Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #44

[Zim]

TM stated that QPS told her about the other 2 women. The detectives cross-examined at the Committal said they did not. Who is lying? If we assume that QPS did not tell her (which I doubt), then who did? If a detective DID tell her, then why are they not admitting to it?

Perhaps TM became a 'stalker' ?

 

[Liadan]

My thoughts too. I also think if TM has any guilt it is because if she had 'loaned' him the money Al could perhaps still be alive.

I wonder why she did not offer the money ?
Perhaps she knew more than she has admitted (re his debts) and knew she would not get it back.

Another thing, I think she pursued him after the break up.....the money she had could have been her 'hook' for him. I do not think he loves/loved her. He was too interested in self preservation. He was using her.....and she did have money....

My opinion on TM and her money is that she would have given GBC anything he wanted. She was given preferential treatment at C21 and as one of the partners said if she was with Gerard then her sales income went up if she was not with him her sale income seemed to suffer. GBC was grooming her to be a top seller to help him out.

When GBC asked people for money to join the partnership - he once asked a partner to pay off a debt directly to someone who had previously lent him money. It wasn't done as part of business deal just directly person to person. If Toni has done something similar (paid his debts directly in while posing that she was making the bulk of the cash from sales - seriously who would know with those accounts?) then TM can claim that she did not loan any money to GBC. Its just how you frame or describe the loan transaction.

 

[Radster]

Okay, thanks for everyone's excellent sleuthing, revealing analysis, generous sharing and court reporting. I'm out until the trial. See you on the flipside!

 

[Strangeworld]

I have also been thinking about the number of questions Davis asked about how TM found out about the other women.

Without having all the info, it sounds to me like the police could have been testing TM - asking her if she knew about the other women - what was her reaction, did she look surprised, angry, did she appear to know about them already? If this is how it went down, I think it actually aids the prosecution's case, as it shows the police were willing to investigate fully, not solely GBC's motivations. TM's reaction to any discussion about other women would have been very important for the police to gauge if she felt betrayed, if she was swayed in her commitment to GBC by his other infidelities, etc.

I just don't understand why the defense did this - maybe they are simply trying to discredit either individual police officers and/or TM as unreliable witnesses.

 

[Flinders]

Allison Baden-Clay case
itsthevibe verified insider
Squizzey1 is a verified insider
XyzQuestions is a verified insider

Physician
DrWatson is a Thoracic and Vascular Surgeon

Law
alioop is a verified attorney (solicitor)

Redlighthroughpaper is also a verified insider
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8580591&postcount=3"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Professional Posters & Verified Locals/Insiders[/ame]

Thanks Salem for the link:seeya:

 

[linette]

We have to remember that TM is not on trial. A few were saying yesterday how it seems that GBC may be instructing his legal team to lead the questioning to point the finger at TM and put a reasonable doubt on his own guilt.

For us to focus on what she has done wrong here could be exactly what GBC wants... playing right into his hands.

GBC would give anything to have the focus on someone else... it would be his dream come true. So I'm going to focus on his guilt and not be blaming anyone else right now. As I've said before, HE is the one on trial. HE is the one with the injuries on his body... he is the one who did wrong by his wife and kids, and seemingly alot of other people too.
Personally I think if anyone else is involved it's probably more after than before or during the murder. Whoever did help should also be brought to justice.

 

[alioop]

I have just watched the interview with OW outside the Kenmore house yesterday and it is an edited version. However the commentator says that OW claims the prosecution was selective in the evidence they presented, I presume she means at the committal. We don't hear her say this but if she did in the full version, then that to me indicates she has no understanding of the process at the committal. It was not the prosecution who were selective, it was the defence as the only witnesses cross examined were those selected by the defence. The prosecution really just introduced them, asked a few questions but the reason why they were on the stand was for the defence to cross examine.

As I said, if she did say this then perhaps she has been kept out the loop with the defence lawyers and/or can't grasp the committal process. Does anyone who saw her trying to communicate with her brother, get the impression that the defence were annoyed with her at all. I did get this impression from one comment from someone who was there but it may have just been one occasion, something to do with her pulling up a chair and sitting near the defence?

 

[marlywings]

Redlighthroughpaper is also a verified insider
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Professional Posters & Verified Locals/Insiders

Thanks Salem for the link:seeya:

I've updated the list which appears on first page of the general threads.

 

[alioop]

We have to remember that TM is not on trial. A few were saying yesterday how it seems that GBC may be instructing his legal team to lead the questioning to point the finger at TM and put a reasonable doubt on his own guilt.

For us to focus on what she has done wrong here could be exactly what GBC wants... playing right into his hands.

GBC would give anything to have the focus on someone else... it would be his dream come true. So I'm going to focus on his guilt and not be blaming anyone else right now. As I've said before, HE is the one on trial. HE is the one with the injuries on his body... he is the one who did wrong by his wife and kids, and seemingly alot of other people too.
Personally I think if anyone else is involved it's probably more after than before or during the murder. Whoever did help should also be brought to justice.

I agree Linette, we have seen no evidence that anyone other than GBC was involved before, during or after Allison was murdered. Becoming aware of the truth after the fact which may or may not be the case does not make that recipient of that knowledge an accessory.

 

[DunnoZo]

I am not sure how much a CPap machine (which it has been said that Gerard used) has been discussed but I have been thinking about this, since my husband uses one. Had Gerard used the CPap machine that fateful night and slept as he testified he very likely had a great alibi in his own home. I am sure that a c pap machine can have lots of information downloaded from it by a sleep solutions specialist. Things like when it was being used, when you went to the toilet. and other crucial information. Had the police had this tested that day they could have picked up important information. (Maybe they did or maybe they are not allowed to or maybe he said he didn't wear it???) My husband can't sleep without his. I don't know if this is usual for people who use them. Anyway I just thought I would see what others thought of this and if someone can confirm if this information is kept in the machine and for how long??
Sorry if I haven't done this correctly but this is my first try at posting.

Hello and :greetings: you came through loud and clear.

My OH uses a CPap too ( I feel your pain) and we have mentioned it before. It sounds like like GBC was sleeping in so many different places, he wouldn't have worn it regularly. I believe if he did wear it that night, it would be documented in the machine. I'm not sure who, if anyone slept in the bed or couch or where the machine actually is set up.



Moo

 

[Phantom's Diana]

Interesting GBC records show he texted ABC and NBC at 8.23 pm on 19th - which would indicate she wasn't home yet - maybe still picking up the kids then had to get home put children to bed have shower change into track suit and have 15 mins session with GBC and talk about plans for next day etc and he GBC had had his phone call earlier with TM when he was dropping tea off at NBC for the kids - why didn't he take kids home with him ?

 

[Liadan]

I have just watched the interview with OW outside the Kenmore house yesterday and it is an edited version. However the commentator says that OW claims the prosecution was selective in the evidence they presented, I presume she means at the committal. We don't hear her say this but if she did in the full version, then that to me indicates she has no understanding of the process at the committal. It was not the prosecution who were selective, it was the defence as the only witnesses cross examined were those selected by the defence. The prosecution really just introduced them, asked a few questions but the reason why they were on the stand was for the defence to cross examine.

As I said, if she did say this then perhaps she has been kept out the loop with the defence lawyers and/or can't grasp the committal process. Does anyone who saw her trying to communicate with her brother, get the impression that the defence were annoyed with her at all. I did get this impression from one comment from someone who was there but it may have just been one occasion, something to do with her pulling up a chair and sitting near the defence?

This is what I took her to mean as well. I did not realise that the defence selects the witnesses from the prosecutions list? Hmm - so the defence must also be allowed to supply their own witnesses as well (or can they elect not to have them at the committal)? Seems strange because you would want any witness that can support GBC present from the defence point of view so he gets off.

 

[Flinders]

I have just watched the interview with OW outside the Kenmore house yesterday and it is an edited version

.
<kindly snipped>

Sorry if this has been asked but is there a link for this?


I saw OW speaking outside the court with all the reporters recording her speak. If you see this again there is someone in the shot that rolls their eyes and shakes their head after the " innocent comment".

 

[alioop]

I have just posted the hairdressers statement in the bail hearing documents thread.

 

[LittleOwl]

Hi All, been here since the beginning and have finally decided to post. With regard to comments made by both Nigel and Olivia inferring that the 'truth will come out'. If they indeed know the truth why have they not said something to the police instead of allowing this process to unfold? Surely, if they knew what happened and could substantiate this they would tell someone instead of putting the whole family through this horrible experience? Not to mention avoiding the expense of his defense. I think it's more a case of it's easier for them to believe that there must be another explanation (not GBC killing Allison) and that they have 'faith' that the truth will come out. I find it hard to work out what they are thinking.

 

[alioop]

This is what I took her to mean as well. I did not realise that the defence selects the witnesses from the prosecutions list? Hmm - so the defence must also be allowed to supply their own witnesses as well (or can they elect not to have them at the committal)? Seems strange because you would want any witness that can support GBC present from the defence point of view so he gets off.

The defence does not present any evidence at a committal, they only can cross examine the prosecutions witnesses and have to ask first and get permission. If you remember one of the motions before the committal was about this and whether the witnesses to be cross examined have been agreed.
Committals are not supposed to be mini trials is the reason for the limitations in what happens at them.

 

[alioop]

.
<kindly snipped>

Sorry if this has been asked but is there a link for this?


I saw OW speaking outside the court with all the reporters recording her speak. If you see this again there is someone in the shot that rolls their eyes and nods their after the " innocent comment".

Flinders it was just on the previous page, thats where I saw the link. Post #63 by curiousasacat

 

[marlywings]

Hi All, been here since the beginning and have finally decided to post. With regard to comments made by both Nigel and Olivia inferring that the 'truth will come out'. If they indeed know the truth why have they not said something to the police instead of allowing this process to unfold? Surely, if they knew what happened and could substantiate this they would tell someone instead of putting the whole family through this horrible experience? Not to mention avoiding the expense of his defense. I think it's more a case of it's easier for them to believe that there must be another explanation (not GBC killing Allison) and that they have 'faith' that the truth will come out. I find it hard to work out what they are thinking.

Hi LittleOwl & welcome to Websleuths....nice to have you on board

 

[Trooper]

We have to remember that TM is not on trial. A few were saying yesterday how it seems that GBC may be instructing his legal team to lead the questioning to point the finger at TM and put a reasonable doubt on his own guilt.

For us to focus on what she has done wrong here could be exactly what GBC wants... playing right into his hands. ( edited by me)


luckily, that doesnt apply to me, as I am focusing on what Davis asked, and why....


Both Toni and Gerard agree there is a killer.. read her statements.. and obviously, she spoke with her ex husband, and he made a statement to the police that Toni theorised about the Rafting ground route the killer would take. . Toni says so in her statement.

How the QPS found out about Ms Hammond I dont know, but Phillip Broome, in his statement outlines the situation between Jacki Crane and Gerard, and how that evolved, and possibly why Toni went , unexpectedly to Phillip, to the Sydney conference.. So lots of people, one could reasonably assume knew about the other women , as well as Toni, in Gerards life as he actually discussed this with them.... he wasnt a bit shy about it.

Its just odd to me, that Gerard would be wanting Davis to ask why the police 'told Toni'.. which they didnt. they enquired if she was aware of other women.....

Every question Davis asks, at the committal... and in the future in court re BadenClay matter is crucial, significant and no waste of time trying to unravel.. in contrast to what he says outside the courtroom, re the progress of the matter.. that is irrelevant..

 

[Flinders]

no body on earth wanted Allisons body found more than Gerard BadenClay... everyone else on earth wanted a live Allison to stroll out of the scrub. <kindly snipped>

Allison's parent's wanted their daughter found. No pay off because they knew the "went for a walk" idea didn't wash.

Found and looking means doing media, vigil at the commend centre. Actions speak louder than words.

Rant over. Sorry Troop if I have disrupted the main conclusion of your post. :blushing: