Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 #18

[CaseClosed]

I think so too CaseClosed....especially with, what seems, a knack for "problem solving"...& I'd bet she had absolutely no idea about the "other woman in Sydney".

May 10, 2012

It is understood a former colleague of Mr Baden-Clay's also hired a lawyer after being interviewed by police three times. The woman, a fellow real estate agent, worked closely with Mr Baden-Clay at his Century 21 office and the pair were listed as the joint selling agents on various properties.
The woman's professional profile said she "wouldn't have worked for just anyone" and that she brought to the business "empathy, understanding, a talent for solving problems and above all, a true love of property".

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...lison-baden-clay/story-e6frfkvr-1226351442743

Agree. She must be pretty angry ... enough to sing! IMO.

 

[ActusReus]

...iPads have cut and past ... hold your finger over a word for a few seconds (or over a highlighted sentence) ... hope this helps!

I feel like such a numpty.....:banghead:

 

[mouse detective]

None of the images have been doctored! They have been enlarged and sharpened in Photoshop. The first image in my last post was a screencap from the video taken from the Channel 7 helicopter. The second image with the arrows is a screencap taken from a video from the Channel 10 helicopter. The third image are the same two images mentioned above with the first image reduced in size and layered over the one with the arrows.

I have no reason to doctor images. Why do you think they were doctored?

Sorry Makara -I wasn't inferring anything added to the image - I just see some unnatural effects coming through in places. I realise now that what I can see is the photoshop sharpening effect. This is excellent sleuthing - well done on the capture!

 

[CaseClosed]

Someone asked earlier if we would prefer to have someone granted immunity for the sake of convicting the actual murderer? I most definitely would prefer to have the right person convicted that none at all, even if the "accessory" gets away with what they did. IMO.

 

[Rational]

Thanks. There's several, and I was just wondering what they would be measuring like that from that particular location.

I think it is a laser beam problably from a measuring device used by forensics to measure distances from body to other marks or whatever. Also useful for golf to measure distance to the pin.

 

[CaseClosed]

I'm sorry, I know for me to say this will upset some, but I don't think there have been any photos published that show the body. It would be highly offensive to Allison friends and family to do so, and I can't recall any situation where the Australian media has done so in the past (not without the body being concealed at least).

Imagine if her daughters saw it...

News footages show covered (sheet) bodies all the time. In this case, the still produced by Makara from the news helicopter footage is showing the body uncovered because it was taken quickly from the helicopter, before police had the chance to cover the body and remove it.

 

[CaseClosed]

I think it is a laser beam problably from a measuring device used by forensics to measure distances from body to other marks or whatever. Also useful for golf to measure distance to the pin.

.. and used regularly in construction.

 

[Rational]

Wow, very interesting!! My guess, if this is true, is that the person considered for immunity is not a family member. I am thinking more of a woman (TM)?

I have just been thinking more about the whole Paul Tully claim. If they indeed have someone that they are considering as an accessory either before or after the fact than surely they should have been arrested and not still be running around enjoying themselves, something just doesnt ring true. I don't know enough about it but it seems to me wrong that if someone has been identified as having been involved, the QPS are clear about their role,than they would know who the perp is and hence arrests should be made. The deals about what the charges are or possibly immunity should take place later. All IMO
Of course, it could be that a lawyer is doing the negotiations on behalf of a client without divulging info. But would that not also make them culpable?
Sorry more questions than answers.

 

[CaseClosed]

OK. So, which photos show the body in the location where it was found. This is no longer clear.

I am convinced the body's location is where it is shown in Makara's first still taken from news footage (the photo with both blue and red arrow). The body is where the red arrow is shown. Also, I believe the body was placed there, not washed down.

 

[mum73]

News footages show covered (sheet) bodies all the time. In this case, the still produced by Makara from the news helicopter footage is showing the body uncovered because it was taken quickly from the helicopter, before police had the chance to cover the body and remove it.

Thanks CC, I agree I have often see concealed bodies in the Australian media, but nothing like this. From what I see in Makaras' pictures, the areas highlighted show rocks/logs in one and a police officer in the other. Perhaps I am mistaken, and I'm really not trying to discredit her work in capturing these stills (she did very well in overlaying the 2 images etc). But that's what I see.

 

[mum73]

I think it is a laser beam problably from a measuring device used by forensics to measure distances from body to other marks or whatever. Also useful for golf to measure distance to the pin.

They certainly appear to measuring something. I'm wondering if it could be the "wash" around the pylon to indicate how the body would have moved around the pylon when the rain hit. But I have no idea, just guessing.

 

[CaseClosed]

I have just been thinking more about the whole Paul Tully claim. If they indeed have someone that they are considering as an accessory either before or after the fact than surely they should have been arrested and not still be running around enjoying themselves, something just doesnt ring true. I don't know enough about it but it seems to me wrong that if someone has been identified as having been involved, the QPS are clear about their role,than they would know who the perp is and hence arrests should be made. The deals about what the charges are or possibly immunity should take place later. All IMO
Of course, it could be that a lawyer is doing the negotiations on behalf of a client without divulging info. But would that not also make them culpable?
Sorry more questions than answers.

I have followed a lot of real cases through US Court TV and it is not uncommon for police to have a clear suspect but not quite all the irrefutable evidence they need before arresting someone. I many cases, it just takes one person who knows something about what happened, to complete the puzzle (even years later). Contrary to what most people believe, police do not arrest someone unless they know they have a pretty good chance to convict. There is no point in arresting if they will get away with it in the end. I have no doubt that many people are "in the know" (like perhaps Paul Tully). There are so many people involved in any case, and we are all human, that it would be impossible to expect everybody would keep all aspects of the investigation totally confidential.

 

[CaseClosed]

Just as a general comment: Watching something on tv, a detective in charge of a case said: "No perpetrator ever takes a body to a location they don't know". Food for thought.

 

[linette]

I have just been thinking more about the whole Paul Tully claim. If they indeed have someone that they are considering as an accessory either before or after the fact than surely they should have been arrested and not still be running around enjoying themselves, something just doesnt ring true. I don't know enough about it but it seems to me wrong that if someone has been identified as having been involved, the QPS are clear about their role,than they would know who the perp is and hence arrests should be made. The deals about what the charges are or possibly immunity should take place later. All IMO
Of course, it could be that a lawyer is doing the negotiations on behalf of a client without divulging info. But would that not also make them culpable?
Sorry more questions than answers.

Sometimes things just aren't that clear though, are they? I would think if they know someone is an accessory they still couldn't arrest them til they had enough real evidence. If though they think they can wear this accessory down and spill the beans, well, then maybe they would try a different tactic? I don't know, over here do they do that whole thing wher they get the accessory to trick the killer into saying something on tape? {Similar to how they wear wires on the TV shows.... yeah you can tell I watch alot of those shows.}
I was hoping that the police already had a watertight case, and it was just a matter of tying up loose ends... I'm not sure now. Maybe they don't have enough?
... or this could all be a part of the plan?

 

[LauraMars]

Just as a general comment: Watching something on tv, a detective in charge of a case said: "No perpetrator ever takes a body to a location they don't know". Food for thought.

Snap! I just heard that clip on TV in the background CaseClosed. It was creepy how similar it sounded, even the 11 days later that the body was found in the bush, and police thought the victim Belinda was killed at home (and strangled).

 

[CaseClosed]

Sometimes things just aren't that clear though, are they? I would think if they know someone is an accessory they still couldn't arrest them til they had enough real evidence. If though they think they can wear this accessory down and spill the beans, well, then maybe they would try a different tactic? I don't know, over here do they do that whole thing wher they get the accessory to trick the killer into saying something on tape? {Similar to how they wear wires on the TV shows.... yeah you can tell I watch alot of those shows.}
I was hoping that the police already had a watertight case, and it was just a matter of tying up loose ends... I'm not sure now. Maybe they don't have enough?
... or this could all be a part of the plan?

I think they most definitely have a plan. IMO the release of the information about the NSW woman being interviewed was not random ... it had a purpose. Also, the person who might know something very incriminating, may have, through their lawyer, said something like: "I can give you a lot more information that would seal this for you, but what's in it for me?" IMO.

 

[marlywings]

I am convinced the body's location is where it is shown in Makara's first still taken from news footage (the photo with both blue and red arrow). The body is where the red arrow is shown. Also, I believe the body was placed there, not washed down.

Yes the first still...the news footage from which Makara took the screen shots...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyxdCkk2mqY&feature=related"]Body found - YouTube[/ame]

 

[linette]

Just as a general comment: Watching something on tv, a detective in charge of a case said: "No perpetrator ever takes a body to a location they don't know". Food for thought.

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess, looking back on other cases, that's true. You would want to know the surroundings of an area before you left someone there. Will they be found easilly? Will the conditions here hinder police in getting forensic evidence etc. Makes sense to me.

Most cases I've seen they can trace the resting place of the victim back to somewhere the killer knew of.

Isn't it funny how, even though killers think they're being really clever and covering their tracks, there's always those things that remain the same? I suppose that's why profilers are so handy.

 

[CaseClosed]

Snap! I just heard that clip on TV in the background CaseClosed. It was creepy how similar it sounded, even the 11 days later that the body was found in the bush, and police thought the victim Belinda was killed at home (and strangled).

Exactly!

 

[CaseClosed]

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess, looking back on other cases, that's true. You would want to know the surroundings of an area before you left someone there. Will they be found easilly? Will the conditions here hinder police in getting forensic evidence etc. Makes sense to me.

Most cases I've seen they can trace the resting place of the victim back to somewhere the killer knew of.

Isn't it funny how, even though killers think they're being really clever and covering their tracks, there's always those things that remain the same? I suppose that's why profilers are so handy.

Yes, and profilers normally get it right too!