Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #41

[summer_breeze]

Hello everyone~

Just popping in to say hello, and please stay safe in this weather, flooding you are experiencing! I've started a "weather" thread for you, in the Up to the Minute forum. The below link will take you directly there!

:blowkiss:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8763318#post8763318"]Austrailia - Brisbane's big wet - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Maigret]

Yes Obsessor I have wondered about this too. I'm sure (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) that we have not heard specifically that there was no evidence found on the car that suggests it was at Kholo Creek. The wheel arches may have been mentioned (were they actually mentioned at the hearings?) but what about the actual tyres or other parts of the car? What about GBCs clothes, shoes etc - there has never been any mention of this as far as I recall?

I believe there would be many pieces of evidence that we would not know about yet. The evidence submitted at the bail hearing by the prosecution was purely for the purpose of having bail denied - not for the purpose of proving that GBC is guilty of murder. So, I don't think it was necessary for all evidence to be submitted at that stage. I think there is a lot we don't know about yet.

I'd be interested to see your thoughts on this Alioop - am I on the right track?

I'm no legal expert but even though they have made disclosure to the defendants legal team they won't necessarily have to bring everything they have to a bail hearing and it wouldn't surprise me if there is a surprise witness that comes in closer to the trial date

 

[alioop]

Yes Obsessor I have wondered about this too. I'm sure (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) that we have not heard specifically that there was no evidence found on the car that suggests it was at Kholo Creek. The wheel arches may have been mentioned (were they actually mentioned at the hearings?) but what about the actual tyres or other parts of the car? What about GBCs clothes, shoes etc - there has never been any mention of this as far as I recall?

I believe there would be many pieces of evidence that we would not know about yet. The evidence submitted at the bail hearing by the prosecution was purely for the purpose of having bail denied - not for the purpose of proving that GBC is guilty of murder. So, I don't think it was necessary for all evidence to be submitted at that stage. I think there is a lot we don't know about yet.

I'd be interested to see your thoughts on this Alioop - am I on the right track?

You sure are on the right track Thinking. All I heard at the second bail hearing was just about the wheel arches of the captiva, no other parts of the car and nothing about GBCS clothes or shoes etc.

I'm no legal expert but even though they have made disclosure to the defendants legal team they won't necessarily have to bring everything they have to a bail hearing and it wouldn't surprise me if there is a surprise witness that comes in closer to the trial date

Yes Maigret, they used the minimum evidence they needed to at the bail hearing. The bail hearing was a total waste of time and money. I knew in my (legal) waters within 10 mins of the start of the hearing that bail would be denied.

There will be lots of witnesses that will be surprises to us, but not to the defence as they have all been disclosed .

 

[Couldbe]

Following link refers to News Reporter saying that Olivia said that with regard to the scratches, he fell over and bumped his head:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZnzRCYM4DA&feature=relmfu"]Police search husband's office for clues - YouTube[/ame]

...just more of Olivia trying to be 'helpful' to her brother.

 

[alioop]

I think the bump that OW was referring to was something on his forehead near his hairline not scratches on his cheek. We have discussed the bump in detail previously. Marly would you be good enough to find the link to those posts please. I recall Doc had a bit to say about it and there was a debate about a bandaid on his forehead and Makara I think did some zooming in pics of it.

 

[Couldbe]

I think the bump that OW was referring to was something on his forehead near his hairline not scratches on his cheek. We have discussed the bump in detail previously. Marly would you be good enough to find the link to those posts please. I recall Doc had a bit to say about it and there was a debate about a bandaid on his forehead and Makara I think did some zooming in pics of it.

Thank you alioop. Sorry to have dragged it out again.....probably not related to her murder.
His injuries do paint a picture of GBC being so accident prone around the time of Allison's disappearance, especially when he was a 'little bit hurt' during his vehicle accident.

 

[BreakingNews]

Following link refers to News Reporter saying that Olivia said that with regard to the scratches, he fell over and bumped his head:

Police search husband's office for clues - YouTube

...just more of Olivia trying to be 'helpful' to her brother.

Re 'He fell over and bumped his head' "so no more GBC jumping on the bed!":floorlaugh:

 

[alioop]

Thank you alioop. Sorry to have dragged it out again.....probably not related to her murder.
His injuries do paint a picture of GBC being so accident prone around the time of Allison's disappearance, especially when he was a 'little bit hurt' during his vehicle accident.

We don't know when he "bumped" his head or how he did it. As far as I am concerned it is still suspicious as it is an injury to him. We have not heard the police say it is not suspicious.

 

[Obsessor]

I think the bump that OW was referring to was something on his forehead near his hairline not scratches on his cheek. We have discussed the bump in detail previously. Marly would you be good enough to find the link to those posts please. I recall Doc had a bit to say about it and there was a debate about a bandaid on his forehead and Makara I think did some zooming in pics of it.

In the video above it says that Olivia said he received the scratch on his face when he fell over and bumped his head.

I remember lots of discussions about bandaids and marks up near his forehead, but at that stage none of us had seen the enormous gouges on his right cheek. (which is odd in itself really).
I now think we can assume Olivia was talking about "the" scratches that were concerning to police, but I may be wrong. (I know she points to her forehead, but she mentions the scratches.)

 

[Obsessor]

...just more of Olivia trying to be 'helpful' to her brother.[/QUOTE]

too helpful I say....

MOO

 

[Obsessor]

"Mr Davis tendered a report to the court on a sampling of wheel arches of the Holden Captiva and clothing of Baden-Clay, including a pair of shoes, which showed no matches with soil samples taken from Kholo Creek.
Justice Applegarth adjourned the court to 5.15pm to consider the application"
http://www.news.com.au/national/law...re-supreme-court/story-fndo4ckr-1226536987434
Dec 14, 2012


I just came across this from the 2nd bail attempt, so the same evidence was tendered again.
I understand the prosecution didn't have to show all their cards- just saying it was brought up again.

 

[alioop]

"Mr Davis tendered a report to the court on a sampling of wheel arches of the Holden Captiva and clothing of Baden-Clay, including a pair of shoes, which showed no matches with soil samples taken from Kholo Creek.
Justice Applegarth adjourned the court to 5.15pm to consider the application"
http://www.news.com.au/national/law...re-supreme-court/story-fndo4ckr-1226536987434
Dec 14, 2012


I just came across this from the 2nd bail attempt, so the same evidence was tendered again.
I understand the prosecution didn't have to show all their cards- just saying it was brought up again.

Thanks Obsessor, I didn't hear about the shoes in court, must have missed that bit though I had my listening ears on! The new courtrooms are all bare cement walls and it is hard to hear particularly when the lawyers have their back to the gallery.

 

[Obsessor]

Thanks Obsessor, I didn't hear about the shoes in court, must have missed that bit though I had my listening ears on! The new courtrooms are all bare cement walls and it is hard to hear particularly when the lawyers have their back to the gallery.

I think you caught everything else they said.

Its just interesting, as this is obviously a point the defence will drive home.

 

[Maigret]

I think you caught everything else they said.

Its just interesting, as this is obviously a point the defence will drive home.

I think the wheel arches received a really good clean early on Friday morning and perhaps GBC 's shoes a good clean and polish ( ready for work ) and clothes run through the washing machine- all whilst he was fast asleep of course

 

[Thinking]

I think the wheel arches received a really good clean early on Friday morning and perhaps GBC 's shoes a good clean and polish ( ready for work ) and clothes run through the washing machine- all whilst he was fast asleep of course

How would they know they were definitely the shoes he wore that night? There could well be a pair stashed in an industrial bin somewhere.....

 

[Maigret]

How would they know they were definitely the shoes he wore that night? There could well be a pair stashed in an industrial bin somewhere.....

Absolutely

 

[Obsessor]

There will be lots of witnesses that will be surprises to us, but not to the defence as they have all been disclosed .

So Alioop, the witnesses have been disclosed to the defence, but not all the evidence, is that how it is? (you've probably already explained this- my brain just doesn't store legal stuff )

I'm getting muddled up with hard, cold, physical evidence, such as soil samples, scratch analysis, autopsy, and witness evidence, such as behaviour, different versions of stories, possible sightings etc.
Do you think its fair to assume that we have pretty much heard all of the physical evidence that the prosecutors have?
Have all the study results been made available to the defence??
Is it just the witness evidence that will hold surprises????


I keep getting the feeling we have heard most of what the prosecution has as far as hard evidence goes. Maybe that feeling is wrong???

 

[Obsessor]

If nothing else, at least he had one Hell of a guilty conscience afterwards...not visiting the bridge, not attending the search party headquarters (which, in case anybody doesn't know, was really REALLY close to the family house), not appearing with the Dickies on TV while Allison was missing, and only giving that one infamous interview to Channel 9...and only because they had practically cornered him.

I don't know how on Earth he ever managed to hold himself reasonably together for her funeral. He must have had literally ZERO sleep the night before. He would have known what everyone was thinking about him by then. He may have even thought that the police would be arresting him as soon as the service had finished. :nerves:

That being said, there was obviously the part of him which believed that if he could only make it through the service looking sad, the world would realise that he couldn't be guilty, and that it would be "business as usual" with TM and Century 21 Toowong Towers afterwards. :Banane53:

I actually see his absence as totally uncaring, rather than as showing he had a guilty conscience.
I dont think he could even act like he cared where she was found. We know he had other things on his mind, such as calling the 3 insurance companies, and trying to rush through a death certificate.
He couldn't give a s**t about Allison.

 

[kiwijayne]

I'm going to have to read this all to catch up. Been awhile since I posted in and Allison thread.

 

[kiwijayne]

I actually see his absence as totally uncaring, rather than as showing he had a guilty conscience.
I dont think he could even act like he cared where she was found. We know he had other things on his mind, such as calling the 3 insurance companies, and trying to rush through a death certificate.
He couldn't give a s**t about Allison.

This.