Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #40

[LegallyBrunette]

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)

Can't even look at his photo, the eyes tell everything. JMO

 

[emirates1957]

Between Chimwoman, gerbil, skull manner - youv'e gotta love it !!!!!

 

[Nads]

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

Ironic that the show was The Good Wife.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Last night I was reading some of the early MSM -mainly to work out who the legal team actually are - and had forgotten that <modsnip> was lawyered up well before the arrest. He said it was to protect his children.
I see that his barrister appeared for the Crown in the High Court appeal by Patel. Also was defence for Eddie Groves of ABC learning.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

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)

Just read up about it (I'm not an Apple/iPhone user). Face Time looks like a similar app to Skype, except that it's specific to Apple software.
Yes, if you place a call to an email addy, your call will 'ring' on every device registered with it, phone, tablet, MAC, etc, but it still identifies who you were trying to call, even if they didn't personally answer.
So the records will show the origin of the call and destination.
Unless we follow the theory of suicide - deceased interferes with her own corpse - makes Face time call ...... <modsnip> is sound asleep - who else used the phone? one of the little girls?:twocents:

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Ironic that the show was The Good Wife.

I know, Mummy and lovely boy were doing research for his next 'counselling' session with Allison. Sort of show her where she was going wrong and forcing him to seek solace in the tender charms of.....(I forgot their names:twocents

 

[AAAA]

Has there been any further mention of the old man at the bus stop? It was discussed a lot early on.

 

[alioop]

Just because the defence has given an explanation of how GBC came to be googling taking the fifth and self incrimination and that the page reloaded (2 days later) just before he called 000, does not mean that the prosecution accepts any or part of this, particularly his page reloading it 2 days later. I wonder if EBC has now given a statement to police about her alleged part in this watching of the TV program and subsequent googling at her question.

Re the facetime call, we still don't know what the defence's response is to it or what the prosecution now thinks.

All these issues now give the prosecution/police a heads up to address them further for the purposes of the committal.

 

[bearbear]

I was just thinking of something re the suicide theory.... He's been charged with interference with a corpse too which you can't do to yourself once you're dead.

good point! unless hes going to say allison suicided at home and he moved her body to protect the children, leaving her under the bridge, maybe to look like she was murdered?

 

[possumheart]

good point! unless hes going to say allison suicided at home and he moved her body to protect the children, leaving her under the bridge, maybe to look like she was murdered?

Well now the world knows what a <modsnip> he is, he may as well just go for interfering for a corpse and say he moved her because he didn't think he would get her life insurance because she suicided.

:butthead:

 

[alicat]

I found this clip of The Good Wife. I hope I'm allowed to post it here, http://www.movieweb.com/tv/TEuDTwwuFm9iyu/pleading-the-fifth

 

[marlywings]

Off topic...will be interesting...

POLICE will soon make an announcement after completing a review into the 1991 murder of schoolgirl Leanne Holland. Police Commissioner Ian Stewart, Deputy Commissioner Ross Barnett and Assistant Commissioner Mike Condon will front the media at 3pm

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...land-murder-case/story-e6freoof-1226539696213

ETA: QUEENSLAND'S Director of Public Prosecutions will not retry Graham Stafford for the 1991 murder of schoolgirl Leanne Holland.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...land-murder-case/story-e6freoof-1226539696213

 

[alioop]

What I find interesting is that the defence is responding to certain allegations of the police such as GBC's goggle searches and perhaps the facetime call though we don't know what the "explanation" is yet. So presumably this is being done to demonstrate that the police got certain things incorrect or misinterpreted their true meaning. So why stop at those things. Has there been any "explanation" about why for example he told 4 different stories about Allison's walking habits or why his phone was placed on a charger in the middle of the night or why Allison's blood was in the car or any number of other pieces of evidence. So to me it is not so much relevant as to what he is explaining but what he chooses not to explain and I am sure this was not lost on Judge Applegarth last Friday.

The material the defence has filed for the bail application is for that purpose.If he is committed to trial, then is he going to give evidence at trial to explain these goggle searches and any other discrepancies? He can't just file an affidavit for the trial like he did with the bail application. The trouble with this is he will then be cross examined so I am guessing he won't be giving evidence on his own behalf.

Edit: So I am not particularly concerned by the defence's attempts to explain anything for the purposes of the bail application. For MSM to say certain things have been disproved are misleading as the prosecution has not and will not tell MSM their views on the explanations. They may believe these explanations are just more lies by GBC or open up new possibilities of evidence against GBC.

 

[Fuskier]

... <respectfully snipped> ... The material the defence has filed for the bail application is for that purpose....
... I am not particularly concerned by the defence's attempts to explain anything for the purposes of the bail application.

For MSM to say certain things have been disproved are misleading as the prosecution has not and will not tell MSM their views on the explanations. They may believe these explanations are just more lies by GBC or open up new possibilities of evidence against GBC.

Important point for us to remember.

 

[DrWatson]

Bit off topic - sorry - but in response to Marly's pointer to the Leanne Holland case - the police really do not like losing, do they? Graham Stafford has had his conviction quashed, and there are several high profile people who are convinced of his innocence, including criminologists, and an ex-detective who worked on the case. Yet the police case has only ever focused on the one suspect, and they STILL can't get their focus off him.

I really have to wonder sometimes. I've read quite a bit about that case, and I'm probably leaning fairly heavily to the side that believes that Stafford was innocent all along. But the police have just spent 2 years allegedly reviewing their own case, and come to the conclusion - still - that it WAS him.

So - who is right? The public prosecutor won't try him again, so we'll never find out this "new evidence" the police say they have. And criminologists like Paul Wilson are convinced he is innocent, and that they in fact know who DID do it.

Are we looking at police with blinkers on here, or a criminal who is simply maintaining his innocence despite everything? And will we ever really find out?

Sorry for the off-topic reference. Back to normal service now....

 

[Strangeworld]

Based on what GBC has said about googling the fifth, in isolation from everything else in the case, it certainly does seem plausible. Has it actually said anywhere that he was watching tv with his mum, or is there a chance he was on the phone to her (landline) and they had been watching the same show?

I truly hope the police and prosecution have done a better job re the other evidence - the fact that the assumptions made about the phone/searches/facetime calls seem to be questionable, it doesn't look good in terms of the quality of investigating. In saying that, I have faith in the police and there is certainly lots of other circumstantial evidence that can be used in court.

 

[alioop]

A television program is about to start (Brisbane time) on SBS One called "Forensics on Trial" which may be interesting to sleuthers.

 

[alioop]

Bit off topic - sorry - but in response to Marly's pointer to the Leanne Holland case - the police really do not like losing, do they? Graham Stafford has had his conviction quashed, and there are several high profile people who are convinced of his innocence, including criminologists, and an ex-detective who worked on the case. Yet the police case has only ever focused on the one suspect, and they STILL can't get their focus off him.

I really have to wonder sometimes. I've read quite a bit about that case, and I'm probably leaning fairly heavily to the side that believes that Stafford was innocent all along. But the police have just spent 2 years allegedly reviewing their own case, and come to the conclusion - still - that it WAS him.

So - who is right? The public prosecutor won't try him again, so we'll never find out this "new evidence" the police say they have. And criminologists like Paul Wilson are convinced he is innocent, and that they in fact know who DID do it.

Are we looking at police with blinkers on here, or a criminal who is simply maintaining his innocence despite everything? And will we ever really find out?

Sorry for the off-topic reference. Back to normal service now....

I feel the same way about that case as you do Doc. I too have read a lot about the case and think Graham Stafford is probably innocent.

 

[Timmy]

I feel the same way about that case as you do Doc. I too have read a lot about the case and think Graham Stafford is probably innocent.

Me too! OT- but interesting to read about recent accusations about Paul Wilson.

 

[LollyPop]

A television program is about to start (Brisbane time) on SBS One called "Forensics on Trial" which may be interesting to sleuthers.

I have this coming on at 9.30 Brisbane time so possibly on now in NSW, VIC etc