and probably had a rumbling erection. For some, when under stress, there is a heightened libido and it would seem His is elevated constantly. Perhaps he will be pumped with female hormones in prison unless he has an outlet for P.E.T.

          Liked by 1 person

      • The simpering voice of GBC and almost feminine “yes I was hurt a little bit but I’m OK” would be hysterical if it wasn’t under such tragic circumstances for Allison. I see no hint of distress turmoil and downright panic over what could have happened to his missing wife/her sister-in-law that she professes to love. Instead OW looks like she would verbally attack if wrong word was said by reporter. And I find her physical closeness/snugging up creepy.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. I believe NBC assisted GBC in cleaning the leaves out of the car, disposing of clothing. I wonder whether he phenerganed the children to ensure they slept and didn’t wake. I wonder if the police examined the contents of the vacuum cleaner that NBC was carrying into the house when they arrived that morning? Perhaps there was some leaf litter in there from the captiva, what about the rubbish bins, drains around the perimeter that GBC drove that morning ‘looking’ for Allison, perhaps he disposed of her phone then…

    Like

      • What’s a false positive??? Maybe that was a planned red herring too… Maybe he purposefully took that vacuum outside so police would think that was the only one that could have been used??? Maybe NBC or OW took a second vacuum back to their place the night before… The one that was actually used! No one ever searched the rest of the BC’s houses, cars, etc etc… The fact that the ‘razor’ involved made its way back to NBC’s house and not retained by cops says a lot to me. What else went back there BEFORE the police were called the next morning…

        Like

        • The razor didn’t get back to NBC’s…the police took Gerard back to the Brookfield house to get the razor. It was in the trial.

          Like

        • BSD I believe when they use luminol (BR?) to test for blood other things react to it as a positive as well i.e rust. So basically it tested positive for blood but they couldn’t be certain it was blood as it could have been rust. :/
          Does that make sense?

          Like

          • K Mum
            I think these pre screening tests can show ‘positves’ to hundreds of things…..one of which is blood. Rust is the most common and it only needs to be surface rust.

            Better chuck out that old hammer in the back of your car. You could be the next KenmoreClubber. ;-0

            Liked by 1 person

            • Cripes BR you may be hitting the nail on the head ;) hubby is a builder!! Nah…not gonna happen. We like each other too much. :D

              Like

      • What on earth is a false positive?? Is it like a face time call that is made at a very specific time to a very specific person and then suddenly does not exist?? ‘False’ positives worry me….

        Liked by 1 person

        • A ‘false positive’ is a positive made by something that gives an ‘indication’, but on actual analysis proves to be false.

          Think ‘Roadside Breath Testing Device’ (the old ‘bag’) which gives an indication but then you’ll be put on the Breath Analysing Instrument (in the Bus or Station) which does the actual analysis.

          Police do the first scan of ‘stuff’ and then send that ‘stuff’ away to be analysed by Q Health when they might find they’ve got a false positive.

          Liked by 1 person

  21. Has there been any notices for media and others at the court about notifying of reaching a verdict?
    Like in some trials they say media will be given 45 minutes notice before jury enter to give their verdict? Or will we only know when they walk in and journos start twittering?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. First time I’ve watched that video of Gerard and his sister, despite following this case with some interest over the past two years. Guilty as sin, both of them.

    Liked by 3 people

      • I’ve watched it four times and keep laughing at the voice he’s putting on. It’s completely ridiculous and a pretty poor attempt at conning the public into believing him.

        Wonder how high-pitched his voice will be when he receives a servicing in the pen from big Tony McHue :)

        Liked by 3 people

        • Simply The Pest — exactly. Makes me wonder how many times it’s worked for him in the past for him to try that little act on national tv. Well, hope he realizes by now that acting is not his forte – in fact, he’s lousy at it. His performance was an insult to people’s intelligence and for that alone he needs a damn hard wake-up call imo

          As to the sister — begone, biatch. Might work in Townsville. Not working here

          Liked by 3 people

  23. Almost lunchtime for the Jury, wonder what they’re having for lunch?

    I’m planning on a peanut butter sandwich for lunch today.

    Like

  24. Lies evidencing consciousness of guilt is a very complex area of the law and there have been numerous successful appeals because judges have wrongly explained it to juries. However, it is largely based of common sense. If a person has nothing to hide then they do not need to lie. Therefore the lie can be considered as evidencing that they had to lie because the truth would implicate them. It becomes more complex it cases like this where there is a lie but it may be explicable for a number of reasons, in this case because he killed his wife without intent (manslaughter) or because he intentionally killed his wife (murder). As with any inference open to a jury they are directed that if two inferences are equally open they must draw the one most favourable to the accused. This follows from the onus of proof. Therefore they could only use the lies in this case as supporting a murder conviction if they(the lies) are not adequately or equally attributable to a lie told as a result of killing his wife without intent. For my part I don’t think the lies assist of Murder. However there is more than enough evidence that could convince the jury of intent. For my part the most compelling indication that he intended to kill her came from his performance as a witness demonstrating his capacity to plan ahead and capacity to lie to cover his wrongdoing. The lack of any previous violence or loss of temper in the relationship make it more likely, in my opinion, that there was no such loss of temper or physical altercation on this night but rather a deliberate killing.

    Liked by 4 people

    • It’s still a mouthful, isn’t it, Ramjet? It’s not reasonable to demand twelve people from all walks of life interpret what it’s take the law hundreds of years to formulate, imo

      The law loves words. The average person likes to cut to the chase. The law demands jury members interpret legalese and apply it to a case in a matter of hours or days. Unreasonable expectation, imo. Unnecessary obfuscation

      Time the law simplified itself to fit reality. In fact, why shouldn’t jurors question the defendant themselves instead of having to rely on the courtroom sparring of those from the legal industry?

      A juror required to decide someone’s fate should be provided the opportunity to question the defendant directly before the court and say, ‘ I don’t believe those are shaving scratches. Come on. Stop lying’

      And if the defendant replies, ‘ They are!’ the jurors, together or singly, should be free to retort, ‘Stop lying or we’re going to put you away!’

      There would be far greater chance of arriving at a confession and/or justified verdict that way than from the legal dance currently performed in the theatre of the court — and would power back in the hands of the people rather than lawyers

      Liked by 1 person

      • But can you imagine the circus and time involved if all 12 members were at liberty to question the accused and every other witness called in a trial. No doubt the prosecutor put to GBC that he was telling lies.

        If the jury asked or said to the accused stop telling lies or we will convict you and he admitted his lies:- would the jury then be required to find him not guilty??

        Like

        • They do in some states of the US. In the Jodi Arias trial the jurors were allowed to ask questions of the witnesses and defendant (she took the stand) after the Pros and Defence were done each time. I believe the jury questions had to relate to what had been said during testimony. The questions are given to the judge who reads them out (omitting double ups). I thought it was a great system. It meant if the jury were confused on any particular answers, they could ask the witness to clarify.

          Like

          • Good point. There in nothing stopping that happening in Australia and I have seen juries aske questions directly of witnesses. Judges and lawyers tend to discourage it because they can lose control. Obviously some questions are objectionable so there would need to be some sort of screening process similar to the one you describe above.

            Like

          • Maricopa County/Phoenix in Arizona applejack. I believe judges have the option to do that there. Actually thought that was a good idea. Jurors had some very good questions. Isn’t she (JA) a piece of work.

            Like

        • Ramjet — semantics win you your second point. And no, the jury would still find him guilty

          As to the first point you raise, that of time and circus — show me the difference. It’s a circus in any case. Poor theatre complete with stupid looking wigs and flowing gowns. Did most solicitors and lawyers harbour ambitions to be movie and stage ‘stars’ in their youth? You can bet on it, imo. Ditto with politicians

          How did it all commence, this legal pantomime? Wasn’t it when Ugg the village idiot raped the milkmaid and when surrounded by villagers and pitchforks, didn’t some opportunist leap to the front to offer his ‘services’ on behalf of Idiot Ugg after which he became the very first solicitor/lawyer? Big clap for that guy for creating a job for himself out of thin air

          Solicitation. Solicitors. Prostitutes. Followed on by self-aggrandising titles such as ‘Your Worship’, ‘Your Honour’ and legal garbagese such as ‘If it pleases the court’ ———– pure theatre with the focus on granting as much power and glory as possible to themselves and their own. An entire industry spun from bullshitting for the most part in pursuit of money and personal glory

          The muttering, the verbal sparring, the sombre nods back and forth, lots of paper shuffling and conferring with clerks — theatre, with the paying public trained and forced to watch in awed silence. The facts are, a woman’s dead and her spouse had umpteen reasons to want her dead. Further, he was scratched to buggery dating from the time he claimed she disappeared. He’s a serial liar and he stands to gain over a million from her death. Left to their own devices, the jury would arrive at a verdict. Instead, they’re deliberately confused by three supposedly wise monkeys: the judge with his drawn out instructions and definitions of what constitutes this and that and the defence and prosecution. It’s death by a million words. And because jury members — like virtually everyone following this case — cannot sort the wheat from the chaff within those millions of words, a woman’s murder stands to remain unpunished or insufficiently punished

          Liked by 1 person

          • Agree absolutely with everything you say. I have no doubt the jury will work through all the BS and arrive at a common sense verdict. That is the beauty of juries. I have no dobt they will sort the wheat from the chaff and deliver a proper verdict. No sure if it will be murder or manslaughter. Think it will be murder. I think there is no chance of a complete walk for GBC.

            Liked by 1 person

            • There is a lot of good healthy discussion on this site.
              However I speak up against the disrespectful comments towards others who are not on trial, encouraging hate towards those of certain families, nationalities and professions.

              Like

    • Absolutely agree ramjet. Spot on. There are of course the other lies. Not worried about financial problem – everything was looking up – direct contrast to what he said in police interview the day he reported Allison missing. Why would he lie about this (as stupid a lie that it is)? Is it the same reason he lies about not meaning what he told Toni and that he only told her that to placate her? Could this also be the same reason he lies about not being concerned about Allison and Toni meeting up at the conference? What is the reason for all these other lies?

      Like

      • My take on the other lies was that he said whatever he thought was best for him and whatever he thought he could possibly get away with. Imagine if he didn’t say that the commitment to be with TM by 1 July unconditionally was untrue! Imagine if he did admit that he was in desperate financial strife! imagine if he did say he knew there would be a confrontation between ABC and TM and he expected he would be chucked on the street, 70% of anything he had taken (not much anyway), liable for child support and ABC taking the kids! Imagine if he did admit being exposed as a failed business man and poor husband! in that context he had to lie about them in the same way he had to lie about the scratches on his face!

        Like

      • Dora, Pathological lying does not follow any rational logic, In GBC’s case, his lies are tied in with his narcissism. They are one manifestation of his narcissism. The seemingly needless lying in court was done in service of his self image, just as, at the time, his contrasting statements to police when he reported Allison missing, were uttered for the same reason. The main drive is to maintain an image to himself and others. That image will alter constantly depending on his perception of the people he is with (prosecutor, jury, family, defence, spectators).. As such, it was his narcissism which drove him to the stand and then drove him to what the non-delusional recognise as lies. His need to retain an image of himself over-rode any recognition of how other’s would negatively view his behaviour. I have little doubt nothing much has changed there, as evidenced by the timing of this appeal app and the grounds of it,

        Like

    • It still doesn’t rule out that she struck first (and why wouldn’t she!), giving him the scratches and he’s grabbed her (never been in a fight in his life) using excessive force? It could have been over in seconds.

      i.e. Your common old domestic blow up…..with drastic results.

      Liked by 1 person

      • agreed! but if that was the case would he dispose of the bodyI accept the panic argument is open but I think if that was unintentional you would not dispose of the body.

        Like

        • I think he would. The name, his ‘standing’ in the Community, his over confidence, his fear of his girls knowing he killed their mother, not being terribly smart.

          He just started digging that hole and the deeper he dug he couldn’t stop.

          There’s every chance in the world he didn’t even know he had the scratches until after he got home and looked in the mirror.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Or put another way.

            If he had killed her with Intent or not and he didn’t have the scratches, what would he have done?

            Reported or hid it?

            Like

            • He would have hidden it either way. You can collect insurance if you’re convicted of murder or manslaughter. BR I wanted to get your opinion… I think he killed her via suffocation (no, no proof, just gut feeling)… How do you think he did it? The Vagal thing? And not by accident? And how do you think the blood came to be there? I’m just being an inquisitive little critter… Wondering if you have a theory?

              Like

      • But it does rule it out, BR! The defendant himself said that no such fight occurred. I can’t see how manslaughter is even on the table. It’s murder or nothing. In my little black and white world :)

        Sent from Leah’s iPhone

        Like

        • GG

          It’s the hole that he dug for himself……he can’t get out of it.

          If that is the scenario, ( a ‘heat of the moment’ domestic resulting in death) it certainly makes him a big fat fibber as well as a killer, but just not a ‘Murderer’.

          There is no history of violence….none. Police have never been there for a ‘domestic’ which really leaves only a few options (a) He wanted to be with Toni …..I don’t think so (and neither did she). (b) He did it for the money. The Money Men thought he was on the right track financially and weren’t concerned for their money, (c) It was just a common old domestic brought on by his constant philandering that got out of control. (Heat of the moment). The scratches can show one of two things. They’re either ‘defensive’ or they were inflicted because Allison had just had enough? She was told by the Counsellor to have the daily ‘unloads’ with him and he was told to just shut up and take it. (pretty poor advice….but anyway…)

          Maybe he tried to defend himself (like he’s prone to do) and after years of writing about how much she hated the way he treated her, he got slapped (gouged) and the rest is history? Seconds…or minutes later and it’s all over.

          Strangulation can be almost completely ruled out because of the ‘unremarkable’ Hyoid bone. Smothering …the next method of choice…what with? The act would have taken a very long time risking the girls waking up with legs and arms knocking over furniture and no ‘device’ has ever been located, nor any indication of smothering on or in the body (granted the decomposition, but loss of oxygen will show through the organs.

          Death could have occurred in a couple of seconds….or minutes. We just don’t know.

          The whole thing is full of if’s and maybe’s…..which doesn’t get us across the line for ‘beyond a reasonable doubt….in my opinion….but you probably know that. :-)

          I’m going back to sleep…..I love early morning snoozes.

          Like

  25. Is the judge saying he won’t take a verdict before 2.15pm simply for the media/lawyers benefit, so they can ‘stand down’ until then? Or is he telling the jury they ‘can’t’ give him a verdict before then for some other reason?

    Like

  26. I’m not so sure I agree that NBC and OW were involved as accessories. I suspect that GBC would have put ABC’s body on plastic sheeting inside the Captiva, or bin bags, or something like that, and then disposed of the plastic, so there was no need for cleaning. He probably disposed of it the same place he disposed of ABC’s phone. I suspect that NBC and OW are acting in the cringingly self-righteous manner they are because they believe very fervently that GBC is innocent – the BC family being almost by definition to them all such good upstanding Christians!!
    …And I doubt that GBC would have had the courage to tell his parents and sister that he murdered ABC.

    Like

    • In fact, it’s possible that GBC put plastic lining in place in the Captive BEFORE he did the deed. But he did so imperfectly, and so there was a place where the blood seeped out.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am with you there Jane. I have thought all along that he was preparing the scene when Hannah got up for a drink of water and saw him come up the stairs. You know when my children were that age they would use the excuse of wanting a drink of water when really they were just curious to know what was going on out in the lounge room. It would happen if we had someone over and the kids heard some laughter. I wouldn’t mind betting that Hannah heard her father downstairs – perhaps opening car doors or something that was a bit out of the norm and got up to see what was going on. (she actually said thought he’d been down to get something out of the car or a drink from the fridge)

        Liked by 2 people

        • I don’t recall the child saying she actually spoke with her mother either….didn’t the words say ‘she saw her lying on the couch watching TV? He said he had shoes on to do the ‘ironing’.

          Was he ‘ironing’ a very big problem?

          Like

    • From GBC’s point of view of inventing lies to cover his tracks, he should have admitted to a fight with ABC. He asked her for a divorce. ABC reacted physically, scratching him and then stormed out. Even an altercation with the neighbours cat would have been more plausible than a shaving cut!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • It’s my opinion that if someone believes another to be innocent, their first reaction is one of indignation, not sliding up behind and gnawing their mouth to shreds while waiting the opportunity to leap in and take the heat off

      If we don’t have a very good measure of those with whom we’ve lived for years, we’re brain dead. I could tell if my siblings were lying almost before they’d opened their mouths and I’m pretty sure most people would say the same. Why then would I believe GBCs family would not know from his voice, his demeanor, his answers to our questions, etc. that there was more to his story other than his wife had vanished into the night or morning out of the blue and an hour or less (depending on which lie he was telling at the time) before she was due to attend something of importance to her?

      Liked by 2 people

      • I did indeed get a sense of “indignation” from OW’s reaction – hence her semi-permanent scowl. Although in truth, it’s hard to say exactly whether it was indignation towards the authorities and media for persecuting and prosecuting her dear brother, or indignation towards them for not understanding just what a good, noble, Christian family they are and what a loser ABC was by comparison!!

        Like

        • Points taken, JaneB

          I saw what you’ve described within her reaction to the media as she wrestled manfully with the steering wheel and wound up the passenger-side window in response to the media, for example. The crazed sprint across the lawns like a B-grade action movie demonstrated to me her siege mentality. And arrogance within her ‘We want Allison returned to us’ blather – arrogance in that she was apparently of the belief she was speaking to mental midgets who would accept her every stupid utterance

          But she seemed to be shitting herself whilst cheek to jowl with GBC as he tried his Pope Francis routine for the media, i.e., ‘ I’ve got three young girls to take care of ‘ … the fainting voice, helpless wafting of hands, weak-kneed, wilting, God aren’t I gorgeous and convincing act on the lawn

          Liked by 2 people

          • Yeah, …stating that his primary worry is his daughters (who are out of harm’s way) with no mention of his wife (who is missing).

            Like

      • Maybe they should give jury members a month to consider their verdict? Provide them with every skerrick of information and leave them with it

        Why should the verdict be arrived at so swiftly, when the prosecution and defence have had close to two years to get their act together, I’m wondering

        How many times have we been put under pressure to reach a decision, only to say, down the track, that if we’d had more time to think about it our decision would have been different? Wouldn’t it be the same with juries?

        Liked by 3 people

        • The jury can take as long as they like to arrive at a verdict. if they take a month there is nothing the court can do about it. Generally they are not given transcripts of the evidence but only the exhibits that were tendered during evidence. they can ask for the transcript. the judge may or may not give it to them. the judge will read any portion of the evidence back to them if they ask to be reminded of the evidence.

          Like

  27. The media’s forever coming up with what the future will hold. Time-machines have had several mentions. It’s said that ‘not too far into the future’ scientists will be able to create time-machines

    I look forward to that. Then, at trials such as this, a time-machine will play before the court, before the jury, the judge, defence and prosecution, a replay of what happened between Allison and GBC that night and in the hours which followed

    Wonderful !

    Liked by 2 people

  28. As Gerald Baden Clay said in his first media- Shakespear- church like perch performance , in that sob-sob-croc of shit- emotionless crocodile tears, pantomime, preacher church minster, saint like voice , ”Im a little hurt a bit , but Im ok, – Ive tried to help the police as much as I can – we have great family support.!”……And we just appeal to the public to help in anyway they can! – We need to find her!. We Hope she come home soon! We are just desperate for her to return to us ! – yeah right, you rotting liars- Gerald, and his sister are so convincing – while the police and SES were kept busy, on a wild goose chase ,looking for a needle in a haystack, searching and looking in rubbish dumpsters and mineshafts and remote areas for days before she was to be found left for dead under Kholo Bridge. Close enough to Geralds house to look very much, ike a act of foul play?…..
    This performance by Gerald Baden Clay is so very much in comparison to the media performance put on by Wife and Child Murderer John Myles Sharpe, who acted like the victim, to the end – while all along he had brutally with a spear gun, killed and then buried his wife in his own house back yard, then killed his child and then later panicked and dug up his wife and removed them to a tip- landfill site to get rid of the evidence. But good detective work, and digging and scrounging for many days through the sticking, dirty, smelly, rotting landfill- tip, by the searching police , discovered his most bizarre horrible act of trying to dispose of the human remains and the evidence, linking him to a most heinous crime!…….His response to police after finally being caught out!, after breaking bad – down with crocodile tears on his media questioning was, acted in a state of madness!……..It would be good if Baden Clay got more than 30 years, for being found guilty, like John Myles Sharp!………This sob- sob- performance, also used by Oscar Petorous is a similar performance. May the jury see through these angel like crims!……………………………….

    Liked by 4 people

    • Pentridge Police Officer ——- I LOVE your posts ! You could power a city with your passion

      And this is priceless:

      As Gerald Baden Clay said in his first media- Shakespear- church like perch performance , in that sob-sob-croc of shit- emotionless crocodile tears, pantomime, preacher church minster, saint like voice

      The Pope Francis, ecclesiastical voice, I’ve dubbed it

      Then this:

      Im a little hurt a bit , but Im ok, – Ive tried to help the police as much as I can – we have great family support.!”……And we just appeal to the public to help in anyway they can! – We need to find her!. We Hope she come home soon! We are just desperate for her to return to us ! – yeah right, you rotting liars- Gerald, and his sister are so convincing – while the police and SES were kept busy, on a wild goose chase ,looking for a needle in a haystack, searching and looking in rubbish dumpsters and mineshafts and remote areas for days

      Police Officer — you and my husband think as one on that score!

      How could anyone forget this:

      This performance by Gerald Baden Clay is so very much in comparison to the media performance put on by Wife and Child Murderer John Myles Sharpe, who acted like the victim, to the end – while all along he had brutally with a spear gun, killed and then buried his wife in his own house back yard, then killed his child and then later panicked and dug up his wife and removed them to a tip- landfill site to get rid of the evidence

      And you’re right again when you write this:

      .It would be good if Baden Clay got more than 30 years, for being found guilty, like John Myles Sharp!………This sob- sob- performance, also used by Oscar Petorous is a similar performance. May the jury see through these angel like crims!

      Good post, Police Officer. Fire from the belly! Let’s hope the learned counsels and judge haven’t completely stripped the jury’s

      Liked by 3 people

      • I don’t think he’ll get 30 years – because Max Sica got a non-parole period of 35 in Queensland for murdering three children and a long history of criminality. I would have thought life with a non-parole period of 23 or 24 years for GBC. A very similar case in NZ (Clayton Weatherston – see the very harrowing live footage of his testimony on YouTube if interested) resulted in a non-parole period of just 22 years, but Qld is probably not quite as “soft” as NZ!!

        Liked by 1 person

        • No – to correct myself – it was just 18 years for Clayton Weatherston in NZ (despite having stabbed and mutilated his ex-girlfriend to death)!!

          Like

          • JaneB — don’t know the case. Sounds harrowing, like so many of them

            I’m pretty much decided that if anyone does anything like that to anyone I love, I will take them down permanently. If I’m too old or weak or clueless to do it myself, I’ll sell all I own if necessary and pay someone to take them down permanently

            And if I go to prison for that, so be it

            because I have little faith in the so-called ‘justice’ system

            Have a ‘LIKE” manually delivered :-)

            Like

        • If he is convicted of murder the mandatory penalty is life (s305 criminal code). he will be eligible for parole after 15 years (s181 of the Corrective services act). that section was changed late in 2012 to make it minimum 20 years but that will not apply in this case. When released on parole he will remain on parole for the rest of his life. If manslaughter the maximum penalty is also life but that is not mandatory. It is up to the judge with reference to case law on similar cases. My bet somewhere between 12 and 18 years, probably 15 years. he will have to serve at 80% before being eligible for parole.

          Like

        • The judge in Max Sica’s case had the option of raising the mandatory minimum term because he was convicted of 3x murder. The judge does not have the power to impose any more that life with minimum 15 if there is only a single count of murder.

          Liked by 1 person

  29. Can the public demand a refund for the costs for the search, police time and resources, court time and resources and the potential costs of keeping him in jail, resources he has commanded through his vile act? he said himself he was financially on the up and up, what contribution does the perp have to make?

    Like

    • Bookgurl — be nice if we could, wouldn’t it ? But GBC believes in the Money Tree. Not only does he believe money grows on trees — he believes he’s entitled to sit back while others pick it from the tree for him

      Liked by 2 people

  30. Quick query… Do we know which friend’s car he was driving that crashed into indooroopilly shopping centre after she went missing?? As referred to in the news report where he was interviewed… It was a blue 4wd. Maybe that was the second car that helped him with disposing of the body??? And how in earth did that crash happen anyway?? Was he on Zoloft or something??

    Like

    • Backseatdriver, couple of years ago, people online spent a lot of time trying to find out about the car, etc., same questions as yours. In the end, I think it turned out to have been innocently loaned to him. As to the crash, most people seem of the opinion it was an attempt to disguise the marks on his body, which at the time of the crash had not been photographed by police, I think. They’d photographed his facial gouges, but had let him keep his shirt on so didn’t know about the other marks. If I’m incorrect in this, someone will correct me

      Liked by 2 people

      • Those were my first thoughts of the crash at the time Burleigh. That he purposely wanted scrapes & abrasions as I think he knew he bombed at getting the 2 Docs to agree with him on facial scratches that he protested were shaving cuts.
        How are you doing today my dear? I’m coming on late and can’t stay long sadly. BB; do you know what is going on at beginning of comments about a certain commenter? Did I miss something?

        Like

        • :-) Moonraker :-)

          Nice to see you, hope you’re well

          At the beginning of today’s and at the end of yesterday’s page, a poster was disappointed in us to the point she decided to depart Aussie Crooks because we hadn’t ousted a poster she believed to be a narcissist

          Life goes on —

          Hope you’re having a lovely day :-)

          Like

          • Oaky dokey!!! That’s too bad. And thanks. I thought to myself what did I miss here….ha.
            Well we figured right BB. Not going to be a short deliberation. You have a hunky dory rest of your day ;)
            Laters x

            Like

          • Hey Burleigh B, I imagine just like the jury, and interpretation of the words of others:-), I must say I didn’t interpret Candy’s words as leaving the conversation, out of disappointment in ‘us’ but that life and commitments contributed to their absence also.
            I believe the sweet thing was pointing out the obvious, intuitively and insightfully, of which we were warned within the first 24 hours of dialogue commencing.
            Having said that, a few things that differ here with respect to safety are that we are out of arm’s/harm’s reach and relatively?anonymous.
            I think instilled manners are a reason that all and sundry have their say, good bad or indifferent, without too much criticism.
            If our buttons are pushed, it is interesting to know why, and in this instance, to follow it through to see if all will be revealed.

            Hope those jurors asked themselves good questions prior to retiring to bed last night to allow their unconscious brain to mull it over and upon waking, can see clearly the situation for what it is. What a bloody big responsibility? I liked that there was question for clarification for the in-riddle-cover-your-arse speak by the judge. Perhaps legal training does that to people in the field…so bloody easy to create new meaning for simple words, that even basic language is muddled. Like art, music, a movie – all interpreted differently.
            I would see it as a failure on the speaker’s behalf, especially with a situation as important as this, if the listener’s are confused. What is said, is not always what we hear and I guess that is why they say ‘there are 3 sides to a story’.

            I am working on being more brief with my posts.

            Top of the morning to you. Can’t begin to think of the stress levels for the Dickie’s primarily. Can’t speak about the other side as they have never expressed emotions to be able to be read.
            Aaagggghhhh, just imagine if it is the girls’ access visit this weekend:-(

            Like

    • Louie, hard to tell with him, isn’t it. He appeared confident he could pull it off. And if not for the scratches, he probably would have. Then we need to factor-in that he spoke on his own behalf in court and waffled away for many hours in the apparent belief that through touting himself as the perfect-spouse and father, etc., he could turn water into wine

      So who knows. He could be sitting there confident he’ll be found not guilty (as could happen). He could believe the judge and jury have believed every word from his mouth. He seemed to believe the media and public would believe his story and performance. And let’s face it, he has reason to believe that. Look how he fooled Allison and TM and other women and all those um — incredibly trusting mates of his who were content to hand him close to $100K each with NO security. He even thought his act to be so polished that MP Flegg would hand him $400K

      Liked by 2 people

      • I suspect he honestly believes he will be going home today. People who have told as many lies as he has and have been believed in the past tend to think everyone will believe their BS. Real estate agent, married womaniser, lying killer. His world will come crashing down when the verdict is delivered! He won’t ever understand why the jury did not buy his BS?

        Liked by 2 people

        • Ramjet, I’m not counting my chickens yet

          His world may not come crashing down. The jury’s been baffled and confused and are scared of getting it wrong. They’ll be afflicted by doubts. They didn’t volunteer for this job. It’s a crushing and scary responsibility for them — all of which could work in GBCs favour :-(

          Like

            • Daydreamer, thank you :-)

              It’s the position the jury’s been placed in that worries me. If you were to talk to the jury members totally removed from the court situation yet with them knowing what we know, I’m confident they’d say he was guilty, no doubts. But they’ve been hammered left and right by the judge, prosecution, defence and have been bamboozled with all the legal speak and varying advices about what does and does not constitute murder. All around the net, with ample time at their disposal, people who’ve followed this case intensely for two years, are admitting they are struggling to make head or tails of how they’re supposed to interpret the evidence. How must the jury be struggling, in a strange environment, all anxious to be ‘fair’ whilst abiding with the instructions they’ve received?

              The law has gone full circle, imo, and is interpretable only by those who earn their keep from it. Like a snake with its tail in its mouth. It’s almost a closed shop. So maybe the only people who should be chosen as jury members should be those within the legal industry?

              Liked by 3 people

        • You and BB hit the nail on the head with your comments. It’s his reality and his reality only that exists in his mind. And yes – when the REAL reality hits, his world will cave in. He won’t be spending the next 15 to 20 thinking about why his actions put him jail, he’ll be telling anyone who’ll listen that he’s innocent and that the Courts have got it all wrong. Ironic how he painted Allison as a nut-job, when he’s the sick one!

          Liked by 1 person

            • Ironic how he painted Allison as a nut-job, when he’s the sick one!*

            Spot on, Daydreamer. His parents must have danced a jig when Allison married him and took him off their hands. And that situation happens a LOT, all around us, with parents knowing there’s something not right about their offspring. So they unload their kid onto someone else, after which they turn black into white via blaming the unfortunate victim for all their child’s problems. It happens a LOT

            Like

            • BB. You just described my soon-to-be-ex MIL to a T! She KNOWS what he’s like, yet still continues to enable him – it’s a joke and I’m certain she’s a narcissist like her son. Anyhow, I won’t go into it here, but I’ve read about your story and dealing with narcissists and hugs to you!

              Like

              • Poor Daydreamer :-(

                Not only the mothers, either. The sisters can be the same. They seem to wave a magic wand of their own experiences with what has now become someone else’s problem

                Not sure what causes it. A lot has to do with this ‘family unity’ thing which most people are programmed to participate in since childhood. ” We stick together ” they’re warned as kids. And they watch their parents cover for the family black sheep from childhood on. That’s the example

                Shame more people don’t or won’t realize that although we don’t know what we are or where we came from, we nevertheless needed a vehicle to get to this planet or dimension, whatever it is. The vehicle is the mother. The soon-to-be person uses the mother’s body like a taxi to get here. In the process, the soon-to-be human is forced to share genes with its biological parents. And that’s all it is — we were forced to travel through life in bodies which derived from our biological parents. And clearly, personality was part of that biological legacy, which in turn originated in all the ancestors which came before

                There’s no such thing as the tabula rasa/blank slate. We do not arrive here as pieces of plasticine. We already have a dreadful inheritance in every cell of our bodies — all those ancestors who were murderers, thieves, psychopaths, etc. And for balance, we inherited from the good guys in our family trees. Luck of the toss as to which genes we inherit. Just like the balls which determine the winning lotto numbers. It’s a lucky dip. But parents tend to regard themselves as the ‘creators’ of their children rather than accept they were merely vehicles, taxis. And they believe that they can mould that child as if it were a chunk of play-do. That’s a big part of the problem. Because for ALL their attempts to produce the perfect child, the parental influence is as about as deep as a coat of paint. That kid arrived as what it is and will be. All that was determined at the moment of conception. A micro-second. Everything about that child happened when the sperm hit the egg. Which is why ‘good’ families produce total bastards. Yet the family can’t work out why. He got the best education, the best example of how to be from us, his wonderful parents. How could he have turned out this way. It must be peer pressure. Someone must have led him astray. He must have watched too many violent movies, etc.

                No. He was what he is the second he was conceived. Fact. At birth he became a parasite, basically, feeding off his parents until ready to go off on his own. And if he knows his parents are self-deluding suckers, or ego ridden to the extent they will never acknowledge there’s anything wrong with him — then he’ll continue to use his parents life long — or until they finally wake up or die

                We are not our parents. We are not our siblings. Their offences are not ours. We share only 25 % of our ancestry with our siblings. We share only 12.5% of our ancestry with our great grandparents. The B A D E N letters in GBC’s name have only 12.5% right to be used by him.

                When we realize our family members are not up to standard, we should acknowledge that, accept it, instead of covering for them. But people who’ve been programmed to believe they must defend family members at all costs will throw blame all over the place, rather than have it associated with themselves via their faulty brother, son, whatever

                Liked by 1 person

          • There is no way in the world the jury will walk into the court with Alison’s family sitting there and say “sorry GBC go get back to real estate and TM, Alison May have killed herself or someone else may have abducted her and killer her” . It is only a question of whether they have the go nads to make the hard decision and say it was a deliberate killing based on circumstantial evidence.

            Like

              • It is only a question of whether they have the go nads to make the hard decision and say it was a deliberate killing based on circumstantial evidence*

              Exactly. Will they? After all the waffle they’ve been hit with left and right

              Liked by 1 person

              • I think they will. There has been some pretty dumb conduct at least one jury member. I suspect there is one hold out on murder. The rest are trying to get that person to see reason. It is impossible to know what is going on in the jury room. Worst case is a hung jury. But a retrial favours the prosecution because they know exactly what GBC’s case is.

                Like

                • Then there’s the issue of the Juror doing the dumb thing…..and then being ‘told on’ by another Jury member/s.

                  I’d say that normal old ‘allegiances’ have been formed amongst that Jury (especially during such a Trial) and those allegiances are proving the stumbling block. Everyone will be tired and emotional….some will have given up, some will want the bickering to stop and some will want to dominate.

                  It’d be a circus which will probably wind up meeting in the middle…Manslaughter.

                  Like

          • My fiancé’s ex wife is like this… Does wrong, then lies and spends forever trying to delude herself and others that her wrong actions were right… I can’t figure it out but this just proves there’s many of them out there…

            Liked by 1 person

  31. I actually have been thinking there is probably little emotion in GBC right now as per usual. Whereas a normal person would be beside themselves in anticipation of the worst scenario. Being found guilty of murder. I keep having these twinges that the BC clan knows something we don’t trial wise. Can’t explain it but am not enjoying the feeling. Perhaps it stems from their overall lack of empathy for anyone but their own throughout these past weeks.
    I’m hoping you are all hanging in there OK. I’m thinking of you all ;)

    Like

      • Any lack of emotion would be based on over confidence in his own BS and belief that people believe his BS. He of all people would be highly concerned about his freedom for the next 15-20. He will console himself with the fact that if the jury don’t buy his BS the appeal courts will. Unless there is an error of law he has no prospects on appeal. I doubt justice Byrne made and errors of law. His nick name is Big Brain Byrne!

        Like

        • Ramjet — ‘Big Brain Byrne’ eh? I didn’t know that. Imagine what it must be like to know that’s how people refer to you :-)

          Like

        • Would have like it better if he applied his big brain to give the jurors clearer guidance in THEIR language, then one may not have felt compelled to search for such on the internet. I am not condoning it, but by golly his ‘explanation’ would have thrown me for a bit, and I don’t think I am stupid….

          Liked by 1 person

          • I understand what you are saying and it is very complex even for lawyers and judges. that is why so many successful appeals on the lies issues. But at the end of the day juries decide these things and apply common sense whilst tryi got understand the legal stuff that 30 year veterans don’t always understand. I believe in juries and think that mostly get it right. not uncommon for one moron to derail the process but it needs all 12 to agree before it can go either way. if there is one lunatic the other 11 will not give in. so worst possible case is hung jury and retrial.

            Like

      • I hear you, Millie. While I’m still confident of a Guilty of Murder verdict, I’m not holding much hope of us finding out today – despite Judge and Jury agreeing to a verdict today.

        Like

        • I find it mind boggling they will take this over the week-end Daydreamer. Iknow that’s ignorant. Will the judge ask if they’re close to a verdict and give them longer today, or will they adjourn again at 4.30?

          Like

      • Unbelievable the jury now get to go hem, be swayed one way or the other, risk being caught for talking about it with family members and hey presto we have a mistrial. This is such BS… Kangaroo court antics. I can’t believe murder trial juries aren’t sequestered! Wrong! GBC loving this right now.

        Like

        • It’s quite astounding isn’t it! They are as free as birds for the next two days, can search whatever they want, talk to anyone they want, watch the news etc.Seems a crazy expectation to make of people that they wont do any of the above things over the weekend….

          Like

      • I’ll tell you what depresses me even more LJC and that’s GBC’s bluudddyycharts. There’s no great reaction until late on Tuesday arvo – but then I’ve not got a reputation for accurate predictions…. just commenting. LOL
        Avagudweekend m’hearties.

        Liked by 2 people

          • LJC – GBC’s astrology

            What happens Tues late arvo is that the transiting Moon will be exact conjunct his Lunar nodal axis (in public) and opposite his Mars (perhaps emotional outburst??)
            This aspect happens once a month of course, however when we look at the jury – (transiting Venus) we have more to add – Venus will be square his power base/Pluto plus square to the midheaven – that gives us publicity. This aspect happens on all the afternoons next week (around 4pm), however I’m gambling on the two things happening at the same time will be the cruncher.

            But then what do I know – maybe the jurors will have broken all the chairs in the jury room before then… xox

            Like

    • FAR OUT, GO HOME AND IGNORE EVERYTHING FOR OVER 48 HOURS! Excruciating indeed. They will have to block their ears, tape their eyes shut and sit in their bedrooms, no shopping, no dining, no socialising with folks and family because EVERYONE is talking about this..

      Liked by 3 people

        • Rubbish, this is 2014 not 1914, this is how it is.It is up to an instructed jury to do their job and not look at stuff. Turn your phone off at home and read books all weekend, play with the kids in the backyard, it isn’t that hard

          You will never get a jury who has never heard of a high profile case let alone never used the media before or dare to have kept up to date on their community, state or country by watching news, listening to radio or whatever. It is what it is BSD not impossible, you want it like South Africa, Judge Only trials? not me thanks

          Anyway enjoy your weekend, we will definitely know next week!

          Like

          • I wish Robbo, but don’t rule out human nature and ignorance. I don’t think we have jurors like you or many of us on this jury… If we did I’d feel very confident of justice being done… Sadly I think some of these guys may be enjoying the fact they are the centre of attention rather than doing the right job n delivering justice. Have you ever seen the movie ‘idiocracy’? Fingers crossed but I’m concerned.

            Like

            • None of us know anything about the jury members!!! I think it is extremely unfair for anyone to make judgments about them in ANY WAY!!! Leave the jury alone! I genuinely believe they are doing there absolute best!

              Like

              • I’m inclined to agree, Sleepless… I think, given how quick they’ve been in reporting any ‘strange occurrences’ to the judge and taking their time to deliberate indicates people doing their job and taking it seriously… Right down to reporting a fellow jury member for downloading the US deliberations doc. The reason for transparency in the justice system is so that dodgy back-alley deals can’t be done and the public is aware of every ‘goings-on’. The judge can’t sway the jury one way or the other, hence why his instructions and summary had to be worded in such a way. I don’t like that people have been questioning his integrity because he has been nothing but fair and balanced the whole trial. But the bottom line is that we don’t know any of the jury personally (that we know of) and we don’t know how they think or who they are as people. We can only trust that they are in there, carefully weighing the evidence, to come to the best and truest conclusion. And thus ends the rant from my naive corner of the world :)

                Liked by 1 person

  32. This jury must be a bit light-on and weak on the decision-making front. Just make the right call and get on with it. Can’t be that hard.

    Like

  33. 6 weeks 12 hours so far, so 2 hours a week looking over each week’s evidence…

    All done ready for Monday, just ran out of time?????

    Like

      • I agree there is a split. But I think the split is murder v manslaughter. If they believed his BS it would be murder v not guilty. No chance of Not guilty. no one is that stupid. let alone 12 people selected at random all being that stupid. the verdict must be unanimous either way guilty or not guilty.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I wouldn’t like to be on the Jury. I can’t keep a secret

        (edit by robbo, just saw your full name and removed it, email me if you want it shown.or other nickname, cheers)

        Like

  34. Two reasons why I like the break for the weekend:
    1. IMO the longer the deliberations go on the more likely he will be found guilty. The jury room is a highly pressurised arena and the break will give them time to sit back, cool off and look and the big picture. Hopefully he will get what he deserves.
    2. I love the idea of him sweating it out, more time to dwell on what he has done. I also think he knows the jury will bring back “GUILTY”
    BYE BYE ‘GRED’

    Liked by 1 person

    • The danger of a long break is that they all individually arrive at their own view and become wedded to that view. Unless that are as wedded to that view as GBC was to ABC they will not change that view despite reasoning fro. the majority. A retrial would be awful but better than a compromised lesser verdict.

      Like

    • Gee I wonder if he is wondering what all the fuss is about.Maybe he imagined walking straight out the door yesterday arvo to the waiting arms of adoring fans and media?

      I hope he cancelled his trip to the World Cup Final

      Liked by 1 person

    • They say we make our best decision making first up, you know after you wake up. These guys will have been rush, rush, rush each day…. Let them have a lie-in :-))), and clarity of thought will be theirs.. Bejesus, one hopes so.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I think it is great that he and the Bwana clan are sweating it out too – wonder if there are major prayers going on up North too??

      Like

  35. Ramjet………Yes that will be the split, no one in the right mind could contemplate anything else.
    But gee in saying that it just took me back to some of the people I served on jury with and realised that there are lots of ‘different’ folk out there. At least they had the sense to break for the weekend, seems a very positive sign for me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have no doubt that the reason jury deliberations are kept so secret is because the lawyers/judges would be appalled at the way verdicts are arrived at and therefore do not want to know. Having said that I think juries get it right about 97% of the time? hope this isn’t one of the 3%. whist I would say murder and think the jury on icy of murder. A rational jury may conclude that the evidence does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he killed her without intent to do so or do Gbh, ie fight something happened and she died without him intending to kill or Gbh her. disposed of body and lied to cover the unintentional killing. But I would pot him on murder. hate to be on jury – easy for everyone to express opinions without having to make the real decision.

      Like

  36. I have a bottle of wine in the fridge all chilled in celebration of what I thought was to be a verdict today. Was going to save it until a verdict was reached, but stuff it! Ive opened it purely for medicinal purposes to help me get over the numbskull jurors who want to be a do-gooders and give him manslaughter.

    I feel everyone’s frustration at not having a decision made plus the fact they aren’t bring sequestered so late in the game.

    Bottoms up and yes – I’m a glass half-full gal both in mentality and in wine glass (at present, anyway)! Lol

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Evening All,

    With fire burning and glass of wine in hand (and sending a virtual one to Allison xxx), I’m wondering if a verdict of ‘murder’ can also be reached by way of not only ‘intent’ before the death, but also with what happens after the death i.e. as in the ‘intent’ to dispose of the body. The two kinda go hand in hand?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Justice will be just that more sweeter for them I expect. Australia (and indeed others around the world my stats show) are on their side thinking of them. The 3 girls also deserve some answers and know where their futures are going.

      If ACA or media as a whole does not do something to help to secure these girls future than they simply don’t care. I recall some strapping young lads, brothers, had over a million raised over a few days, when they lost their parents from deadly illnesses. This is just as awful and they are half the age.

      I will be pushing ACA but I’m guessing there is a line to the door already

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nice post Robbo. Hope you put your feet up as you’ve said, with what was it — bourbon? And hope you have a good night of soccer/cricket/Tour de France and Commonwealth Games :-)

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks BB I have got a new telly, has all this in picture thing and heaps of options. Where I can watch more than one channel, good for us armchair expert sport lovers…World Cup 5am Monday morning, so an early start for the fans!

          Come a long way since we had to get off our ass to change channels!

          Enjoy your weekend too!

          Like

  38. I have a feeling the judge’s somewhat vague ramblings about murder vs manslaughter may have created enough confusion to warrant longer deliberation. I’d rather wait till Monday or even Tuesday next week for a well considered and correct verdict, than pressure them to settle for an easy option.

    IMP there is sufficient evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) of Allison’s murder having been planned (A person would not think of all this if it was a momentary crime of passion IMO):
    • Pertinent that he promised Toni to sort out his financial problems and come to her a free man on 1 July. Only way to accomplish that is to get rid of his wife and find a lot of money, somehow. Sadly, we know which avenue he pursued to accomplish both in one go.
    • Telling Toni repeatedly he loves her and how much being apart pains him too and that she must ‘leave IT to him’ now (ie he has a plan to make it happen)
    • Enquiries about Allison’s insurance in weeks leading up to her murder
    • He could not even pay his phone bills, but Allison’s life insurance remained current when she died
    • Had to pay back several loans at EOFY 30 June, unable to raise any such funds, desperate for $$ income – soon
    • Claimed her insurance even before she was formally identified – BIG rush to execute last part of the plan
    • Ensures only a 15 year old will can be found for Allison, which names him the sole beneficiary.
    • Placed her in a very well selected spot – UNDER a bridge where it would be safe from being found for a week or two, so DNA and COD evidence will be lost
    • Enough forethought to hide Allison’s phone in Brookfield area, to keep the search for her there for a week or two while DNA and COD evidence deteriorates.
    • Planting a Zoloft packet on the dashboard of Allison’s car
    • If he killed her on the spur of the moment without any forethought, he would have been remorseful about it and he would not have gone to these lengths to cover up his crime and claim her insurance asap. His disinterest in her search and eagerness to move on with his life reeks of a plan in execution.
    • He showed a strong capacity to lie in a range of circumstances throughout his life (as per his own witness)
    • A strong intent to cover up his crime, which involved much more devious steps than one would think of in the spur of the moment.
    • A lack of any previous violence or loss of temper in the relationship make it more likely a physical altercation on the fateful night was a deliberate killing – murder.
    • Portrait of him and Allison already moved the next day – this man was ‘moving on’ at a rate of knots – he felt he had it all under control – all going to PLAN!

    Fingers X’d that the jurors will be able to work it all out and arrive at a verdict that will do Allison justice.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi RIP Allison, that is pretty much all there is to say, spot on, better to be all over it, each of the points, nice and thorough, a judge has an ego and doesn’t like successful appeals either I imagine! (because they all appeal it seems anyway)
      (the jury don’t have to give any reasoning how they got there though, just the verdict and job is done)

      Thanks

      Liked by 2 people

    • That is the a the clearest statement of facts that I have seen to prove murder over manslaughter. Rational, reasonable and common sense reasons why murder rather than manslaughter. it doesn’t take anything away from the obvious but I don’t thing there is anything unusual about a 15 year old will unless there is something I don’t know. why wouldn’t she leave everything to the she unfortunately loved she was committed to the marriage and hoped she could work it out. unfortunately she was blind to his dishonesty- probably because she wanted the best for the kids and couldn’t see him for what he is/ was will remain. not seeing that she thought it best that he remain a part of his kids life. How terribly unfortunate for her and the kids.

      Liked by 3 people

      • If the jury indicate that they can not agree on murder the judge MAY ask if they are agreed on manslaughter. if they are he MAY take that verdict. the verdict of manslaughter is then set in stone, subject to appeal. It is then up to DPP whether they re run the murder. They undoubtedly would unless her family said they did not want that to happen. Then a retrial on the murder charge happens.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Ramjet, the will is not such a big deal, personally I just find it a bit strange that a person and his financial advisor (Bwana) go to the pains of making sure a young healthy wife has ample life insurance (they even suggest the mistress take out such as well!), and go to the trouble of ensuring the prospective wife (I seem to remember the will was drawn up just before their marriage) has a will leaving everything to the prospective husband, and then through 15 years of wheeling and dealing, property and other business dealings plus 3 children later, no one bothers to update her will to reflect the changing assets and 3 additional heirs…..

        Liked by 1 person

        • RIP Allison —— YES ! Especially when she learned about GBC’s long running affair. At that point you would expect she’d be seeing into the future for the girls and realizing GBC did not have their best interests at heart at all. Only his own interests. And as she’d had a front-row seat as the family finances collapsed, she wouldn’t have had much faith left in GBCs business acumen. So her focus would/should have shifted from a fake happy family future to one where GBC shot through with a woman, leaving Allison to raise the children

          Allison had seen far enough ahead to know she needed to update her marketable skills, hence the seminar and training sessions. But maybe she hadn’t realised just what a dangerous situation she was in, whereby she was worth a million dollars dead and an impediment to GBC’s grand plans whilst still alive

          But I’m not clear on the last bit. I thought the insurance company paid out to the beneficiary named on the policy (in this case, apparently, GBC). Would Allison have needed to cite the insurance policy in her Will as well ? If Allison had notified NBC that she wished the insurance pay-out to go to the girls, would she have also contacted the insurance company to inform them also? IF she didn’t and if NBC neglected to inform the insurance company of the change, the pay-out would automatically go to GBC. Just hope people out there think about where their insurance pay-out would go if anything should happen to them

          Liked by 1 person

          • Hmmm….BB you have a good point here – that insurance going to the stated beneficiary, irrespective of what a deceased’s will may say.

            I just found the lack of attention to update her will, or for such an update to be deliberately kept out of view, a bit odd…

            Like

          • hmmmm, I don’t think there were any changes to Allison’s will from when she first made it…..from memory. I think it would have been the furtherest thing from her mind at that point in time……regardless of circumstances; she would never have thought he would go so far.

            Liked by 1 person

        • I didn’t mean any disrespect. But If the lies, affairs, insurance, loss of face, impending confrontation between wife And mistress, blood in car, phone put on charge at 1:48am, scratches on face that no man has ever inflicted, etc don’t get them there then nothing will.

          Liked by 2 people

        • if he’d ever sought Bank Loans etc, the Bank could have required adequate Life Insurance to cover the debt…..and then some.

          A bonus for the Bank is that they get to sell another Product with the Customer using their ready and willing ‘Advisor’.

          Liked by 1 person

              • Yep. Another thing — I’d be interested to see the ID of the beneficiary of GBC’s $2 million policy. Who would it name? Did Allison ever set eyes on it? Probably not. Probably sitting in one of the old boy’s files all through the years. Who would be game to ask to see it — not the son’s soon-to-be bride, for sure. Just not done for a ‘nice’ young lady to show any interest at all in things financial and certainly not her future husband’s insurance policy to see if she — and not one of his family members — was the actual beneficiary

                Liked by 1 person

            • Amazing all the twists and turns….advisor ‘lost’ a heap of information through a transitional period with employers.

              Apart from the scratches thanks to Allison, her blood in the car (poor darling) and the leaves, the murderer I suspect could have slipped under the radar. They must be chastising themselves for the sloppiness.

              Like

          • BR — NBC brokered Allison’s policy (and GBC’s) prior to their marriage, apparently. Very possibly the cover was increased after the birth of the first child, or maybe after the three were born. So there was opportunity there for someone to suggest perhaps the girls should be beneficiaries under a trust. I mean it’s not a bad idea to set something like that up in advance, which is the point of insurance in any case, for the possibility that both parents could be killed in car or plane accident, so on

            GBC’s cover must have been increased because I can’t see NBC suggesting he take out a total of $2 million plus back before the wedding (or — shame Allison hadn’t capitalized on that by cooking ‘bad’ mushrooms for GBC’s dinner)

            But during the trial, I remember something about GBC having virtually everything in his name. Do you remember that or something along those lines? If that’s correct, the bank wouldn’t have required for Allison to be covered as part of any loans provided. Another thing — would it be correct to think that had Allison held any equity in the business, the banks would stake first dibs on her insurance payout, considering the business was hanging on by a thread? If so, GBC would have been gambling like a crazy man by killing her for the insurance pay-out with the bank hovering over his head

            Like

            • Thanks BB.

              My recollection of his Business debts was that he DIDN’T have anything in his name…..but he was probably fibbing. Banks would ensure that they’d get their money back somehow.

              I had a Rellie that was involved in Life Insurance and you’re right, they pummel you with ‘advice’ (read Hefty Policy and their Commissions).

              A Million $ Policy isn’t that unusual.

              Like

              • Thanks, BR. Wonder if money was being slipped through to the Channel Isles. I mean, where did it go? Phil Broom in his statement, mentioned approx. 3/4 of a million at one point in sales commissions I think. When he and the female partner asked GBC for a look at the books, he begged off, claiming the businesses finances were intertwined with those of NBC and he wouldn’t let anyone look at NBC’s financial affairs. And he got away with that !

                Like

                • Yeah possibly BB.

                  On the other hand he did make some horrible business decisions namely that monstrous Office space in Toowong and a cast of thousands.

                  Any reasonable Small Business can turn over $1M+ for the year, but they can also acquire huge debts if they aren’t careful. He appeared a bit ‘flashy’ which probably impacted on his Balance Sheet. I’d imagine those premises alone were probably costing him around $300,000 per year……for a Real Estate office !

                  Like

            • Wise and polite BB, funny thing is I don’t recall having to provide or be sold life insurance by any of the banks we have dealt with over the years except for perhaps one occasion. Insurance salespeople would try to sell ice to Eskimos and can be quite unethical (don’t shoot me down, because I am speaking from my own experience and observations).
              Besides Gerard had SFA, and what bank would lend him money???

              Like

      • Yes Donna, a huge amount of thought has gone into RIP Allison’s post. Wish she could put it just like that to the jury. They’d see it straight away

        Like

        • Thanks
          But we have the luxury of being interested observers – not the stress and responsibility of being in the “hot seat”

          Like

        • Hi BB, since it is the jury’s JOB to deliberate on all the evidence before them, I can only hope that they will take the task very seriously and take as long as they need to see what seems blatantly obvious to us…. I am hoping and praying for justice for Allison next week!

          Liked by 1 person

    • Beautiful post, RIP Allison. You’ve only mentioned facts that were presented to the jury and nothing that us AC-ers (and outside influences) have covered; and I commend you for that.

      While it’s easy for us to say it can’t be that hard for the jurors to make a decision – given we’re not in a pressure-cooker environment – it’s still not that hard! (If you know what I mean). Like LJC said, the time for Manslaughter came and went 20th April, 2012.

      Liked by 1 person

    • IMO I agree the more interest in criminal trials the better. I understand that most people on this site believe GBC is guilty. I agree on the evidence. People have a huge capacity to believe what they wants to believe. I think GBC family honestly believe he did not do it. that belief colours there view of the evidence. no doubt people, including me,believe he did it, look at things from that perspective. that is why we have independent on juries.

      In australia we have an adversarial judicial process. that means the prosecution puts up its best points and defence put up their best points. a jury the decides according to law as instructed by the independent judge. that system is not perfect but before you criticise it – come up with a better one. One that if you were not guilty would ensure you were not put in jail for something you did not do..it does happen. not in this case in my opinion.

      there has been some criticism of his defence lawyer on this site. that is fair enough but he is only doing his job on what his client tells him. Mike Byrne used to be the 2nd in charge at DPP prosecuting hundreds of similar cases. GBC’s solicitor used to be a copper.

      if you or a loved one was charged with a criminal offence you would want someone to defend you against experienced lawyers presenting the case such as TF. you would want and expect the jury to listen and consider those arguments.

      being a barrister is a bit like being a jockey or coach!you look good on pharlap but bad on Fine cotton. In this case TF looked good because he had a fine beast. MB did a good job but had limited ammo.

      Like

      • Agree re the defence lawyers, Ram. I have had to engage a defence lawyer in the past to defend my son against charges of assault, and fare evasion. He and his friend were in fact assaulted by a taxi driver who smashed both of them when they went inside their unit to get money for the fare. This creep, who was 6’2″ spat on my son’s friend who is 5’5″, slammed him up against a fence and proceeded to punch him repeatedly in the face. When my son pulled him off, he too was punched repeatedly in the face. The boys called 000 for help to no avail and then the driver went to the Indooroopilly Police Station to file a complaint against THEM! Anyway – the rest of the story is for another time, but happy to say that my defence lawyer was able to work for my innocent son and the charges were dropped.

        Just saying that defence lawyers also work to defend the innocent.

        Liked by 2 people

  39. All that I will say about today, was the body language had to be seen on several jurors in relation to the juror repeatedly standing up and asking questions to Justice Byrne.

    Suffice to say I don’t think there will be any Christmas Cards sent their way.

    I still feel (without reading everyone else’s comments) that the jury is close to a verdict, rather they only have 1, maybe 2 who are dissenting with the opposite charge ie Manslaughter instead of Murder or the other way around.

    Oh and GBC & NBC wearing yellowish ties today, grrr!

    Another observation is PS seems to be doing nearly all the communication with ABC & OW and not with NBC & EBC…. outside the court. I smiled at NBC this arvo and he kinda just stared at me :D

    Even Michael Byrne, Peter Shields & the detectives I think were wondering what the F is taking them so long…. MB shrugged his arms at me (as if to say got no idea what’s going on. Have got to know MB & PS during trial, just to say hello etc. Nice people.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. Considering GBC showed a strong intent to cover up his crime, which involved much more devious steps than one would think of in the spur of the moment, why do so many of you think it will be manslaughter, and not murder (killing with intent – ie no accident)?
    I see absolutely NO evidence of an accidental killing without INTENT – it all reeks of a deliberate act:
    • He promised Toni to sort out his financial problems AND come to her a free man on 1 July – he stated his INTENT (electronic evidence)
    • Telling Toni he loves her and how much being apart pains him too and that she must ‘leave IT to him’ now (ie he INTENDS to make it happen – electronic evidence)
    • Enquiries about Allison’s insurance in weeks leading up to her murder (records exist)
    • He could not even pay his phone bills, but Allison’s life insurance remained current when she died (records exist)
    • Had to pay back several loans at EOFY 30 June (records exist)
    • Claimed her insurance even before she was formally identified (record exists)
    • Unlike a spur of the moment dump, Allison was placed her in a very well considered and selected spot – UNDER a bridge where it would be safe from being found for a week or two, so DNA and COD evidence will be lost. Without INTENT and forethought a place will not be so well chosen.
    • Enough forethought to hide Allison’s phone in Brookfield area, to keep the search for her there for a week or two while DNA and COD evidence deteriorates. He did not discard her phone at Kholo bridge or some distant place – no, he made sure it was hidden close to home. Cunning. Required more forethought than a spur of the moment act.
    • If he killed her by accident without any INTENT and forethought, he would have been remorseful about it and he would not have gone to these lengths to cover up his crime and claim her insurance asap. His lack of emotion, disinterest in her search and eagerness to move on with his life reeks of INTENT and a plan in execution.
    • A lack of any previous violence or loss of temper in the relationship also indicates a physical altercation on the fateful night was deliberate – with INTENT
    • He showed a strong capacity to deceive in a range of circumstances throughout his life (as per his own witness).

    …it seem to me he has managed to deceive a number of you guys that Allison’s killing was an accident, not what he had intended. Do you really believe that? We may as well not have long expensive trials if instead of the CORRECT verdict, people are just going to ‘settle’ for an easy option that once again lets him get away with yet another lie! Where’s the justice for Allison?

    I believe manslaughter is NOT what happened here. Don’t ‘settle’ – stand for what’s right. Allison’s killing IMO was intended and deliberate. No accident. No momentary ‘oops’. MURDER.

    Otherwise please enlighten me on what evidence there is for it being accidental and unintentional. Sorry, I can’t see it…..

    Like

Post your thoughts here, then PRESS POST COMMENT button folks, cheers

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s