Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #40

[Fuskier]

Regarding the reloading "5th amendment" page ... this reminds me a lot of the Casey Anthony cluster**** when it comes to the internet search history. Not that I buy the TV watching story one iota, but I think it is a misrepresentation to suggest he googled it moments before dialling police if in fact it was a subsequent visit after being looked at at an earlier time and he immediately used the browser for something else or there's evidence he immediately loaded another app.

What I want to know is this a deliberate leveraging of the facts for the prosecution, or something they do not truly understand when looking at the forensic data? If the former, I think it damages their credibility and that concerns me greatly. If it is the latter - well I would have assumed they understood the forensic data well but after what's come out in the Casey Anthony trial, I am not so confident.

I have assumed that Forensic experts examined the computer data. I doubt the Prosecution would risk their credibility. IMO they would have checked their facts and possible interpretations on this matter.

 

[frustrated detective]

Can't believe that he would meet the mistress (TM) in Allison's own home twice while she and the children were away - clearly neither of them had any respect for Allison at all. Actions speak louder ... Than words.

 

[DrWatson]

His explanation was Mr Baden-Clay did not Google "self incrimination" that morning but the webpage "simply re-loaded".

A good point, actually. That's precisely what happens, due to the cookies being stored on the device. I have the Google standalone app on my iPhone, and it does exactly that - when you fire up the app, it comes up with the previous search until you type in a new search term and hit "Search". So if that page was only accessed for a few seconds, then he would have typed in a new search term, or immediately exited the app.

Wonder why he did that anyway? The forensic team should be able to tell from the app's cookies whether he overwrote the previous search term with a new one (eg the local police phone number, before deciding to use the 000 emergency number?)

But it IS a good point they make. And along with the Facetime call having apparently been disproved, it's a bit of a concern that the credibility of the forensic examiners who analysed the phone is starting to look a bit dodgy...

 

[ozazure]

I have assumed that Forensic experts examined the computer data. I doubt the Prosecution would risk their credibility. IMO they would have checked their facts and possible interpretations on this matter.

Yes well you would assume the prosecution and forensic experts in a case the scale of Casey Anthony's would a) check that the data didn't return results a row unaligned so that multiple visits to myspace would show as the best part of 100 chloroform website visits or b) the forensic analyst would look deeply at the results of the day in question, not just search on given terms, hence missing a search on :full proof suffocation" instead focusing on chloroform.

If the data does show two consecutive visits across days with nothing in between and only 3 seconds of possible viewing that second time ... they either deliberately misrepresented that page loading or they misunderstood. Neither is good.

 

[Fuskier]

Yes well you would assume the prosecution and forensic experts in a case the scale of Casey Anthony's would a) check that the data didn't return results a row unaligned so that multiple visits to myspace would show as the best part of 100 chloroform website visits or b) the forensic analyst would look deeply at the results of the day in question, not just search on given terms, hence missing a search on :full proof suffocation" instead focusing on chloroform.

If the data does show two consecutive visits across days with nothing in between and only 3 seconds of possible viewing that second time ... they either deliberately misrepresented that page loading or they misunderstood. Neither is good.

You are talking about Forensic experts in a different case. This does not automatically apply in this case. However, you do raise a valid point.
I hope members of the Prosecution are reading this page and will ensure that their facts and interpretations are accurate before the Committal Hearing. Credibility is important to a fair Trial IMO.

 

[Maigret]

But it IS a good point they make. And along with the Facetime call having apparently been disproved, it's a bit of a concern that the credibility of the forensic examiners who analysed the phone is starting to look a bit dodgy...

I think that the whole FaceTime thing is that you can't say for sure who made the call and who took the call not that the call itself is in doubt ( that's the impression I got)

 

[Thebuttlerdidntdoit]

But it IS a good point they make. And along with the Facetime call having apparently been disproved, it's a bit of a concern that the credibility of the forensic examiners who analysed the phone is starting to look a bit dodgy...

I agree the page would have reloaded, it does it on my phone.
But I must have missed something. When/how was the FaceTime call apparently disproved? That's crushing. Or is it that prosecution didn't want to open that particular can of worms for the bail hearing?

 

[Fuskier]

Can't believe that he would meet the mistress (TM) in Allison's own home twice while she and the children were away - clearly neither of them had any respect for Allison at all. Actions speak louder ... Than words.

It shows disregard for the family to bring his long-term mistress into the 'marital home' for sex. On the other hand, it is contemptuous of TMcH to agree to enter some one else's marital home for sex. IMO there has been disregard of Allison and the marriage from both GBC and TMcH. I say disregard to mean a gradient worse than disrespect - contempt and indifference. My opinion only.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

So he was watching it with his mother? That's prime time right so is it true he was staying at his parents? Strange if the show mentioned self incrimination, it seems such a coincidence given what eventuated. Perhaps it prompted some research as part of the planning, if it was planned. Do you guys think it was?

There are polite words such as 'fanciful', 'fantastical', to describe these propositions, or simply 'a crock'. Why does this remind me of another high profile case from W.A? hmmmm
Forensic examination of the devices will reveal the truth.hone:

 

[LegallyBrunette]

It shows disregard for the family to bring his long-term mistress into the 'marital home' for sex. On the other hand, it is contemptuous of TMcH to agree to enter some one else's marital home for sex. IMO there has been disregard of Allison and the marriage from both GBC and TMcH. I say disregard to mean a gradient worse that disrespect - contempt and indifference. My opinion only.

Would 'amoral' go close

 

[Maigret]

There are polite words such as 'fanciful', 'fantastical', to describe these propositions, or simply 'a crock'. Why does this remind me of another high profile case from W.A? hmmmm
Forensic examination of the devices will reveal the truth.hone:

Yes and in that high profile case the hard drive was destroyed - he (LR) may not have done it but he certainly organized it

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Have a bit of catch up reading to do here but this is niggling at me, (among many other things GBC :furious
Also today is the 120th Anniversary of the Nutcracker which I'm sure Allison would have loved which makes me even more angry.

Re: Right to Silence

BBM
Right to Silence – Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Australia
Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence, but it is broadly recognised by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right. In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to give evidence at trial. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's silence (Petty v R) but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on circumstantial evidence which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about (Weissensteiner v R). The right does not apply to corporations (EPA v Caltex).
<snipped>

Interesting, I checked out (Weissensteiner v R). There are many comments made by Judges which are very interesting.
(Weissensteiner v R) &#8211; High Court Of Australia - 1993
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1993/65.html

I would like to put this on some Christmas Cards:

R. v. Burdett ((52) (1820) 4 B. and Ald. 95,
at pp.121-122; (106 ER 873, at p.883).), where it was said:
"But when one or more things are proved, from which our
experience enables us to ascertain that another, not proved,
must have happened, we presume that it did happen, as well
in criminal as in civil cases. ... It is enough, if its
existence be highly probable, particularly if the opposite
party has it in his power to rebut it by evidence, and yet
offers none; for then we have something like an admission

Maybe if alioop can clarify, it seems to me that this is current in the Law in Queesland, that a Judge can made comment to the Jury in relation to absence of testimony from defendant.

Law in NSW is being changed so that juries will be able to draw an inference from this behaviour.
The new law will include a caution that viewers of 'The Bill' will know.

The caution police now give is: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"

This will be changed to: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say and do may be given in evidence. Do you understand?"

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell said the Evidence Act would be amended to allow juries to make an adverse finding against an alleged criminal who refuses to speak to investigating police, but later produces "evidence" at trial.

Under existing laws, trial judges may instruct juries to draw an adverse inference from a failure to assist police with their inquiries.

"It's been too easy to say: 'I have nothing to say,'" Mr O'Farrell said. "Jurors are smart enough to know if there is something suspicious about evidence which suddenly appears at a trial and is designed to get the accused off."

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione and Police Minister Mike Gallacher said they welcomed the change that would help police who were often frustrated in their inquiries by witnesses who failed to speak up.

"The right to silence can be exploited by criminals and failing to answer police can impede investigations," Mr Gallacher said.

"They won't be able to hide behind their vow of silence any more."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/right-to-silence-law-changed-20120814-2462p.html#ixzz2FLphs6ci

 

[LegallyBrunette]

A good point I just opened safari on my iPhone and it loaded the page I last looked at on Sunday -I haven't opened safari on my phone since then

Was he alleging that he searched 'taking the fifth' and 'self incrimination' as two separate searches but to answer Mummy's question about the TV show?

Presumably someone checked with the TV network as to content of the episode referred to.

Whatever the story, even if the page came up as a reload that morning, he had to have searched it in the first place.
And if there is some issue with the Face Time call, it still wouldn't explain how a phone connects itself to a charger when the user is sound asleep:twocents:

 

[Maigret]

Was he alleging that he searched 'taking the fifth' and 'self incrimination' as two separate searches but to answer Mummy's question about the TV show?

Presumably somehow checked with the TV network as to content of the episode referred to.

Whatever the story, even if the page came up as a reload that morning, he had to have searched it in the first place.:twocents:

Yes - remember early on the police were asking for programme information from a few nights before the 19th and everyone was wondering why

 

[Maigret]

Was he alleging that he searched 'taking the fifth' and 'self incrimination' as two separate searches but to answer Mummy's question about the TV show?

Lucky that he was watching Telly with his mummy

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Yes and in that high profile case the hard drive was destroyed - he (LR) may not have done it but he certainly organized it

All the coincidences, on their own, maybe plausible, as a whole, hmmm - the place card found near the grave comes to mind.:twocents:

 

[Maigret]

And if there is some issue with the Face Time call, it still wouldn't explain how a phone connects itself to a charger when the user is sound asleep:twocents:

Well it is a 'smart' phone :banghead: certainly smarter than him :great:

 

[Maigret]

All the coincidences, on their own, maybe plausible, as a whole, hmmm - the place card found near the grave comes to mind.:twocents:

Yes-someone's insurance - but I think LR then killed the person who murdered his wife for him ( just my opinion of course but plausible)

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Lucky that he was watching Telly with his mummy

This is another case that, if you saw it on 13th Street or the Crime Channel, you would say the plot was a bit far fetched. More like Basil Fawlty than criminal masterminds. A beautiful soul is lost to her children and parents, and yet there is this farce unfolding with every element of best seller - 'aristocracy', greed, lust, betrayal (multiple), crumbling business 'empire', -nothing is missing.:twocents:

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Well it is a 'smart' phone :banghead: certainly smarter than him :great:

Predictive texting, yes, predictive charging? I'd like to see that :jail::fireworks: