red its all about INTENTION...what was he thinking when she died... did he intend killing her as he went home that night/..

the fact that he DID KILL HER doesnt matter in this instant..

the appeal was based on whether HE INTENDED to kill her.......

and the court says NO HE DIDNT>.. or at least it wasnt proved BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT....he INTENDED to kill her..

my argument is... HOW DO THEY PROVE SOMEONES INTENTIONS??..

I mean even if her neck was broken.. it doesnt PROVE HE INTENDED DOING IT does it?..

Cods, I am so pleased you read it and followed up with some further research..............

I didn't follow the Gittany trial and can't access the judgement until the problem with the internet tower that services my area is fixed. But I'll certainly read it as soon as I can.

Alinta wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 2:39pm:




did you think the same....you probably know more about it than I.. I must admit I hadnt heard of it..

I preferred the summing up by the judge in the Gittany case....but then I was reading the whole story so was up with her comments....

if you can get the book....its not an easy story to follow because a lot is based on phone calls and texts which never seem to tell the whole story....

if you compare it to the Baden Clay murder... it does bare similarities...for instance he didnt have a reputation for DV...however he was a control freak..and very  possessive....Gerard was very proud and image was very important..

.he was/is I think very weak.. and it was the wife who kept him afloat..and he knew it and resented it...

both men killed.........in Gittanys case the judge used the word RAGE....how do we know Gerard didnt have any RAGE........ after all everything was going pearshaped it wasnt just one little thing it was everything..

Aussie your ignorance of the bleeding obvious is like the three wise monkeys...simply breathtaking.

How could the million dollar payday that Baden-Clay was after, not be the over riding motivational factor in his Murder of Allison Baden-Clay.

Your determined ignorance in this direction parallels the three wise monkeys to the endth degree.

Someone once told me hospitals bury their mistakes..but not so the Legal Profession it buries them in smoke and mirrors and words.

No more so than in this case.

red baron wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 3:59pm:


Where'd you get that from?

red baron wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:


Personal opinion + lack of respect for our legal system + complete inability to see things objectively = Red Baron.

Year nine maths, innit?

I retract my mention of the Appeal Summary as my source of information re Allison Baden-Powell's insurance policy.

However I did not lie.

This Policy is in existence. It was mentioned in the Police Affidavits in the Court papers. I am unable to access those papers.

But I can supply reported evidence from the trial as recorded by Queensland's Courier Mail:

Peter Davis, SC, for Baden-Clay, described the Crown case as "weak", saying there had been no cause of death ascertained from the post-mortem examination, no evidence as to where she was killed, what date or time she was killed and no evidence to show he had left his home on the night she disappeared.

[b]Justice David Boddice rejected that, saying the circumstantial case had factors that "if accepted by a jury" would make a strong argument.

He denied Baden-Clay's application for bail, saying the Brookfield father of three remained a flight risk.

The affidavits filed in the Supreme Court reveal much about the Crown's case for murder against the Brookfield real estate agent.

According to the police bail documents, on April 12, when Allison Baden-Clay had barely a week left to live, her husband picked up the phone in his office and dialled the company that held one of her two life insurance policies.

He asked for information on the policy but was told it could not be provided because it was not in his name, police alleged.

It had been more than a week since he had emailed his lover from a fake email account, reaffirming his love and reiterating a promise.

"I have given you a commitment and I intend to stick to it. I will be separated by 1 July," he wrote to Ms McHugh under his pseudonym, the police documents claim.

His commitment, the police have alleged, involved sorting out his extremely dire financial situation so he could leave his family and be with her.

He could not afford a divorce, he allegedly told her, but he would work things out so they could be together, the police court papers say.

The documents say that on April 18, two days before he would place a Triple 0 call to report his wife missing, Baden-Clay picked up his iPhone, logged onto the internet and searched the term "taking the Fifth".

[/b]The search yielded a raft of results, but Baden-Clay allegedly clicked on the "self-incrimination" Wikipedia link.

When Allison disappeared, the police argued, Baden-Clay was $1 million in debt.

Of that, $275,000 was owed to friends in "gentlemen's agreements", $200,000 to a former business partner, $335,000 as guarantor on a mortgage, $45,000 on a credit card, $75,000 to the CEO of Century 21, various business loans and police allege $58,000 to his parents, Nigel and Elaine.

"Enquiries to date have failed to identify any legitimate means of salvaging his debt or finances prior to July 2012 in order to meet his commitment to McHugh," the police affidavit said.






Bail denied
Lawyers and supporters of Gerard Baden-Clay leave Brisbane's Supreme Court after hearing that he had been denied bail on a charge of murder. Picture: Nathan Richter. 
   

But Baden-Clay had found a quick means of earning $967,000, the Crown has alleged, in his wife's life insurance policies and superannuation fund.

In the police documents, officers said he told them he had gone to bed at 10pm and left her watching television.

He is such a heavy sleeper, he told them, that he had no idea whether she came to bed.

But the next morning, on April 20, he became concerned when he awoke about 6am and found her missing.

red baron wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:45pm:




* Alison had, apparently, phoned the Insurance company to downgrade HER cover from $1million to something much less (can't recall the figure) due to the fact that they were having problems covering "the bills".

* Alison had just been to the Hairdresser because she was going to some "conference" the next day and so was McHugh (the girlfriend).

* Gerbil (the rat) went to bed at 10?  However, he was awake at 1.30 something to put his mobile phone on "charge", then took it off at 6.00 something.  I seem to recall that he rang his father at some stage, which sounds odd. Perhaps the father helped "move the body?".

*The Autopsy didn't find any "fractures" or "brain damage" so that eliminates the "fell on the concrete and died" theory. I say that he suffocated her ... with her own top!

*I am sure that he had "help" to cover this up and the first person I would look at is his Dad.

So.  He didn't INTEND to murder Alison but he achieved it ... whether it was "outside" so as not to wake the kids or not is irrelevant.  HE KILLED HIS WIFE.

* Then he put the poor dead Alison in HER car and drove a short distance and THREW HIS DEAD WIFE over the Bridge.

* Next day, feigning as INNOCENT as can be, he LIED to all and sundry.

* He KNEW where her body was (he even checked Google to check what "incriminating yourself" meant") before he called the Cops.

* Then he lied and lied and lied and cried "It's NOT MY Fault" ... poor, poor, Gerbil (the rat).

* He never once said he was worried about Alison. He just lied and lied and lied.

* The JURY found him GUILTY. As they should have.

IF he wants it called MANSLAUGHTER, rather than MURDER ... I hope that he still gets the same incarceration ... LIFE .... but this is Queensland, where the "living is easy" and people can kill people and get away with it.