The frustration that rises on this forum sometimes is because of lack of factual information. The only sources we have are media and some local hearsay. The police, however, have hundreds of witness statements, hundreds of records of interview, forensics on cars and houses, perhaps even forensics on creekside bushes, a body, phone records, financial records, computers, shredded paper, probably the victims mobile phone, CCTV, fingerprints, photographs, records of surveillance. 20 detectives have worked for four weeks.
I reread Thread #1 and saw GBC was a person of interest and then wasn't and saw other changes in the stance of publicly available information.
I read
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLJ/2000/1.html and I'm not a lawyer but I understand that there will be another attempt at THE QUEEN v. GLENNON [1992] HCA 16; (1992) 173 CLR 592 where lawyers might try to argue that a fair trial is not possible if inadmissable evidence is published in the media prior to trial portraying someone as guilty.
With the weight of lawyers already involved in this case the police will be ultra-cautious about trial by media before an arrest and so the release of 'facts' implicating someone is almost non-existent.
But if you want to get justice for Allison then you probably have to go with the flow and let the police and the prosecutors put a watertight admissable case together. If we can't make up our mind about who is guilty and who is not then the police are doing their job well and ensuring a trial will be succesful.
In the meantime we can pass the time speculating that the Triad moneylending gay-lover bikie did it.