ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #22

[QldGirl]

perhaps, its because as was said in media report I just read. That it was to be a non invasive DNA retrieval method. the articles states..It is a 'non-intimate' order that means police cannot invade body cavities to retrieve the sample.

That is likely why it was hair and not a mouth swab. IMO

He could take the swab himself, so there is no need for police to 'invade' his body cavities. So he's either refused, or they need the hair for other tests.:moo:

 

[minni]

well Im off for a bit to watch my kids play FOOZBALL :seeya::seeya:

 

[ellou]

My understanding of interfering with a corpse is that you cannot commit indecent or sexual acts on a corpse, or remove body parts.

Here it is:

I have spent the best part of the day researching this ,I came up with the same .
He has either had sex with her,once dead or has removed a part of her body.
I remembering read some where back ,her hand was missing.
Can anyone else recall that?

 

[Limaes]

Kimster posted a link few pages back, to an interview recording in the ABC, where it is stated that the Charge Sheet states the second charge is in relation to moving the body to the Kohlo Creek. The murder charge is in relation to him allegedly killing her at their home

Yeah I listened to that one but other media articles are saying;

"According to the charge sheet, it is alleged the murder of Allison Baden-Clay occurred at her home in Brookfield and the alleged interference of the corpse occurred at Kholo Creek in Anstead."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lison-baden-clay/story-e6freon6-1226394951146

and...

"He is further charged with improperly interfering with her dead body at Kholo Creek, where she was eventually found 10 days after being reported missing."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ifes-murder-20120613-20atq.html#ixzz1xoUBkWYD

Its hard to know what to believe is correct :waitasec:

 

[CaseClosed]

well Im off for a bit to watch my kids play FOOZBALL :seeya::seeya:

Don't worry ... he is not going anywhere until at least next Thursday :floorlaugh:

 

[Greg]

I think so too....I have thought this for a long time and have had my head bitten off a few times, when I have mentioned my feelings about her during that interview. When one reads up on body languages and facial expression meanings etc..............she displayed classic symptoms of being what my mom refers to her as (imagine old woman with french accent saying) "typical bulls**t artiste". She thought that about Gerard too.

very smart lady your mum!!! ;P

 

[CaseClosed]

Yeah I listened to that one but other media articles are saying;



and...



Its hard to know what to believe is correct :waitasec:

Interfering with a body doesn't only mean a sexual act or dismembering. It also means moving only or even just touching something.

 

[Watsonian Institute]

maybe if you capitalise all your letters and put them in bold..it will get your message out faster!!! or repost (I am guilty of not reading it properly too )

*chuckle*

Can't do that minni - I'm only just tolerated as it is!
:boohoo:

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

perhaps, its because as was said in media report I just read. That it was to be a non invasive DNA retrieval method. the articles states..It is a 'non-intimate' order that means police cannot invade body cavities to retrieve the sample.

That is likely why it was hair and not a mouth swab. IMO

He could take the swab himself, so there is no need for police to 'invade' his body cavities. So he's either refused, or they need the hair for other tests.:moo:

No. he did not refuse. He did consent. And I said IMO thats why they took hair and not a mouth swab(because of non intimate method ordered). It was reported in what I linked to that it be a non intimate method. Mouth is a body cavity, regardless of if he took it or not. I am not saying this is why for fact. But I believe it is likely.

 

[Limaes]

Interfering with a body doesn't only mean a sexual act or dismembering. It also means moving only or even just touching something.

Yeah I know...but which one applies here I don't know :waitasec:

 

[Cheekymonkey]

This may have already discussed.....If so, I apologise (though I dont have time to hang around and read at the minute, must pick up kidlings).

Sky News "News Day" @ 3pm, indicated that he is charged for the murder that took place at the Baden'Clay's. He is also charged for the Unlawful interfering with a corpse at Kholo Creek. The reported sounded very specific, that the corpse was interfered with by GBC at Kholo Creek.................................What a ratbag!!!

I keep thinking about this also and previous posts about disturbing details that will come out in trial. Could it be that the 'event' took place at the house and maybe she wasn't dead? He then left her to die at the creek or somewhere else and then went back and moved her etc, hence interference?

 

[Curiousasacat]

Just interested to see what others think.
Have another look at this bridge photo.
There is only a small part of the bridge taped off.
(Sorry to say I just realized that they look to be bringing her up)
If indeed she was thrown over the bridge perhaps it was where the taped area is
on the righthand corner?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gallery-e6frer9f-1226336989408?page=25

 

[Bayside]

I have spent the best part of the day researching this ,I came up with the same .
He has either had sex with her,once dead or has removed a part of her body.
I remembering read some where back ,her hand was missing.
Can anyone else recall that?

Oh God lets not start with the rumors of him having sex with her handless body. It just means he moved her body after he killed her, obviously she didnt get up and walk the Kholo Creek after... geez. IMO

 

[ActusReus]

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/LEGA...NGSWITHPOLICE/Pages/Watch-houseprocedure.aspx

The application to gain a sample of GBC's beard for DNA had me scratching my head as QPS already have the power to obtain DNA as part of the Watchouse procedure when an accused is being charged (see link).

Initially I dismissed it as perhaps QLD having different arrest procedures but after some research it appears that QLD is the same as every other state.

So the question is, why do QPS require hair from GBC's beard if they already have his DNA from a swab from when he was charged?

 

[Berry]

We haven't seen the actual document and how it is worded. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions yet. IMO.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lison-baden-clay/story-e6freon6-1226394951146

"According to the charge sheet, it is alleged the murder of Allison Baden-Clay occurred at her home in Brookfield and the alleged interference of the corpse occurred at Kholo Creek in Anstead."

 

[Aunty]

No and this seems very odd to me!

I didn't find Aussie law on this, but found this from NZ:

The Police can take a DNA sample in certain situations. They do this by taking a buccal test (done by swabbing the
inside of the mouth) or a blood test (usually done by a fingerprick) .
http://www.communitylawtaranaki.org/downloads/Criminal/DNA and the Police.pdf

I have a feeling they want to compare his facial hair for some reason. I really do.

Imo, It is quite possible that ABC did have " beard stubble and roots " under finger nails.

 

[Berry]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lison-baden-clay/story-e6freon6-1226394951146

Open 2nd Video Gerard Baden-Clay Charged: WHAT NEXT

Lunch Break Video with Alison Sandy

 

[kiwi50]

GBC's infamy has officially reached NZ now. Newstalk Zb were talking to their Australian correspondent, and the first thing he talked about was Lord Baden Powell's great gradnson being charged with murdering his wife.

OT But they have just advertised a movie on TV here tonight, called "Last Boy Scout" life is full of little ironies.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/LEGA...NGSWITHPOLICE/Pages/Watch-houseprocedure.aspx

The application to gain a sample of GBC's beard for DNA had me scratching my head as QPS already have the power to obtain DNA as part of the Watchouse procedure when an accused is being charged (see link).

Initially I dismissed it as perhaps QLD having different arrest procedures but after some research it appears that QLD is the same as every other state.

So the question is, why do QPS require hair from GBC's beard if they already have his DNA from a swab from when he was charged?

I don't believe he had yet given them a DNA sample. They were going to apply to have it ordered and the judge would have granted. But he has consented(best under circumstances I think).. Possibly they anticipated non co-operation, why they were preparing for it to be ordered. MOO

 

[CaseClosed]

Yeah I know...but which one applies here I don't know :waitasec:

According to that ABC news link, the Charge Sheet says it is about moving the body to Kohlo Creek, not about anything else.