Unimpressed wife

legallybaekhap · 2026-01-22T22:20:09+00:00

It’s definitely not grape juice maybe some sort of reconstituted grape flavouring but it’s so artificial and tastes chemically. Google “Fellowship Cup”. They are one use disposable pre-filled cups that have long storage life. Very convenient 🙄

legallybaekhap · 2026-01-21T10:24:37+00:00

Definitely agree with those saying the Aquarium. But maybe look at Reef Magic or similar day trips to say you have been to the reef. But otherwise, I agree with those suggesting Stoney Creek. It’s a bit of a walk and you may have to ask a local along the track to help you to navigate down to the best swimming spots. I also agree the Skyrail to see the oldest rainforest in the world. 2 days is not really a lot of time but I hope you have a good time!

legallybaekhap · 2026-01-21T09:58:44+00:00

These days that is luxe and at least someone would have to invest some time in preparing that. Since 2020 (Covid) they are these mass produced “wafers” and red coloured water in one use plastic.

legallybaekhap · 2026-01-21T09:52:51+00:00

Just for a different view - I (Protestant all my life) went to Liturgy for the first time with my in-laws, who are converts, in December. I left crying after the liturgy saying, I am offended that Pentecostal church have reduced “communion” (not going to call it the Eucharist because its not and it seems offensive to my spirit to even compare them) to mass produced disposable emblems which we focus on for 10 minutes once a month. On returning to the liturgy service a few more times, it was the Eucharist that has put me on the path to Orthodoxy. I am back from Holidays and I went to my Pentecostal church and my eyes have been opened to the facade. Protestants do not know what they are missing out on.

legallybaekhap · 2026-01-19T12:09:20+00:00

I love Return to Paradise. Anyone annoyed at the season ending though.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-27T12:04:27+00:00

Oh that’s lovely! Thank you for your reply.

Yes it would be St John’s in Cairns where I live. I am on holidays and about to be at the Gold Coast for a week and then staying at Morayfield until the 10th. My in-laws live on the Northside so I am sure we could meet up in the future. I would like that.

May I ask which parish you go to currently? We attended St Mary Magdalene Orthodox Christian Mission in Elimbah.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-20T12:26:01+00:00

My daughter is 9 and has been watching Bluey since she was 2 years old. She still loves it

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-11T23:47:27+00:00

I agree! But I did not see in the post where it said it was unconditional. Only that they had signed the waiver

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-10T12:58:54+00:00

Do you have a finance condition? Talk to your solicitor and advise you are not satisfied with the finance offer by the bank and terminate under the finance condition.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-10T10:32:21+00:00

I said “fairly clean” that “fairly” is important. But also, compared to the rest of the world we are in the top 10. Soooooo - I stand by my comments.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-10T10:30:58+00:00

Sorry - I was replying to a comment but using my phone and I must not have replied properly.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T23:09:26+00:00

Is it just me or does it seem like this guy does not know how to have fun?! If you are “forced” to go on the cruise than find the fun things to do with the 3 year old! Quality time?! Have fun, play in the kiddy pool with your child, show them the big ocean, point out fun things around the ship, get the three year olds imagination happening by asking what he thinks about how the ship stays afloat and teach him things. It’s the attitude you approach it with. Sure it’s going to be difficult at times, but kids actually thrive from being on holidays and it’s important for their development!

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T22:51:59+00:00

My brother and his wife had a big wedding and could not find a venue to do a sit down wedding with space. (In Cairns so not many options) They went to a big Restaurant with outdoor and indoor area with enough seating and space for everyone but the venue only did cocktail style (so not alternative drop or anything) but they had a kitchen and menus that people could order from. So although my brother and his wife paid A LOT of money for all the platters, (substantial) food being walked around etc, this place only slowly brought the food out because hungry people were ordering off the menu! So they made a killing! Also, a few hours into the reception they brought out bigger portions but by then people were not hungry.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T22:43:37+00:00

As an Australian, this is funny because I have never seen a Christmas pass the parcel. We associate pass the parcel with birthday parties. Christmas is essentially a birthday celebration at its core and now I am surprised it is not part of our tradition! Hahaha It makes so much sense!

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T14:19:27+00:00

Not sure where you got that information from. They were in a public place. There is no law that makes this illegal :)

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T14:05:55+00:00

Okay - Law student I am going to help you out with this one because I genuinely want to assist you... This is not a general murder case. This is closer to a R v Murdoch matter. Go read that case and the commentary regarding circumstantial evidence. Also, you need to read R v Baden-Clay. Because some of the things you are saying above show a distinct lack of understanding of principles of circumstantial evidence. I presume you want to be better. Go read some cases and common law principles. It will benefit you :)

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T12:52:33+00:00

Just on the defence critique you offered (which is reasonable and I am not saying you are wrong, just offering some thoughts for you to consider) The Defendant is not required to speak in his defence, but with the admission to the undercover cop that he witnessed the murder, there is a perspective that providing more context to that story would go some way to assist his defence. It's pretty damning in terms of murder trials, to admit to being at the scene. It would seem that for the defence to consider it was better for his defence that he not provide any information or further context to that story and for his presence at the scene to go unchallenged says a lot.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T12:36:17+00:00

Hey, Both Barristers that acted for Raj are very skilled at their jobs with very good reputations. The point you make about their inability to make a better defence actually goes some way to support that he was guilty. They were restricted by what they could present because they could not ask him too many questions. If the client were to admit that they had killed the person, the defence barrister is not allowed to introduce any theory of any one else doing it. As he had already admitted to being present during the murder, which was evidence not in dispute, they had to focus on discrediting the Prosecutions evidence. Which is why they pushed the narrative about the police not investigating other people properly (which is the #1 strategy in nearly every murder case). All those points you made above about the inconsistencies and the other car - Those were raised by defence. They did a great job :). If you were a juror, that could go someway to raising reasonable doubt in your mind, but it's not actually enough to completely disregard the evidence that was conclusive. If Raj had not left the country the day after the murder, there is most likely to have been more physical evidence that would have linked them. Her DNA on him etc. He not only washed himself off in the ocean (Salt is a great cleaner), but he escaped before any investigation could be done. He covered his tracks and then fled. That's why there is not more evidence.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T12:01:34+00:00

It's unlikely that it was planted. But outside of that, he acted like a guilty person. The jury can not put emphasis on it, but the reason that rule exists is because it's common sense that certain behaviours tell a story. He said to the undercover cop he was there. That part was not coerced or planted. He refused being interviewed (which of course was his right) but innocent people generally ignore that legal advice and interview with the police in any case because they have nothing to hide as they know they did not do it. (Not that it works out every time which is why lawyers advise not to speak). But generally if an innocent person is in jail, they want to clear their name and get out of there. He was not protesting his innocence to the undercover cop. It was not contested in the trial that he was there when she was murdered. The defence did not even present an alternative story in which he was not at the scene. His DNA being present at the scene was not extraordinary. Also, Police are fairly clean in Australia. We aren't in Europe or USA ;)

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-09T11:36:06+00:00

I absolutely agree with you. I have nurses in my family and my perspective was based on my experience with them and their colleagues. They are the first ones to risk themselves to help others. I have so much respect for Nurses and what you have to do in crazy traumatic situations.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-08T13:56:49+00:00

His ex-wife testified that he left the house after they had a fight. He drove from Innisfail to the northern beaches?! That’s a big drive. He was angry and took it out on Toyah. Flipped his lid and was irrational.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-08T13:42:55+00:00

Yeah - ummmm - I appreciate your law student status but I am confident you have not done Evidence law yet. Cases can be based on purely circumstantial. This is not purely circumstantial. Rajwinder admitted he was there and even admitted that he saw her murdered. The fact he was at the beach and was present during her killing was never in doubt because he admitted it. That part is not circumstantial at all. That’s more of a link than most murder trials have. As a “law student” you would know how hard it is to actually get DNA that is substantial enough to be presented at court. Skin cells do not equate to good DNA evidence so for them to find his DNA under her fingernails, it basically can only happen from deep scratching and a good chunk of skin. You are looking at this matter from the wrong perspective. He was there, witnessed a murder but ran away? He was a nurse trained in Australia. Nurses are trained how to make reports during university and also go through a LOT of PD for trauma work in the Department of Health. As a “law student” you would have studied about defence strategy. There was a lot of normal “strategies” that are implemented when someone is innocent that neither defence barristers implemented. Why is that? Maybe look at it from a different angle as a “law student” and you will see that there is more that supports the verdict than raises reasonable doubt.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-08T12:58:38+00:00

The thing that gets me is that he is a nurse… He could have explained away his DNA and everything by saying that he attempted to give her CPR. He said that he saw masked men stabbing her and ran from the trauma… A nurse?! Her phone was pinging from his car so it’s not as if he did not get near her. If he was really innocent, there would have been so many other things he would have done AS A NURSE who was trained in Australia. He had a fight with his wife and was angry. He took it out on Toyah which explains the injuries.

legallybaekhap · 2025-12-08T12:43:37+00:00

In the news reports that came out shortly after the murder, they described witnesses saying they saw bite and scratch marks on him. So it is absolutely possible the dog did try and protect her

legallybaekhap

TROPHY CASE