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

[CaseClosed]

I posted this late last night and I am worried readers may have skipped it whilst catching up today.
I know it's long , but please read it as (it took me ages to type) lease:
I have such a strong sense that Allison was driving her car that night.
Also, the police observations in the morning at the house - they would have spoken to the husband, :detective: who is covered in scratches, hands shaking, avoiding eye contact. Blood still oozing maybe. :what:
Gbc would have known that they saw this. :what:That's why he didn't, want to be interviewed at Indro, because he knew allowed be asked specifically about those scratches. He needed to avoid that interview and have a bloody good reason why he couldn't go. ( hmmmm... Doctors letter? anic: forgot to go anic: slept in? soooo on the way it came to him... Accident kay:
Solicitor WAS following him to police station that day, so he also had a witness to ring police to say " he's a little bit hurt but he's ok" just some minor injuries cuts and brushing scratches , from the airbag of course. :violin:
Narcissists are very very clever at finding one solution to many problems. Scratches, avoiding interview, witness, Killing 4 birds with one stone , at Indro that day.

How do you know the solicitor was following him to the Indro police station? I have not read that in any MSM. Do you have a link please?

 

[True]

CaseClosed, it doesn't look to me like it gets up much higher than that on a reg basis. The ground there doesn't look like a muddy bank. It has grass and ground cover and doesn't look washed about.

 

[linette]

Thanks, hadn't seen that.

What on earth do these women see in him? Lol

haha, maybe a temporary lapse in judgment?

 

[mum73]

Thanks, hadn't seen that.

What on earth do these women see in him? Lol

Well I know it wasn't his dance moves from the footage at the C21 Gold Coast conference...

 

[LauraMars]

The whole phone thing has always really got to me.

If GBC killed Allison, and was trying to make it look like she'd gone for a walk and had been abducted by some random, then you'd think he might have placed the phone somewhere along her regular walking trail (that's assuming that many people might take their phone with them while out walking, particularly if a night walk).

If she didn't normally take her phone when walking, then you'd think it would have just been found in the house, not hidden.

Now if the phone was hidden in their property, or the neighbours, as later stated was probably the case, to me it really implicates him even more, or someone else she knew well, as if a stranger abducted her from home, they wouldn't need to take or hide her phone surely?

"As the Kholo Creek crews worked, fresh search teams were sent to scour the gardens of the Baden-Clays' two nearest neighbours looking for Allison's mobile phone.

It is understood search crews were told the iPhone would be found in an area believed to be near the two neighbours and the Baden-Clay property itself."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/horrific-end-hope-turns-to-heartbreak-as-search-for-killer-begins/story-e6frg6oo-1226343136055

I wonder if someone was hiding the phone near the house, and that could be why the neighbour's dog Scrap went nuts barking/running down the back of their property, on the night Allison was last seen?

For some strange reason, I always had a weird feeling about the phone being hidden in a tree. Someone else on here suggested that too, many threads ago. Seems a weird place to hide a phone, apart from maybe making it slightly harder to find on a standard 'ground' search.

If you people were going to hide a phone, where would you do it? The obvious would seem to be throwing it in a river/creek, or maybe down a drain, but not one too close to the house, so I don't know why I always felt it had something to do with a tree?

All IMO

 

[mountainhigh]

No it doesn't, it says she was an associate in the link I provided. Can you provide the link that says they met at a conference please?

therein lies the problem with 'sleuthing by media' I'm afraid!
all news channels said 'whom he met at a conference' courier mail call her an associate.
lets assume 'she is an associate whom GBC met at a conference'
thats probably a safe bet...
associate probably being a nice word for a 'casual fling'

 

[Cardio381]

That's not a huge area for dogs to search, and presumably they could have just kept going over it until they found something. So, why could they not find anything? Are there some things dogs just can't find, or might there be other explanations?[/QUOTE]

It is pretty well documented in trials experiments etc that although dogs have a keen and remarkable sense of smell ie: cadavers, phones, etc hidden and buried or under water.
They are not always reliable to find something that is there due to depth, lack of scent due to time and weather or presence of too many other smells confusing their tracking of one scent.
My dogs can find their ball and are well trained to find and dig out other things like mice etc but they have to want to and be focused, they will sniff out whatever is in your pocket or chocolate wrapped up but even for the most experienced tracker and or detection / search dogs there are hinderances to their abilities. Check out any one of the plethora of dog sites and you will get a picture of how varied the results and opinions on this matter are.

 

[squizzey1]

thanks to those who posted link for me about the other women he met at a conference. got that from google news alert. i am sure they are talking about ANOTHER women

 

[Fuskier]

I posted this late last night and I am worried readers may have skipped it whilst catching up today.
I know it's long , but please read it as (it took me ages to type) lease:
I have such a strong sense that Allison was driving her car that night.
Also, the police observations in the morning at the house - they would have spoken to the husband, :detective: who is covered in scratches, hands shaking, avoiding eye contact. Blood still oozing maybe. :what:
Gbc would have known that they saw this. :what:That's why he didn't, want to be interviewed at Indro, because he knew allowed be asked specifically about those scratches. He needed to avoid that interview and have a bloody good reason why he couldn't go. ( hmmmm... Doctors letter? anic: forgot to go anic: slept in? soooo on the way it came to him... Accident kay:
Solicitor WAS following him to police station that day, so he also had a witness to ring police to say " he's a little bit hurt but he's ok" just some minor injuries cuts and brushing scratches , from the airbag of course. :violin:
Narcissists are very very clever at finding one solution to many problems. Scratches, avoiding interview, witness, Killing 4 birds with one stone , at Indro that day.

AUNTY: Thanks for your contribution. A substantial post. Your opinions are as good as any other on this thread.

 

[Hawkins]

A warrant for a person's arrest is a written authority from a magistrate or judge. A person arrested on a warrant is taken into custody and must be brought before a court. The police can arrest someone without a warrant and the majority of arrests are made without a warrant. The police can arrest someone without a warrant who (amongst other reasons):
-- is caught committing an offence [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 75]
-- is reasonably suspected of committing an offence or is about to be commit an offence [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 75]

What is a reasonable suspicion?

<<Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'&#8201;"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".>> (wiki)

The arrest of a person to be charged with homicide will be done pursuant to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Justices Act. The legislation you cite there G just applies to summary offences, which are the less serious offences, usually dealt with in the Magistrates Court and without a jury. Reasonable suspicion is more a phenomenon that comes into play when police need authority to act quickly to stop suspects and witnesses leaving the scene of an offence. They can arrest a person just for questioning if there is a reasonable suspicion. But of course that might be of no use if they decline to be interviewed after being arrested. It doesn't really impact on a case like this. But it's awesome that people are taking a deeper interest in the criminal law and actually reading the law themselves, it's supposed to be there for our benefit after all. IMO MOO. Police also don't need to arrest a person to charge them. An arrest is simply an understanding held by the person being arrested that they are not free to go until police release them. It's not a particularly dramatic event in most matters. In a case like this the point of an arrest would be to have a person(s) charged as quickly as possible at a police station and then brought before a court so that the issue of bail can be detertmined. That wont happen in a magistrates court if the charge is murder. The charged person(s) then could be looking at a year or so in a remand centre (prison) before going to trial. IMO. MOO.

On an unrelated note, I'm interested in reading again the post of someone who logged on to claim that Mrs Baden Clay was struck by a car. Does anyone remember the username that was used for that post?

 

[squizzey1]

good one mountainhigh bet there were more than one fling

 

[DunnoZo]

LauraMars, that phone thing still bothers me as well. someone 's replied that maybe they've found it, but once again, the reporting on triangulation somewhere within 3 suburbs, 150m,etc. is still strange to me. I'd love to know exactly who said it would be found 150 m. from her house...

 

[CaseClosed]

The arrest of a person to be charged with homicide will be done pursuant to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Justices Act. The legislation you cite there G just applies to summary offences, which are the less serious offences, usually dealt with in the Magistrates Court and without a jury. Reasonable suspicion is more a phenomenon that come into play when police need authority to act quickly to stop suspects and witnesses leaving the scene of an offence. They can arrest a person just for questioning if there is a reasonable suspicion. But of course that might be of no use if they decline to be interviewed after being arrested. It doesn't really impact on a case like this. IMO MOO. Police also don't need to arrest a person to charge them. An arrest is simply an understanding held by the person being arrested that they are not free to go until police release them. It's not a particularly dramatic event in most matters. In a case like this the point of an arrest would be to have a person(s) charged as quickly as possible at a police station and then brought before a court so that the issue of bail can be detertmined. That wont happen in a magistrates court if the charge is murder. The charged person(s) then could be looking at a year or so in a remand centre (prison) before going to trial. IMO. MOO.

On an unrelated note, I'm interested in reading again the post of someone who logged on to claim that Mrs Baden Clay was struck by a car. Does anyone remember the username that was used for that post?

Thanks! - I believe it was someone with a tag name like a number "456" or similar?

 

[Fuskier]

The whole phone thing has always really got to me.

...I wonder if someone was hiding the phone near the house, and that could be why the neighbour's dog Scrap went nuts barking/running down the back of their property, on the night Allison was last seen? All IMO

We do not know the approximate time that Scraps bolted down the back yard barking incessantly do we? There was a request for that information, but I don't know if it has been given yet? Does anybody else know?

 

[Amee]

Hawkins. 543 was talking about a hit and run I think IMO

 

[True]

Then again, in the background of that photo, you can see a tyre. My first impression was it was washed up and landed there. That's pretty high up.

Then I thought, the workers who were clearing the bank for divers, as stated in this link, may have moved it up there, or someone who changed a tyre might have thrown it over the bridge.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/.../story-e6freoof-1226372823158?from=public_rss

 

[Humdinger]

The arrest of a person to be charged with homicide will be done pursuant to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Justices Act. The legislation you cite there G just applies to summary offences, which are the less serious offences, usually dealt with in the Magistrates Court and without a jury. Reasonable suspicion is more a phenomenon that comes into play when police need authority to act quickly to stop suspects and witnesses leaving the scene of an offence. They can arrest a person just for questioning if there is a reasonable suspicion. But of course that might be of no use if they decline to be interviewed after being arrested. It doesn't really impact on a case like this. But it's awesome that people are taking a deeper interest in the criminal law and actually reading the law themselves, it's supposed to be there for our benefit after all. IMO MOO. Police also don't need to arrest a person to charge them. An arrest is simply an understanding held by the person being arrested that they are not free to go until police release them. It's not a particularly dramatic event in most matters. In a case like this the point of an arrest would be to have a person(s) charged as quickly as possible at a police station and then brought before a court so that the issue of bail can be detertmined. That wont happen in a magistrates court if the charge is murder. The charged person(s) then could be looking at a year or so in a remand centre (prison) before going to trial. IMO. MOO.

On an unrelated note, I'm interested in reading again the post of someone who logged on to claim that Mrs Baden Clay was struck by a car. Does anyone remember the username that was used for that post?

543 had a 'hit by a car' theory. There was also another more recent one I think...

 

[Curiousasacat]

thanks to those who posted link for me about the other women he met at a conference. got that from google news alert. i am sure they are talking about ANOTHER women

A third one???

 

[CaseClosed]

CaseClosed, it doesn't look to me like it gets up much higher than that on a reg basis. The ground there doesn't look like a muddy bank. It has grass and ground cover and doesn't look washed about.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean? In the first picture (the one by Makara, which was a stillshot from a news footage taken from a helicopter), the policeman and the body are in a brown-muddy looking area located to the left of the last pylon of the bridge (and the water is low tide). In this new picture, taken from the opposite side, the last pylon is near the water (high tide) and the area where the body was found is to the right of that pylon (which is not visible because is under water).

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

It was stated that he met her at a conference; but the previous woman interviewed worked at his office.

IMO the information on this interview was only released (days after it happened) to "stir the pot".

You are right, the NSW woman police interviewed was different woman to TM, GBCs' collegue up here.
The woman in NSW(we have no name), met GBC at a gold coast conference. She is a different woman to the woman (TM) interviewed 3 times already.( And I feel if it was the same woman(TM) it would state she was interviewed again.)