Monday, June 25, 2012

Appalling: At least two years in jail on a police theory

There is NO evidence that Gerard Baden-Clay murdered his wife but police say he had a motive to do so. And for that he is going to stay in jail for two years or more until the court system gets around to putting him on trial.

So he had mistresses? So do most men at some time in their lives. Even TV evangelists do. Yet 99.9% of men who have affairs do NOT murder their wives. So his affairs prove nothing.

And he was in debt but said he was going to be with one of his girlfriends shortly. That could simply mean he was either going to clear out or declare bankruptcy. Lots of men get into debt without murdering their wives.

The essence of the case is simply non-existent. It is just a weak theory, not proof of anything. The various "incriminating" internet searches he did also prove nothing. A man in his position had every reason to check a lot of things out. There is no way the case against him can reach the criminal criterion of "beyond reasonable doubt"

HE allegedly called himself Bruce Overland and promised he would come to her a free man by July 1.

But Toni McHugh knew him as Gerard Baden-Clay - her long-time colleague and lover who wanted to free himself from his wife and his life so they could be together.

What she did not know, until police told her, was that Baden-Clay was also allegedly having affairs with two other women, police have claimed in documents tendered in opposition to his bail application yesterday.

According to those same court documents, Baden-Clay had severe financial problems and the string of mistresses.

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.

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.



  1. The matter so far is to disclose enough evidence and legal argument to show the prosecution has sufficient grounds to go to the court with the plaint the man is guilty of murder. In this case, much of the evidence is built on circumstances of the night of 19th April 2012.

    What the prosecution has done is give sufficient evidence to a hearing. Surely they have every right to have Baden-Clay apprehended and put behind bars awaiting trial. That this may take years is not the fault of the police or the prosecution. It is simply an allocation of available resources.

    As for Gerard Baden-Clay, he will get his day in court and I hope he may have sufficient valid and true answers to prove his innocence. If he doesn't then the two or so years will be a foretaste of more to come.

  2. What you write, JR, is based, like all of us on the outside, on what you have read. Well meaning as it may be, your argument is pure conjecture.

    The prosecution has to have enough grounds and evidence to have a case that satifies the Court's requirement that there are sufficient grounds to prosecute Baden-Clay.

    It is not the fault of the prosecution or the police that the man may have to wait two years. At the end of the day, that is a matter of finance and resource.

    Mr Baden-Clay will get his day in Court. I hope he has the answers, based on truth not lies, to prove his innocence. If not, then the years in waiting to go to trial will be but a foretaste of what lies in store.

  3. Robert White says: "I hope he has the prove his innocence."

    How very telling that you phrased it this way. The police/prosecution have to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt (something they are clearly very, very far from doing - there is room for doubt all over the place in their case). His innocence is assumed.

  4. Robert White: 'to prove his innocence'

    So we now live in a country where you have to prove your innocence, and not the prosecution having to prove your guilt? If this is the case, Australia is a screwed nation. No-one should have to be on remand for two years. At the end of it, and if found not guilty by the courts, he should have every right to seek compensation from the legal system.

  5. This is Queensland, a police state.
    If you choose not to give evidence against some one close to you because you are scared for your life and the safety of your family CIB detectives can blackmail you too cooperate.

    You can be charged and held in remand (jail) until your first magistrates hearing, where it is decided if the police even have a case to proceed with.

    How do I know? Because it happened to me, the case was dropped and charge dismissed at the first hearing when I had my defence get the victim on the stand and asked if they had ever seen me before? NO
    Got the charging detective on the stand, do you have any evidence against my client? NO ….case dismissed.
    Is the charging detective still in Qld police? You bet he is… he is way up the ladder.

    20 years later, am I still harassed with this false charge? Yes
    ( I have been told I cant remove it from the system)

    Every bloody time I want to apply for a government job or complete a weapons licence application or start another security business they ask?
    “have you ever been charged with an offence in Qld? Yes
    Than they ask please explain the reason for this charge?
    Dear detective senior sergeant you tell me…. On what grounds was I charged?

    I’m not the first and obviously not the last to be bullied by some bad cops.
    The arrogance of some cops is unbelievable, some of these cops really believe they are bullet proof and untouchable.

    Don’t get me wrong, most cops are truly honest caring people and are worthy of the badge, I have owned security business and worked with a lot of good cops and I truly have respect for the majority.

  6. The Gerard Baden Clay case seems to me to have many of the hallmarks of a case I was involved in in NZ in 1998. Corruption in the police investigation and the corrupt actions of prosecutors along with a trial by media in the days before the hearing which resulted in a biased jury.
    The result was an innocent man put away for 17 years for supposedly murdering two young people. It has been the most expensive stuff-up in NZ criminal history. The case cost millions.
    I have listened closely to the Baden Clay trial evidence but I have yet to see any evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he was involved in his wife's death.
    To me the prosecution evidence is very weak.
    Certainly there is evidence that suggests he MAY have had a motive to kill her - but there is no evidence that I can see that proves that he did it. NOTHING!
    Maybe he is guilty or maybe not but until I see independent corroborating evidence to prove his guilt I am not pronouncing him guilty as so many have already done.
    However I fear Baden Clay will be found guilty and thus a miscarriage of justice.
    Under Australian law one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. If there is reasonable doubt a person cannot be convicted.
    Sadly there are a lot of cases where someone is given a guilty sentence where there is clearly reasonable doubt and I fear this will be another one...


Spammers: Don't bother. Irrelevant comments won't be published