This forum is the first upon which I've ever posted a comment. There is something so compelling about this case - as we're all aware - that drove me to do enough google searches in looking for answers, that I finally came upon Websleuths.
It took some deliberation before I began to join in. Mind you, from what I've observed, doing so is a little like nervously waving a white flag with a message on it, from behind a protective wall amid a shoot-out at the OK-Corral (sp?), with every chance it'll be hit by a bullet, lol.
I had already been told by two independent people that a police officer involved in the investigation had revealed that GBC's torso was covered in scratches, which prompted the mobilisation of a large search party. People have suggested, quite understandably, that a police officer is not permitted to do that, and would never do that. I'm aware - as are the two people who told me this information - that what they were told, they were not meant to hear. Police officers are fallible like the rest of us. These two people who each heard the same thing from a police officer are old friends of mine, unknown to each other, both busy professionals, both with better things to do than gossip and each not given to sensationalism ... which is why I believe them. This information is, however, by definition hearsay. I'm still unclear as to whether information we hear from what we consider to be a reliable source, is permitted to be referred to in this forum. I think the purpose of this forum is to share ideas/information/theories in the hope that we may draw a little closer to the truth. If I'm overstepping the boundaries, please let me know.
On that note, I heard something further this afternoon. (Keep in mind that the old saying "Six degrees of separation" can reasonably be reduced to three degrees when it comes to this town.):
Someone wrote, some pages back, that hairdressers are great for gossip, which gave me ironic pause. Early this evening I was chatting to a hairdresser who runs a salon in the cbd. She brought up the ABC case (truly, everyone is mesmerised by it). She told me that a friend of hers works in a doctors practice and that GBC had come into the practice the day before Allison was reported missing, ie. Wednesday, and that he had scratches on his face. This would indicate that if he had other scratches on his body at all, maybe they were sustained at the same time - Wednesday or before. She said that her friend doesn't want to mention this to police for fear of god knows what. I told her she should really urge the woman to do so.
If this is true, then surely GBC, to back himself, would have told the officers the same thing - "I had these/got these yesterday/ day before". If he was asked to prove it, wouldn't he have pointed to people who would have seen him with them? Such as his doctor?
Have been wondering whether to call Crimestoppers myself with this info but it seems a little lame and obvious ... surely they would already have this, having searched medical records? I forgot to ask (foolishly) which doctors practice it was that he attended.
Thoughts?