Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #42

[DrWatson]

I can remember someone on this thread (apologies to whomever it was) saying that they'd pinged the FTP tower when they were driving within the Brookfield area. I google-mapped it at the time and thought - ooh that's interesting; GBC would have driven down there every day.

Think we need to let go the line-of-sight idea with the towers and expand our vision more peripherally.

Unfortunately, though, MM, line-of-sight is how they work. Occasionally one can get a reflected connection, but in general terms, it IS line of sight. And as has been discussed before, the only area in Brookfield where I would think line of sight to the FTP tower may be possible would be down around the Rafting Ground Reserve, on the river side of Moggill Road, where the FTP tower is just about in the line of sight.

The problem with Brookfield is that it is hilly. And in the centre of Brookfield - all around the BC house, for example, they are in line of sight to much closer towers, specifically the Brookfield tower which is just across Moggill Creek on Upper Brookfield Rd, or the Kenmore tower which is on Moggill Rd up in the shopping centre of Kenmore where Moggill Rd takes the turn opposite the church to run back down the hill towards Skull Manor. That tower would be in line of Brookfield, and it would also be BETWEEN Brookfield and the FTP tower, which is another hill further away.

That line of sight principle is why I get a signal in some parts of the house and not others. And why people need to go out onto the verandah and search for the magic spot to get a connection in many places. I'm sure many here would be familiar with that phenomenon.

I'm actually down in the Tasmanian Highlands at the moment, and have a Telstra 3G connection on one side of the house but not the other. The tower is about 4 Km away. As I walk or drive around the area here, I can get signal from 5 bars to zero over a space of a few metres.

So - I think your idea has great merit - and can only be explained by the phone having been moved from where it may have been pinged by the app originally (eg by an enterprising police officer using GBC's phone) and where it ended up in range of the FTP tower. As you pointed out, this almost certainly could only have happened in that time between the first police response, and the execution of the search warrant in the afternoon.

And while GBC would have been watched closely, the same degree of monitoring may not have been applied to others....

 

[Oz Jen]

Unfortunately, though, MM, line-of-sight is how they work. Occasionally one can get a reflected connection, but in general terms, it IS line of sight. And as has been discussed before, the only area in Brookfield where I would think line of sight to the FTP tower may be possible would be down around the Rafting Ground Reserve, on the river side of Moggill Road, where the FTP tower is just about in the line of sight.

The problem with Brookfield is that it is hilly. And in the centre of Brookfield - all around the BC house, for example, they are in line of sight to much closer towers, specifically the Brookfield tower which is just across Moggill Creek on Upper Brookfield Rd, or the Kenmore tower which is on Moggill Rd up in the shopping centre of Kenmore where Moggill Rd takes the turn opposite the church to run back down the hill towards Skull Manor. That tower would be in line of Brookfield, and it would also be BETWEEN Brookfield and the FTP tower, which is another hill further away.

That line of sight principle is why I get a signal in some parts of the house and not others. And why people need to go out onto the verandah and search for the magic spot to get a connection in many places. I'm sure many here would be familiar with that phenomenon.

I'm actually down in the Tasmanian Highlands at the moment, and have a Telstra 3G connection on one side of the house but not the other. The tower is about 4 Km away. As I walk or drive around the area here, I can get signal from 5 bars to zero over a space of a few metres.

So - I think your idea has great merit - and can only be explained by the phone having been moved from where it may have been pinged by the app originally (eg by an enterprising police officer using GBC's phone) and where it ended up in range of the FTP tower. As you pointed out, this almost certainly could only have happened in that time between the first police response, and the execution of the search warrant in the afternoon.

And while GBC would have been watched closely, the same degree of monitoring may not have been applied to others....

I have always wondered if it was OW who took the phone initially. Just grabbed it in a panic at the time, then disposed of it on her way back from the school drop. Could also go some way towards explaining her agitated disposition during 'that' interview.

 

[LollyPop]

Excellent point, and good thinking outside the box, as they say

Maybe there was NOTHING on the phone of note - but GBC just thought there MAY be? I like it....

Me too. Because an innocent person with nothing to hide wouldn't think twice about what was on his wife's phone, nor find the need to dispose of/destroy it.

 

[Radster]

Learned legal eagles ... I believe NBC and OW will be present for the hearing next week ... does this mean either/both may be called to the stand? Can they refuse and, if so, on what grounds?

 

[alioop]

Hi Radster, if the prosecution intends to call them as witnesses, they would have already subpoenaed them which is an order of the court requiring them them to attend. Failure to comply with a subpoena can result in a warrant issued for their arrest to be brought before the court. I am sure if NBC and /or OW have been subpoenaed then they will be there.
They can refuse to answer any questions only on the grounds that it may incriminate themselves. If they did this the magistrate will decide on this issue. They cannot claim that that an answer may incriminate GBC. It is only self incrimination.

They can be held in contempt of court if they fail to answer a question other than ones where the magistrate decides they are excused because of the self incrimination ground. I have posted previously on the penalties for contempt. Marly would you be kind enough to find that post, it was a couple of threads ago.

 

[Thinking]

Hi Radster, if the prosecution intends to call them as witnesses, they would have already subpoenaed them which is an order of the court requiring them them to attend. Failure to comply with a subpoena can result in a warrant issued for their arrest to be brought before the court. I am sure if NBC and /or OW have been subpoenaed then they will be there.
They can refuse to answer any questions only on the grounds that it may incriminate themselves. If they did this the magistrate will decide on this issue. They cannot claim that that an answer may incriminate GBC. It is only self incrimination.

They can be held in contempt of court if they fail to answer a question other than ones where the magistrate decides they are excused because of the self incrimination ground. I have posted previously on the penalties for contempt. Marly would you be kind enough to find that post, it was a couple of threads ago.

Thanks again Ali. So will these witnesses be required to attend every single day, or will they be given a particular day they must be there to take the stand?

 

[alioop]

They would have been told the days they have to attend. They may even have to wait outside until they are called I think. If not called that day, they have to come back until they are called. It can be very inconvenient for a witness to have to wait around to give evidence.

 

[Couldbe]

I have always wondered if it was OW who took the phone initially. Just grabbed it in a panic at the time, then disposed of it on her way back from the school drop. Could also go some way towards explaining her agitated disposition during 'that' interview.

I too think that this is quite likely Oz Jen.

....... where was the phone disposed of / where could it be now???

With all of the possibilities, it would be like 'looking for a needle in a haystack'; no wonder the Police gave up after all of their initial searching.
It may still turn up ........ but one wouldn't want to hold one's breath for the likelihood of this happening.......just rely on the Service Provider records to tell their account of transactions.

One thing for sure is, if it can be proved that GBC (and/or another) knew where Allison's phone was when the Police were triangulating and searching for it, then this would surely be another charge of hiding evidence.

 

[LadyBird1]

Excellent thinking there MM. That could indeed have been where the 150m radius came from. And you're correct that the search warrant was in the afternoon, which would indeed have given GBC or whoever else the chance to retrieve the phone and either turn it off, or simply to take it somewhere in a panic and ditch it - within range of the Fig Tree Pocket tower, where it lay until the battery ran out?

That could certainly explain the apparent discrepancy between the "150m radius of the house" thing, and the connection to the FTP tower until the battery went dead.

So WHO was prowling around the BC house in between the arrival of the police at around 8am, and the search warrant time, and WHO then took a drive??

Very good Doc W. Particularly about the apparent discrepancy.
Who indeed was at the BC house before the police arrived?
And who indeed might have thought it best to remove the phone from the scene?
And who indeed might have felt there could be something incriminating on said phone?
And who indeed might have felt the need to defend one GBC who about to interviewed?
And who indeed left the scene very shortly after the police arrived?
And who indeed might know exactly where said phone was located, then and now?
Hmm. And where is Alioop to explain the intricacies of lying under oath. Can one be asked these vital questions if put on the stand? And be expected to answer truthfully.

 

[Radster]

Hi Radster, if the prosecution intends to call them as witnesses, they would have already subpoenaed them which is an order of the court requiring them them to attend. Failure to comply with a subpoena can result in a warrant issued for their arrest to be brought before the court. I am sure if NBC and /or OW have been subpoenaed then they will be there.
They can refuse to answer any questions only on the grounds that it may incriminate themselves. If they did this the magistrate will decide on this issue. They cannot claim that that an answer may incriminate GBC. It is only self incrimination.

They can be held in contempt of court if they fail to answer a question other than ones where the magistrate decides they are excused because of the self incrimination ground. I have posted previously on the penalties for contempt. Marly would you be kind enough to find that post, it was a couple of threads ago.

Thanks very much for this Alioop! Excellent reply, as always. Next week is going to be SO interesting.

 

[they'll get you]

So at the committal, the defence has got to prove that they have sufficient evidence to go to trial.

My thoughts they have evidence but a lot of it could be proven to be coincidence.
'I had a run of some bad luck mate'.
So he had an affair.
So he promised things to this woman.
So he had financial problems.
So they had a fight and Allison got some good ones in.
So there's a phone missing.
So who killed Allison.

I think the defence has a fight on their hands or have they got more up their sleeves!?

How in the hell are we going to feel if he walks?

I wonder if NBC can go through this?

 

[Makara]

So at the committal, the defence has got to prove that they have sufficient evidence to go to trial.

My thoughts they have evidence but a lot of it could be proven to be coincidence.
'I had a run of some bad luck mate'.
So he had an affair.
So he promised things to this woman.
So he had financial problems.
So they had a fight and Allison got some good ones in.
So there's a phone missing.
So who killed Allison.

I think the defence has a fight on their hands or have they got more up their sleeves!?

How in the hell are we going to feel if he walks?

I wonder if NBC can go through this?

Good points they'll get you. Let's not forget though that GBC lied. He lied about the affair with TM being over. He lied about using the Find My Friend app. He lied about the scratches on his face. He lied about the cut on his hand. And the list goes on. He is a liar and this will be proven in court. He is not the least bit credible and everything he has said and does say in the future will be treated with the utmost skepticism.

IMO the prosecution have a lot more up their sleeve besides the small amount we've learned so far.

MOO.

 

[alioop]

Hmm. And where is Alioop to explain the intricacies of lying under oath. Can one be asked these vital questions if put on the stand? And be expected to answer truthfully.

Ladybird, I am not quite sure what you are saying. Are you asking me where I am because I am clearly not far away given I am posting regularly today. If you want me to explain something all you have to do is ask!

 

[Thinking]

Sorry if I shouldn't be asking this, but is the aussiecriminals site still discussing this case does anyone know?

 

[LadyBird1]

Ladybird, I am not quite sure what you are saying. Are you asking me where I am because I am clearly not far away given I am posting regularly today. If you want me to explain something all you have to do is ask!

My apologies for the obscurity. Also I so appreciate your legal knowledge here.
Question was this, if a person is put on the stand, can they be made to answer questions such as:
Did you take the phone?
What did you do with it?
Where is it now? Why did you take the phone?
Where exactly were you at between 11pm 19 April and 6.00am 20 April 2012?
And what exactly were doing during those hours?

 

[alioop]

Thanks for clarification Ladybird. Have to run now to do school pick up. Will respond later. Hopefully by then Marly may have reposted my post about contempt as most of the answers are in there.

 

[LadyBird1]

Ladybird, I am not quite sure what you are saying. Are you asking me where I am because I am clearly not far away given I am posting regularly today. If you want me to explain something all you have to do is ask!

Hi again Alioop. I would like to please ask this question if I may:
What are the repercussions about lying under oath.
Reason for asking is this:
It appears apparent that the accused is a Liar. Pure and simple.
(Don't know about his family.)
It also appears that the accused would give the answer that carries the most lenient sentence. Truthful, half truthful or a deliberate lie. Whichever comes cheapest.

 

[Oz Jen]

May I just say all you sleuths are awesome! Great theories, fantastic to bounce all ideas around here. What a great forum - all in the cause of seeing justice for Allison.

I don't post often, because, as others have said, a lot of my questions or theories have already been posted. I'm on here every day, read everything (from Day 1) and really do appreciate the way your enquiring minds and caring hearts are working to unravel this sad mystery that still confounds and profoundly upsets me.

Huge thanks to Marly, for keeping us on point and on track.

Monday is a public holiday for us here in Melbourne. No sleeping in for me! My OH doesn't quite get my obsession, but he does know I'm committed to seeing this thing through for Allison and her girls. And here is where I'll be.

I know its not much, but if the only support I can give is to be here through this, I hope somewhere, somehow, Allison knows how much we all care.

So, I'll have my alarm set and will be right here, hitting 'refresh' every second. Just wish I could be in court!

I would also like to take this opportunity to give a very special 'shout out' to Alioop and the good Doc. With what I have learned from these two very patient, knowledgeable and giving professionals, I reckon I am almost ready to take my double degree in Law and Thoracic Surgery! Thanks guys!

Roll on Monday!!!

 

[hello people]

So how's our man Gerard?

 

[DrWatson]

Why thank you Oz Jen I have to say that Ali has such an excellent legal brain and way of thinking, that her contributions are awesome!

My own bits and pieces are sometimes based on the knowledge that is specific to my professional life, but others are similar theories and speculations as everyone else's, with the possible slant that my thinking tends to be very logical, like trying to make a diagnosis, due to a long life of training the brain to think that way!

Only a few days to go before a lot of stuff will become topics for discussion - and I'm currently on holiday, so will be watching closely.