by David Murray
… Well three weeks on and I’m still trying to work out what I have done to deserve it. After all I am just a girl who grew up on the outskirts of Ipswich. The daughter of two very hardworking parents who did everything in order for me to fulfill my potential. I was a gifted dancer and I worked hard to pursue my dancing. In fact I was a good girl that worked hard to please every-one around me. I was smart and found school very easy as I had only limited time to study as I was always studying after school. In year 10 I was still top of my class and mixing it with the best of the students who achieved TE scores of 990 and went onto being doctors. But for me when adolescence hit so did the fat hit my hips and my ballet went out the window in a very slow and painful fashion. In fact I don’t know if I am still holding onto that or whether dance is actually my passion that I wish to pursue.
I have blamed my depression and subsequent treatment of Gerard as the catalyst for him going elsewhere but I also wish that when I was sick that he had acted sooner. I often think what if I had cancer, would he have stuck by me or opted for the easy way out? If I had cancer he would have taken me to the right doctors etc. but because he didn’t believe that depression was an illness he just ignored it and for too long. I need(ed) him to take me by the hand and get help. I didn’t know where I was or what was happening to me and he keeps saying you don’t know what it was like watching you and living with you. Well no I didn’t and it was his job to help me and get me help!! I was sick!! …
… I read in a book the other day – as now I am studying coping skills to ‘surviving an affair’, something I thought I would never have to do. I knew that life wasn’t going to be clear sailing but I sure as hell didn’t expect this curve ball!! Anyway the book talked about commitment – that without commitment a relationship is doomed. It said that as soon as you are exposed to that choice their commitment to their relationship changes. Gerard was surrounded in his office by people that had chosen the easy way out to not fulfill their commitment so this became an option for G. Of course he also had her in his ear constantly encouraging him to forget his commitment.
… Some days I look at him and think what a stupid little naive boy who just wanted to try it with someone else and when the big real world got too hard and he took the easy way out.
And then I think of her … the dirty bitch that she is – she knew me and she was sleeping with some-one else’s husband even while she was still with her partner – I can’t believe they both started f***ing when they were both still in relationships. It just makes me sick the scenes of them crying on each other’s shoulder about their f***d up partners and it enrages me that he would talk to her about the intimate details of MY LIFE with some stupid bimbo even before they fucked …
Unfairness of it all … I get a husband back who is physically and emotionally exhausted, the business is on the brink of bankruptcy and who is left now to support him and save the business – ME – the hopeless pathetic, fat, smelly wife that after 11 years he had enough of …
25/11/11 … Well I am trying to keep it together on a day to day basis – only to vent and question on a Sunday night. The reason I am doing this is because I don’t want to make his life too miserable and risk him looking somewhere else for fun AGAIN. This is the complete unfairness of this whole affair thing – the person who has been cheated on is the one that has to tread carefully in the fear that it will happen again …
What hurts most. 1. The length of 3 years and the 100s of choices you made and why you didn’t have the courage to end it?? 2. The depth of deceit. This is what I most shake my head about – when you see me having a flash back moment it is nearly almost because I am shaking my head in complete disbelief as to how you could have thought up so many excuses and told so many lied. You could say you are so much cleverer than me I know know??? 3. The complete destruction of trust I thought we had. I believed I could trust you with EVERYTHING and ANYTHING and as I write this the tears start flowing which is an indication to me that this is definitely a key point for me. It really hurts me to think that I looked you straight in the eyes and asked you if you were having an affair and you lied to me! You didn’t even blink an eye. 4. You weren’t and never will be the man I thought you were when I married you.
Legacy
Jodie Dann froze in her seat. Dann was among around 200 domestic violence workers gathered at Brisbane’s four-star Royal on the Park Hotel, overlooking the City Botanic Gardens. US expert Dr David Adams was leading an intensive two-day workshop. It was October 2012 and Adams was discussing the types of men who kill their partners. Adams put perpetrators into five categories, though they often overlapped: jealous; substance abusers; depressed/suicidal; career criminals; and materially motivated. He had a slideshow of high-profile perpetrators as examples. One was particularly close to home.
Up on the big screen flashed a photograph of Gerard Baden-Clay. He had only recently been charged with his wife’s murder but was apparently already a poster child for intimate partner homicide. Organisers quickly explained Gerard was yet to stand trial, but the roomful of domestic violence advocates already had him pegged as materially motivated. Perpetrators in that category were obsessed with money and possessions and prone to keeping secrets.
In his research, Adams had worked through the common traits of domestic abusers. Most abusers were never identified because they were different at home and in public. Domestic violence was more about control than anger. Abusive men were skilled at manipulation and image control. Discrediting, blaming and undermining the victim were part of the manipulation. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Adams says, is a common diagnosis.
Narcissism is a complex disorder. The popular belief is that it is about being in love with yourself, like the young Narcissus after which it is named, who fell in love with his own image. The truth is, it is a more complicated mix of love and loathing. It is characterised by an outrageously overinflated ego but also an extraordinarily fragile one.
Many of the traits seemed to fit Gerard to a T. Narcissists display an unrealistic sense of superiority and importance, a deep need for admiration, a sense of entitlement, a need for control and a lack of empathy. They tended to be snobbish and patronising, made unrealistic demands on partners and children and were given to lies. They have no qualms about taking advantage of others for their own benefit and are drawn to risky behaviour in both business and private. They are prone to extramarital affairs and risky sex. They are often swamped in debt.
In love, narcissists thrive on competition for the affection of potential partners, and lose interest once they have ‘won’. In her journal, Allison had written, ‘I wish my husband loved me like he did before we were married.’ It was unusual. Many women, and men, in unhappy marriages speak of wanting to return to ‘when we were first married’. But Allison wanted to rewind further. She knew something had changed the day Gerard put a ring on her finger and she became his.
The narcissist will treat their children as extensions of themselves – to be moulded rather than allowed to develop. They have a habit of knocking others down, to build themselves up. Everything in their life revolves around feeding their egos to maintain their view of themselves as the star performer – the savvy businessman, the attentive husband, the doting father. They cannot bear criticism, real or implied, and can escalate from calm to fury when challenged. A term had even been coined for the explosive reaction triggered when their carefully crafted self-image is challenged: narcissistic rage.
While Gerard and Allison’s relationship was certainly emotionally abusive, whether it was physically so is unknown. Allison never wrote in her journal of any physical violence, and didn’t raise it in her letter to her husband after discovering his affair, or make any complaints to friends, family or authorities. She was, however, intensely private.
But if nothing else, Allison’s murder showed others that emotionally abusive relationships could escalate to fatal violence without warning.
Dann thought if her story could help other
s recognise danger signs in their relationships, Allison would have left a lasting gift. Dann started writing her own letter, pouring onto the screen the things she would say to Allison in hindsight. The letter formed the basis of a Facebook page, Dear Allison, for people dealing with domestic abuse to share stories and seek support.
After the case, the detectives went back to the routine of day-to-day police work. For one of the arresting officers, his next job after Gerard’s conviction was charging someone with failing to properly dispose of a needle. Life, and the world, moves on. But this would be the case they would carry with them for life.
Meanwhile, Toni McHugh aired her story on 60 Minutes and in the Australian Women’s Weekly, dubbing herself ‘Australia’s Monica Lewinsky’. Gerard’s legal team appealed his conviction within days of the verdict. His family has made no public comment since the verdict was handed down. In private, Olivia Walton is proclaiming her brother’s innocence.
Allison’s family can never replace what they have lost, but their priority now is raising her three young daughters in a way that would make her proud.
At time of writing, Allison’s eldest was excelling at ballet, like her mother. Her middle daughter had a leadership role at school and the youngest was thriving at primary school. Allison lived for her girls and she lives on in them.
PART V – APPEAL
And that’s where this book originally finished – but it turned out to be far from the end of the story.
The Murder of Allison Baden-Clay was first published just four and a half months after Gerard was convicted. He had an appeal pending, but few expected it to go anywhere.
We should have known to expect the unexpected where Gerard is concerned, because this most extraordinary of cases had one last, dramatic twist.
The law is an ass
Gerard was never going to accept a guilty verdict. Even so, his appeal was a quick move; his legal team filed just two days after his conviction. The last time Gerard had shown such haste was in claiming Allison’s life insurance.
It would be more than a year before the Queensland Court of Appeal got around to a hearing, on 7 August 2015. About 200 people gathered at the Queen Elizabeth II Courts of Law to hear Gerard’s team plead their case. Once again, Gerard had an able defence: barristers Michael Copley and Michael Byrne and solicitor Peter Shields. Although a decision was not expected that day, there was a feeling the long legal process was finally drawing to a close.
Three of Gerard’s four grounds for appeal were based on claims Justice Byrne had erred in his summing up to the jury. None of these arguments seemed to find any traction. As Copley spoke, the three appellate judges, Catherine Holmes, Robert Gotterson and Hugh Fraser, showed little interest.
It wasn’t going well, but Gerard’s legal team had one final argument to make. The aim here was simply to get Gerard’s murder conviction reduced to manslaughter, which carries a significantly lighter sentence.
The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. For a murder conviction to stick, the jury had to be satisfied Gerard intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Allison. So, Copley ran a confounding argument – what if it was all a terrible accident? He outlined a scenario the defence had never raised at trial: What if Allison had lashed out at Gerard, inflicting the telltale scratches, and he unintentionally killed her while trying to fend her off? As for tossing her body under a bridge before rushing home to lie to his daughters, family, friends and police – well, Gerard simply panicked, Copley argued. Of course, Gerard was not actually admitting anything. This was just a hypothetical scenario the jury could not ‘reasonably’ have ruled out, Copley said.
Except for the fact Gerard himself had ruled this scenario out. He had testified under oath he had no knowledge of how his wife died, unintentional or otherwise. His legal team had told the jury Gerard was either innocent or he had murdered Allison. They were arguing one thing at trial and another on appeal. It would have been laughable, were it not that the three judges were suddenly listening closely. Afterwards, a detective I spoke to had picked up on the body language of the judges too, and was concerned.
But it was just a niggle, and soon forgotten. Senior lawyers told me the appeal had a snowflake’s chance in hell. Justice Byrne had made no glaring errors. The jury was apprised of the difference between murder and manslaughter. Crucially, Gerard had spent four days in the witness box and never once opened the door to an unintentional death scenario.
Four months later, on Tuesday 8 December 2015, again about 200 observers gathered for the Court of Appeal’s decision. It had been three and a half years since Gerard was arrested and everyone was looking forward to reaching the end of the legal road. Formal custody of Allison’s daughters was in limbo until Gerard’s appeal was finalised. Her family was hopeful they could start making plans with some certainty.
For police involved in the case, the daily roster of tragedy rolled on. As people took their seats in court, detectives from Indooroopilly CIB and the Homicide squad were at that moment tied up with a particularly distressing investigation. A woman had brutally murdered her 11-year-old daughter before taking her own life, and an officer who had been meant to pick up Geoff and Priscilla Dickie and take them to court was on the scene. Other arrangements had to be made; none of the other detectives would make it down either. Gerard’s parents were also notably absent.
As is the habit of most journalists in the modern age, I’d prepared a brief story in advance, saying the appeal had been dismissed. That way I could just press send when the decision was handed down and the news could be posted online as soon as possible. Usually I would have prepared two alternative versions, but the chances of Gerard’s appeal succeeding seemed so remote I hadn’t bothered.
Everyone stood briefly as Justice Fraser entered the courtroom. Without delay he read the decision: ‘The appeal against conviction is allowed. The verdict of guilty of murder is set aside and a verdict of manslaughter is substituted.’
It was as if a thunderbolt had struck the room. There was a confused murmur as people processed the unexpected news. No one seemed to know how to react. Once we had all turned to our neighbours to check we’d heard correctly, there was a rush to a stack of photocopies just outside the door which contained the reasons for the decision.
It had been unanimous. The three Court of Appeal judges had found no fault in the trial judge’s handling of the case, but they’d found the jury couldn’t be satisfied Gerard intended to kill Allison. There remained ‘a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder’. Gerard could have inflicted a blow on Allison without meaning to seriously hurt her, leading her to fall and hit her head on a hard surface. The defence and prosecution teams were told to prepare submissions on a new sentence for manslaughter. After everything he’d done, Gerard Baden-Clay was no longer a murderer in the eyes of the law.
Without their usual phalanx of detectives to provide support, Allison’s stunned family and friends were ushered into a side room for a debriefing from prosecutors. None of them had prepared for this. While journalists and legal commentators pored over the court’s reasoning, Priscilla and Geoff Dickie had more pressing concerns. What on earth were they going to tell the three girls? How could they explain it when they didn’t understand it themselves? Everyone in the room wanted to know what the downgraded conviction meant. How long would Gerard spend in jail? Could they appeal the appeal? The prosecution team seemed as blindsided as everyone else and couldn’t offer much. An appeal to the High Court was theoretically possible, but they would have to examine the decision. When the Dickies emerged, they had the ashen look of survivors walking from a bomb blast.
The maximum penalty for manslaughter in Queensland is life, but sentences often don’t get even close. Within hours, I received a tip-off that Gerard was gearing up to fight for immediate release. There was a chance he would walk out of prison within months, despite his crime and the horrendous ordeal he’d put everyone through.
&nb
sp; I conveyed my exasperation in a flurry of tweets over the next couple of hours:
Gerard Baden-Clay spent four days in the witness box denying any involvement in his wife’s murder. Court of Appeal overturns jury’s verdict.
Gerard Baden-Clay has his cake and eats it too. Denied involvement in wife’s death but appeal says it’s possible there was an argument.
Phenomenal decision by Catherine Holmes, Hugh Fraser and Robert Gotterson to overturn jury verdict after 3yrs of denials by Gerard.
No evidence whatsoever before court of unintended death during entire five week trial.
(Twitter: @TheMurrayD)
But legal experts were as unanimous as the judges – the decision was sound, even predictable.
Dr Nigel Stobbs, senior law lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology, was asked by media to comment that day. ‘It was the outcome I would have expected,’ Dr Stobbs said, ‘because it seemed a trial in which there wasn’t much evidence in relation to intention. If you don’t even know the cause of death, it’s very difficult to say what was in the mind of the accused. In some sense, it was a predictable outcome.’ Barrister Ross Vernon Bowler was also asked to comment on the day and said it would be ‘very difficult’ for the Crown to get anywhere with an appeal. ‘I can’t see any obvious points of law,’ he said. ‘And, goodness me, you’re not talking about part-time judges or people with no experience. They are experienced and respected.’
Back in the Courier-Mail newsroom, editor Chris Dore was at the crime desk to discuss the decision. I’d covered every day of proceedings with Kate Kyriacou, the paper’s chief crime reporter. Logically and legally, it beggared belief. We went through some immediate concerns we had with the judgment.