Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #17

[willough]

Haha... yeah, I went back {tail between legs} and edited this post... can you believe that I'm so dumb as to actually READ it wrong? There's just no helping me from myself I'm afraid. lol

Dont worry....We all have our moments (and I wouldnt call you dumb...these photos arent easy to work out). Im finding it hard to gage things....lol

You are a beautiful chook to me.....giggles xx

 

[Happymedium]

Well, if this is true, someone should tell CrimeStoppers about this buried item. If people (geocachers) have been in the area looking for this device, it could help QPS determine a window of when the body first appeared at that spot. Also, the scene could be contaminated with other people's footprints, etc.

In previous threads...not sure who the poster was sorry...but there was mention of a white van parked with a man wearing gardening gloves??...quite possible that he was just there to look for the cache.

Police and SES would've come across the cache during their search of the area...and then left there since they are well aware of it's purpose.(QPS have their own Geo-coin...a medallion with a blue flashing light...lol)

From reading through the logs...the last cacher who was in that location was in Feb. Sometimes caches can lay dorment for months without anybody logging them as found.

 

[possumheart]

Happymedium you are amazing :takeabow: I am having technical probems

 

[drsleuth]

I know that my eyesight isn't what it use to be... but when I zoom in on this photo... the body actually looks more like someone is standing upright? As I said though, probably my crappy eyes.

Major edit: Ok... seems my eyesight really is that bad... all the time I've been looking at this picture I read that the police/ allison were actually the other way around. This is what I mean by the fact that my delete function won't work... now my dumb posts are out there forever, for the whole world to see. lol So, having said all of this, I totally suck in my 'above' comment. {pre-edit}

I can see someone also standing?? behind the red arrow, looks like yellow shirt??

But in the other pic ( posted by whitechapel ) all I can see is the image of a dog........

The pics are very hard to see & I'm sure we all see something different.

Thanks for the welcome Willough

 

[willough]

I see the person in the yellow too....Next to the arrow....He is one of the forensic people.


Regarding the "geocaching". Does a geocache hold information? What does it do> Let off a signal and people go looking for it?...What is it in aid of? Im confused.

 

[True]

IMO, they already know if the body was washed downstream or thrown off the bridge. If it was in the water, they probably know that too, as well as time it spent in the water. They are trained in these things. They haven't asked for people who canoed or walked around the bridge at certain times. So I think they know all that.

They are just interested in timeline of movement of cars at certain times.

MOO!

 

[willough]

Is it like a techno version of orienteering? (sorry if I sound dumb)

 

[possumheart]

I see the person in the yellow too....Next to the arrow....He is one of the forensic people.


Regarding the "geocaching". Does a geocache hold information? What does it do> Let off a signal and people go looking for it?...What is it in aid of? Im confused.

Every time I try to comment I get into a loop. It would be a form of treasure hunt trophy.

 

[linette]

.


Regarding the "geocaching". Does a geocache hold information? What does it do> Let off a signal and people go looking for it?...What is it in aid of? Im confused.

Yes, I was wondering about this too.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Hi Marlywings, I dont think you're correct. People mentioned this at the beginning too, about a section being blurred out where the body was - but if you look at the photo again you will see lots of blurry spots, they are more likely to be shadows due to foliage or flaws in the photo, weak pixels ot whatever. I dont think there's any specific 'blurring out'.

The body is diagonally to the right of the police officer, and you can see the legs are bent, which is what people were discussing in recent days.

The video I saw on the news- I think it may have been channel 7- but can't remember, the blurring I mentioned was quite clearly a body. There was no other blurring on the image, and it was like the blurring they do on a persons face to stop them being identified. Even with that though, I could quite clearly see it was a body. I remember because I was a bit upset seeing it and said 'do they really have to show that?'. I felt it was a little off. The Police officer in the image was standing down the bank from the body.

(Exuse the use of 'the body' its just the way I have to say it.It feels too awful to use Allisons name when talking about it in this circumstance.)

 

[willough]

Every time I try to comment I get into a loop. It would be a form of treasure hunt trophy.

Thanks poss....I thought as much from happymediums first post re the subject. Then when they noted that the QPS have these geocaches as well....I wondered why? I cant envisage the police needing to have this sort of stuff out there. I mean. this sounds more like games..Not somethign the QPS need be involved in.

 

[Hawkins]

Circumstantial evidence is not enough to convict someone. They could have found many other things (or even the smell of cadaver), but it is not enough to prove who killed her. QPS will not arrest somebody just on circumstantial evidence as it would not stick in Court.

I don't think that this is right CC. This link should establish that

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1963/44.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=plomp

Not sure if I am able to explain the upshot of that case without going through the vertification process on the forum, so best to just take a look at it. Interestingly enough, the case which finally settled that a person accused of a homicide can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone for the purpsoes of the criminal law in Qld, was the case of a wife murdered at Southport.

 

[bellgirl]

The one standing up is the policeman.....I may have your poblem though....I do wear glasses after all....lol I know what you mean though, it is so very hard to make out what, is what.

OK! It's just occured to me (sorry if I'm the last one) but if the Police Rep on the bank is having to point out the direction of ABC's body to the rescue/med/police team above, then it means that the body could not have been thrown over/slipped through the bridge - as they can not see it from above - the direction of her body needs to be pointed out to them. This means that it must have been placed or washed there ........ IMO.

 

[willough]

The video I saw on the news- I think it may have been channel 7- but can't remember, the blurring I mentioned was quite clearly a body. There was no other blurring on the image, and it was like the blurring they do on a persons face to stop the being identified. Even with that though, I could quite clearly see it was a body. I remember because I was a bit upset seeing it and said 'do they really have to show that?'. I felt it was a little off. The Police officer in the image was standinig down the bank from the body.

(Exuse the use of 'the body' its just the way I have to say it.It feels too awful to use Allisons name when talking about it in this circumstance.)

I remember that footage....and they were definitely blurring out in the same place, that the body is shown on Makara's photo.

This recent "other" photo, has significant blurring across a much wider distance along the water level. Seems to me, more like fogginess on the lens possibly.

 

[angel1]

For those wondering about geocaching there is alot of info on wikipedia

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocaching"]Geocaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[coolcat]

I know that my eyesight isn't what it use to be... but when I zoom in on this photo... the body actually looks more like someone is standing upright? As I said though, probably my crappy eyes.

Major edit: Ok... seems my eyesight really is that bad... all the time I've been looking at this picture I read that the police/ allison were actually the other way around. This is what I mean by the fact that my delete function won't work... now my dumb posts are out there forever, for the whole world to see. lol So, having said all of this, I totally suck in my 'above' comment. {pre-edit}

I know this is a bit controversial..But as i have mentioned previously..I still think her hands have been tied...IMO

It also looks like she is naked from waste down or perhaps a light coloured pants ?

Maybe the current has washed her pants away?

Such an undignified position to put the person you once loved in (if GBC did this)?

 

[bellgirl]

I am currently drinking margaritas here with some Brookfielders. That's how I roll.

Hoping that Hawkins 'rolls' our some great info after his big margarita night .........

 

[CaseClosed]

I don't think that this is right CC. This link should establish that

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1963/44.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=plomp

Not sure if I am able to explain the upshot of that case without going through the vertification process on the forum, so best to just take a look at it. Interestingly enough, the case which finally settled that a person accused of a homicide can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone for the purpsoes of the criminal law in Qld, was the case of a wife murdered at Southport.

Thanks! That was in 1963. Do you believe "beyond reasonable doubt" is treated the same way today? What I mean is, for example, the Gabe Watson case of his wife dying while diving, there seems to have been a lot of circumstantial evidence, opportunity and motive, but he was let go.

 

[Hawkins]

I talked to a fellow today who had a friend whose cousin said that the Hytch case had some useful common elements with this one. Robert Hytch was charged with manslaughter over the disappearance of Rachael Antonio in Bowen.

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2000/QCA00-315.pdf

No body was ever found so the case was circumstantial only, until a suspicious bood stain was found on a sandal Hytch was wearing on the day she disappeared. This, and the circumstantial evidence was enough to charge him with manslaughter, but there wasn't enough evidence of intention for a murder charge. He was convicted. He then appealed and it turned out the DNA evidence wasn't handled properly. Pause for thought if anyone wants this current case rushed. His conviction was overturned on appeal and he then went on to work in the mines earning a pretty good living if this friend's cousin is to be believed. Funnily enough the coppers never looked for any other suspect as they were convinced that he was the killer.

Hytch's mother, according to my friend's cousin was charged with perjury as a result of deliberately false evidence she gave at his original trial to try and provide a partial alibi. It's gotta be tempting for a parent to lie to cover for the alleged crimes of their child.

Anyway this friend's cousin also suggested that it's worth thinking about some of this issues in relation to this current case. Where you've got multiple potential accused people, you need to think carefully about who to charge with what and why. If you charge say two people with murder and try them together then none of them are liklely to take the stand. But if you just charge one of the them with the murder then you can subpoena the other person and compel them to give evidence at the trial of the main offender. Then if this other person lies, you can charge them with perjury, even if the main offender is acquitted. Anyway, just IMO from this scuttlebut I heard.

 

[possumheart]

Hoping that Hawkins 'rolls' our some great info after his big margarita night .........

I think he is plomped