Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #42

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm thinking the same thing Marly. The very close proximity to the Brisbane River is a peculiarity of this bridge.
I cant see why though you would stop on a two lane bridge to dump a body though. Especially one where you cant pull off the road at all due to guard rails. However, he maybe thought this was worth the risk as it would directly funnel her into the Brisbane River.
(your photos show great perspective, thanks)

The info about suicide victims becoming stuck in mud was interesting. Hadn't heard that before. I'm absolutely sure if he was attempting to dump her into water, he wouldn't have considered her becoming wedged.

Its just weird that if all this is the case, then why not go with the suicide theory from the start?
I also keep asking myself, why would he drive that far, to a relatively isolated location and then take a risk that he could be seen? There is so much bush out there, and the only answer I can come up with for that is that he wanted her in the river.
 
Yet to read this tread, just catching up on previous one. Sorry if what I say has been said before, however if I could say my thoughts about the bridge. I always thought Allison was disposed of near the scout camp or ugly gully, but that theory has been proved wrong now. However maybe GBC did go out to that area on his own and pull up near the side of the bridge and take her out of the car and just leave her amongst the overgrown grasses etc for a couple of hours and let her body lie there, ie on the opposite side of the road from where she was found, and then go for help, and he and someone else came back to the area and carried her across the road ( or under the bridge ) and placed her on the bank, that way she would not wash out into the BNE River but be found eventually. I really can't see how she was thrown from the bridge and ended up in that spot. I don't know if the moving of the body twice would interfere with levels etc that they used to determine that she was put in that position soon after she died or not. Maybe everyting had set in by then and they simply kept her in the the same position and just moved her body..
 
they'll get you said:
If your wife went missing and one initial thought was abduction, would you send your children to school knowing such fear? Only very trusted members of my family could do the job on watching them while I was out searching every moment and only resting when I could not continue due to absolute exhaustion.
I'm telling you I would have those kids safety paramount!

Obviously he knew there was no further threats.
Click to expand...

The ramsays did the same by sending the son to school a week after an intruder supposedly targeted their daughter. Interesting point.
 
I agree with Marly that from what we know, which could change, that GBC could have driven a deceased Allison to the bridge, stopped quickly on the bridge itself, got her out of the car and threw her over the rails on the left hand side near those pylons where she was found. He then drove off having only been stopped for a few minutes. She hit the water as the tide was in, floated about a meter under the bridge, then came to rest on the edge of the creek as the water receded and stuck firm in the very sticky thick mud, which created a suction effect. She was then in the position that she was found. When they removed her body, it left an impression in the mud where her body had been.

Where she got stuck in the mud was subject to the daily rise and fall of the Brisbane river's tidal flows so she was at least partially covered by water at high tide. The suction of the mud was sufficient to keep her in place and not get washed out to the river. The extra rainfall that happened the weekend before she was found was insufficient to increase the tidal levels and therefore did not move her body. We know she wasn't moved by the flow of the creek from shortly after death.

This theory explains a few things:-

Possibly no vegetation from Kholo got on her body as she wasn't carried through the vegetation to the mud bank and there was little if any vegetation on the mud bank. She fell straight into the water and has Doc Watson has said, it is possible that her body suffered no broken bones from this fall. Any bruising or other fall injuries may not have been evident because of the delay in finding her.

The captiva never left the road so it had no mud or vegetation from Kholo on it.

GBC never left the road so he was clean with no clothes or shoes needing to be disposed of, though he may have disposed of those anyway as they may have other evidence on them but he didn't transfer any vegetation or mud into the car.

He may have intended her to end up in the Brisbane river and be found by river traffic so he could claim on insurance. That was a good location to do that as it was a good drop off spot very close to the river. Had he been a couple more meters further on the bridge and dropped her closer to the middle of the creek she may well have ended up in the Brisbane river.

All that could have been achieved by one person as he is the only person that has been charged with not only the murder but the interference with the body.
 
they'll get you said:
If your wife went missing and one initial thought was abduction, would you send your children to school knowing such fear? Only very trusted members of my family could do the job on watching them while I was out searching every moment and only resting when I could not continue due to absolute exhaustion.
I'm telling you I would have those kids safety paramount!

Obviously he knew there was no further threats.
Click to expand...

Pretty serious point you have raised. (To date I had been too shocked by the business as usual attitude, and the need to "get back to normal.")

Put it another way...
Your wife has gone missing..
Possibly abducted...
Possibly murdered...
Is there a killer on the loose?
Is there a maniac on the loose?
In your neighbourhood....
Would you send your children to school?
Would you consider your children's safety?
 
Groundedgirl said:
The ramsays did the same by sending the son to school a week after an intruder supposedly targeted their daughter. Interesting point.
Click to expand...

That is true but I understand they implemented a high security plan at the school to ensure his safety.
 
Because I still believe he did not plan to killer that night, I now believe he did not actually plan to leave her at the bridge. I believe he started driving in that direction, scared, in a trance like state, looking for a suitable spot, maybe even thinking of the Scout grounds, but found his opportunity to get rid of her when approaching the bridge, no other cars in sight, etc. After reading Marly's post further up, I now also tend to believe that he dropped her from the bridge into the water (unravelling the body from whatever wrap he had her covered with at the moment of disposal) and the body slowly drifted to the position she was found in. The location she was found in is not an easy spot to get to, too muddy, sticky, etc. I believe she came to rest there by the slow movement of the water towards the pylon that night. He must have been in a state of mind in which he only thought of getting rid of her ... and not if the body would be found soon, not if it would take 7 years to declared her dead if the body was not found, not if he could or could not collect the insurance soon, etc. That thought process is IMO an "after the fact" line of thinking, once he got rid of any evidence and had time to make up his story.
 
Champagne4lulu said:
Just wondering if there's been any reports of footprints in the mud around where she was found? If not I guess that could mean she was either dumped or water has washed them away.
Click to expand...

That is a really good question Champagne. I have neither heard or seen anything to suggest that there was an evidence found of how Allison got to where she did shortly after death. No footprints, no vegetation walked on etc. We have all seen the footprints in the mud in those photos from the police and rescue people, they may still even be there. The police would have carefully looked for this type of evidence to see an entry point of how she got there. They didn't even get close to the body until they had a chance to survey the surroundings. Remember the helicopter video of the one policeman standing in the mud pointing at the body from a distance. My guess is they didn't find anything. That is consistent with my drop from the bridge theory.
 
Sorry, Alioop, I seem to have posted similar thoughts to yours at the same time, although you explained it much better!! I agree with you.
 
LadyBird1 said:
Pretty serious point you have raised. (To date I had been too shocked by the business as usual attitude, and the need to "get back to normal.")

Put it another way...
Your wife has gone missing..
Possibly abducted...
Possibly murdered...
Is there a killer on the loose?
Is there a maniac on the loose?
In your neighbourhood....
Would you send your children to school?
Would you consider your children's safety?
Click to expand...

If it was random abduction then there would be no threat to the kids. I think more questionable is the fact that those poor little girls were told by daddy that mummy fell down a hole and is never coming back rather. Easier to accept the police are going to find mummy and bring her back than daddy basically telling them she's dead to world somewhere in the bush.
 
Why on earth would GBC tell them (as alleged by Olivia) that mummy had fallen down a hole and would not come back. Wouldn't you just say mummy has gone for a walk and hasn't come back so off to school and the police will help me look for mummy?

And why on earth would Olivia tell the police he said that. She must have thought it was a strange thing to say whether she knew what was going on or not.
 
Liadan said:
If it was random abduction then there would be no threat to the kids. I think more questionable is the fact that those poor little girls were told by daddy that mummy fell down a hole and is never coming back rather. Easier to accept the police are going to find mummy and bring her back than daddy basically telling them she's dead to world somewhere in the bush.
Click to expand...

Yes, how stupid and uncaring was he with that statement to the girls! I wonder if the eldest girl can be called to give evidence (in private/video link) or if QPS were able to interview them back then.
 
He said there was no evidence she'd fallen, adding the water level was below the place where her body was found.

"Within a very short time of her being dead she was in that position," he said.

"This is 14km away from his house, where, if he did kill Mrs Baden-Clay at the house and move her, it would have been within a very short period of time that she ended up in that particular position under the bridge."

http://www.news.com.au/national/law...re-supreme-court/story-fndo4ckr-1226536987434
 
alioop said:
I agree with Marly that from what we know, which could change, that GBC could have driven a deceased Allison to the bridge, stopped quickly on the bridge itself, got her out of the car and threw her over the rails on the left hand side near those pylons where she was found. He then drove off having only been stopped for a few minutes. She hit the water as the tide was in, floated about a meter under the bridge, then came to rest on the edge of the creek as the water receded and stuck firm in the very sticky thick mud, which created a suction effect. She was then in the position that she was found. When they removed her body, it left an impression in the mud where her body had been.

Where she got stuck in the mud was subject to the daily rise and fall of the Brisbane river's tidal flows so she was at least partially covered by water at high tide. The suction of the mud was sufficient to keep her in place and not get washed out to the river. The extra rainfall that happened the weekend before she was found was insufficient to increase the tidal levels and therefore did not move her body. We know she wasn't moved by the flow of the creek from shortly after death.

This theory explains a few things:-

Possibly no vegetation from Kholo got on her body as she wasn't carried through the vegetation to the mud bank and there was little if any vegetation on the mud bank. She fell straight into the water and has Doc Watson has said, it is possible that her body suffered no broken bones from this fall. Any bruising or other fall injuries may not have been evident because of the delay in finding her.

The captiva never left the road so it had no mud or vegetation from Kholo on it.

GBC never left the road so he was clean with no clothes or shoes needing to be disposed of, though he may have disposed of those anyway as they may have other evidence on them but he didn't transfer any vegetation or mud into the car.

He may have intended her to end up in the Brisbane river and be found by river traffic so he could claim on insurance. That was a good location to do that as it was a good drop off spot very close to the river. Had he been a couple more meters further on the bridge and dropped her closer to the middle of the creek she may well have ended up in the Brisbane river.

All that could have been achieved by one person as he is the only person that has been charged with not only the murder but the interference with the body.
Click to expand...

i agree, and the bridge was a good distance away from home, furthering gbc, (in his mind) from the crime.
 
Amee said:
He said there was no evidence she'd fallen, adding the water level was below the place where her body was found.

"Within a very short time of her being dead she was in that position," he said.

"This is 14km away from his house, where, if he did kill Mrs Baden-Clay at the house and move her, it would have been within a very short period of time that she ended up in that particular position under the bridge."

http://www.news.com.au/national/law...re-supreme-court/story-fndo4ckr-1226536987434
Click to expand...

These are just comments at the bail hearing. There was no evidence she hadn't fallen either. There was no evidence of her being carried down there. When they found the body, the water level was below the body and they were concerned about the rising tide before they had a chance to remove her. Doesn't mean to say that the water level wasn't higher when she entered the creek.

Sorry about all the double negatives!
 
regarding muddy footprints, didnt the heavy rain come the weekend of the 28th 29th April well after the body was placed there? MOO
 
alioop said:
Why on earth would GBC tell them (as alleged by Olivia) that mummy had fallen down a hole and would not come back. Wouldn't you just say mummy has gone for a walk and hasn't come back so off to school and the police will help me look for mummy?

And why on earth would Olivia tell the police he said that. She must have thought it was a strange thing to say whether she knew what was going on or not.
Click to expand...

Alioop, I can kind of accept what she said to the girls and the police, if I add a "........this morning" to the end of the sentence. (But that is the only way I can make sense of it).
ie. "and wont be back this morning."

If she had explained to the girls that mummy had fallen down a hole and that as soon as possible everyone, all the police and everyone else, would go out and find her, and they'll bring her back, it might have sounded to the kids like something they could grasp, and not panic too much over.

So what I'm saying is, the kids may have been told this as a plausible explanation for why mummy was late, but when OW relayed this to the police, she may have left off the end, not stopping to think how awful it comes across without it.
You know how you just shorten things sometimes and the rest is in your head? Sometimes you assume that people get you when they actually dont.

Benefit of the doubt here only, and the only reason I am even considering that is because I honestly cant get my head around anyone saying such a cold and awful thing to kids and not being ashamed to tell it again. I cant make sense of that at all.
 
bearbear said:
i agree, and the bridge was a good distance away from home, furthering gbc, (in his mind) from the crime.
Click to expand...

Good point bearbear. If she went for a walk as he said, it was likely they would not look so far away which is exactly what did happen. They had their search radius and Kholo creek was well outside it. We know they couldn't have searched the bridge area despite the rumour that an SES said they did, as they would have found her easily if they had, unless of course they only checked at high tide and she was covered by water! Though I think she still may have been visible at high tide.
 
Amee said:
regarding muddy footprints, didnt the heavy rain come the weekend of the 28th 29th April well after the body was placed there? MOO
Click to expand...

Yes, but on a tidal bank there would be moisture most of the time. (I think :) )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 114 more.
Total: 2,197 (members: 115, guests: 2,082)

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,082
Total visitors
2,197
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,844
Messages
18,130,554
Members
231,161
Latest member
Susielarios
Back
Top