Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #2

[itsthevibe]

Keyboredom - Thanks for the list of facts etc, very helpful. When this headache goes away I'll have a better look at it and see if there is anything else needing to be added.

But for now I do have a couple of comments about these points -

- Allison was found wearing the clothes (or something like the clothes) someone described she would be wearing - most likely GBC. He could have assumed this by guessing she was wearing her usual walking outfit or by clothes missing from her room/wardrobe-

I dont know too many husbands that could look in a womans cupboards and wardrobe and work out what was missing. I dont agree with your implication here. I believe this is a difficult point - if Allison always wears the same thing when out walking, and she really did go out walking (which we are not sure even happened), then he may, and then it's only a may, have known what she had on. But if she had a range of different things she wore he wouldnt have known because from his story he did not see her leave the house. Aren't we still working on the premise that he has said he saw her at night watching TV, and she was gone in the morning when he woke up, he assumed she was on her regular walk and then he raised the alrm when she was 1/2 late in returning?

I think on the clothing point it should be - "there is a question mark over how GBC knew what she was wearing."

- screams happened 2.5-4 km away from Allison's home on the night she disappeared, most likely put down to noisy teens (and this is quite likely given the behaviour of teens in our area)

You are the main person concluding the screams were put down to noisy teens. It's just your opinion on this point. To be more factual on this one I would just say - "A couple of screams and a sound like a scream being muffled by a hand going over a mouth were reported, 2.5-4 km away from Allison's home on the night she disappeared." (this was what was reported). You could add "there was a party in the area with noisy teens but nothing official has been announced to connect the screams to the party."

Regarding the clothing, my issue with this is that there is really no evidence that Allison ever went for a walk at all. I think GBC has slipped up - if he had thought out his story more he would have said he didnt know what she had on because he didnt see her leave the house. He may have said to the police :"this is what she usually wore" I suppose.

Regarding the screams i felt they could be significant because they were heard in the hot zone close to where the mobile phone was triangulated to before the battery ran out. They might have come from the party but i dont think its the only consideration.

Did you mention the mobile phone and the location on your list?

BTW, this is not meant as a criticism, just trying to get things as accurate as possible. i think these summary lists are helpful, and maybe it can be checked and things can be added adjusted and reposted every so often? I like the categorising into facts reported and so on, it's helpful and it's good to have the other things listed in their correct context. (It's on page 37 if anyone wants to refer to it)

 

[mountainhigh]

I'd say the families are at opposite poles now. I saw the thing about the trust fund too. The idea seeded from Allisons parents, The Dickies. You would think if they were on talking terms between the two families they could come up with enough to send 2 children to grammar school, considering the age of the girls they have a few years to save yet. Sounds like the Dickies have no intention of having anything to do with the Baden-Clays and are forging ahead with a relationship independent of the Baden-Clays.
Asking for donations to send your grandchildren to a private school as a wish of your murdered daughter is not an easy thing to do. They wouldn't make that request unless they absolutely HAD to.

they are not 'asking' for donations at all. this would be a newspaper driven initiative. i would have no problems throwing in $50 for something like this to help these grieving grandparents realise a dream that they believe would have been important to their daughter. no problems whasoever!

it wouldnt matter if the 'other side' were mulit millionaires and could afford to send 50 kids to Grammar School the fact is that this is clearly an important issue for A's parents and good on them for doing this. If you have ever been through things like this, or even an unexpected or premature death due to natual causes you would understand the need for loved ones to do things like this.....it also helps with the grieving process

 

[Moggill2]

I hadn't heard until now that they retrieved SHREDDED papers???

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nto-murder-probe/story-e6frg6nf-1226343101924

I do find it curious that they searched and 'seized' evidence from GBC's office and his parents house, but haven't seen anything about Allison's parents' house been searched.

An earlier comment on this forum mentioned GBC was a Mac user and I note in this report an Apple laptop is mentioned:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lison-baden-clay/story-e6freoof-1226338602877

"The officers left at 10am with several evidence bags, including one containing an Apple laptop computer and a hard-drive."

I really feel what happened to poor Allison involves or has something to do with his/their business/finances. Just my thoughts.

 

[Cccclllaareb]

And as i have said before i can't understand why (IF they think Gerard is a suspect (which the police haven't mentioned) they would allow him to have the children?? But then again i would like to know how many persons of interests there is considering they said numerous persons of interest were interviewed. Numerous sounds like there could be a few people involved and i think this case (like alot of other cases like this) will take quite some time.

Hey! Because its not that easy to just take someone's children away from them, I'm sure the children wouldn't like that either. He hasn't been charged with anything.

A person of interest isn't necessarily a suspect, just someone who might be relevant to the investigation.

 

[Cccclllaareb]

Wondering if GBC had any open homes today?

If so lets all go check him out! (kidding!!!!!!)

 

[AllyG]

And as i have said before i can't understand why (IF they think Gerard is a suspect (which the police haven't mentioned) they would allow him to have the children?? But then again i would like to know how many persons of interests there is considering they said numerous persons of interest were interviewed. Numerous sounds like there could be a few people involved and i think this case (like alot of other cases like this) will take quite some time.

Children can only be removed from their parent if the children are considered to be a serious risk of harm. He hasn't made a threat against the children. Having children removed from a parents care is a lot trickier than you would believe. However if he were arrested, the children would go in to emergency care and would likely be placed in the care of their grandparents until something permanent was decided.

 

[ozprincessinoz]

Pure speculation from myself:

Financial problems, shredded document, computer seized - possible real estate Trust Account discrepancies?? If Allison was a partner in the business, she would also be liable. GBC wouldn't be the first R/E agent to fiddle with the trust account.

Just an idea. Thoughts running rampant!

 

[mountainhigh]

quote:
To Priscilla and Geoff and family - Again, thank God beautiful Allison's daughters have such wonderful grand-parents. The trust fund to fulfill Allisons wishes for her daughters to go to the selected Grammar school is so thoughtful. Please ask the media to clearly indicate how to donate to the trust fund. Our thoughts are prayers are with you.

Comment 31 of 160

Why a trust fund, if GBC is going to be around for the kids he can pay the school fees. should his business fail he can always go back to his previous occupation.

Unrelated but I am really struggling with a few posters here that are even talking about this trust fund...Its not about how much money GBC & Co have, don't have or might have.

This is an important issue to A's parents and they intend to make sure it is realised. they are not asking any of you to put money in for G sake!
The trust fund is set up so it can be formally recognised by close family and friends as a way of contributing to their late daughters education if they wish. I am sure there will be more than enough close F&F to ensure this happens...
its important to these poor people, struggling to see why this is even an issue to anybody ! really seems in very bad taste..not to mention lack of common sense

 

[CaseClosed]

Keyboredom - Thanks for the list of facts etc, very helpful. When this headache goes away I'll have a better look at it and see if there is anything else needing to be added.

But for now I do have a couple of comments about these points -

- Allison was found wearing the clothes (or something like the clothes) someone described she would be wearing - most likely GBC. He could have assumed this by guessing she was wearing her usual walking outfit or by clothes missing from her room/wardrobe-

I dont know too many husbands that could look in a womans cupboards and wardrobe and work out what was missing. I dont agree with your implication here. I believe this is a difficult point - if Allison always wears the same thing when out walking, and she really did go out walking (which we are not sure even happened), then he may, and then it's only a may, have known what she had on. But if she had a range of different things she wore he wouldnt have known because from his story he did not see her leave the house. Aren't we still working on the premise that he has said he saw her at night watching TV, and she was gone in the morning when he woke up, he assumed she was on her regular walk and then he raised the alrm when she was 1/2 late in returning?

I think on the clothing point it should be - "there is a question mark over how GBC knew what she was wearing."

- screams happened 2.5-4 km away from Allison's home on the night she disappeared, most likely put down to noisy teens (and this is quite likely given the behaviour of teens in our area)

You are the main person concluding the screams were put down to noisy teens. It's just your opinion on this point. To be more factual on this one I would just say - "A couple of screams and a sound like a scream being muffled by a hand going over a mouth were reported, 2.5-4 km away from Allison's home on the night she disappeared." (this was what was reported). You could add "there was a party in the area with noisy teens but nothing official has been announced to connect the screams to the party."

Regarding the clothing, my issue with this is that there is really no evidence that Allison ever went for a walk at all. I think GBC has slipped up - if he had thought out his story more he would have said he didnt know what she had on because he didnt see her leave the house. He may have said to the police :"this is what she usually wore" I suppose.

Regarding the screams i felt they could be significant because they were heard in the hot zone close to where the mobile phone was triangulated to before the battery ran out. They might have come from the party but i dont think its the only consideration.

Did you mention the mobile phone and the location on your list?

BTW, this is not meant as a criticism, just trying to get things as accurate as possible. i think these summary lists are helpful, and maybe it can be checked and things can be added adjusted and reposted every so often? I like the categorising into facts reported and so on, it's helpful and it's good to have the other things listed in their correct context. (It's on page 37 if anyone wants to refer to it)

Regarding what she was wearing: My recollection of what was reported on the first couple of days is that she was already wearing the walking/sports gear and she was going for a walk at 10 pm, when he went to bed. However, this was later changed to her watching the Footy Show at 10 pm when he went to bed. I still can't understand why there are two versions??

I agree that most husband's wouldn't have a clue what is in their wife's wardrobe. But there is the possibility that the walking/sports gear was put on her after the fact, hence he would know exactly what she was wearing. I personally don't believe she went for a walk either at 10 pm or the following morning.

 

[Virgo]

There is a lot of conjecture about how GBC knew what his wife was wearing. Other than what has been suggested another way is that he dressed her in them. I 'tested' my husband recently having been together all day and hid around the corner and asked him what I was wearing. He had no idea.

 

[True]

they are not 'asking' for donations at all. this would be a newspaper driven initiative. i would have no problems throwing in $50 for something like this to help these grieving grandparents realise a dream that they believe would have been important to their daughter. no problems whasoever!

it wouldnt matter if the 'other side' were mulit millionaires and could afford to send 50 kids to Grammar School the fact is that this is clearly an important issue for A's parents and good on them for doing this. If you have ever been through things like this, or even an unexpected or premature death due to natual causes you would understand the need for loved ones to do things like this.....it also helps with the grieving process

No need to be snooty, I'm entitled to my opinion. I've been through hardship, I can assure you. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with them asking for donations. It might be a media initiative but the Dickies still have to be OK with it.

As much as I'd like to help, My partner and I work extremely hard to send our kids to good schools and I'm sorry, but I can't afford to help with anyone else sending their kids to private schools. I do however give to the children's hospital, the starlight foundation and cancer research. I suggest you really think about how you DON'T HAVE A DAMN CLUE about who is posting on the other end of this forum. Seeing someone else's kids get privately schooled is not a priority of mine. Although I really hope this case gets solved and I feel for the children, some kids are lucky to afford a book to write in. GET REAL!

 

[AllyG]

There is a lot of conjecture about how GBC knew what his wife was wearing. Other than what has been suggested another way is that he dressed her in them. I 'tested' my husband recently having been together all day and hid around the corner and asked him what I was wearing. He had no idea.

Super sleuth! You get top points

 

[CaseClosed]

Unrelated but I am really struggling with a few posters here that are even talking about this trust fund...Its not about how much money GBC & Co have, don't have or might have.

This is an important issue to A's parents and they intend to make sure it is realised. they are not asking any of you to put money in for G sake!
The trust fund is set up so it can be formally recognised by close family and friends as a way of contributing to their late daughters education if they wish. I am sure there will be more than enough close F&F to ensure this happens...
its important to these poor people, struggling to see why this is even an issue to anybody ! really seems in very bad taste..not to mention lack of common sense

I think the idea behind mentioning the trust fund is not because of donations, but because it implies that her parents might be thinking that the husband won't be around (guilty??) to look after the children financially?? Just speculating.

 

[Keyboredom]

Keyboredom - Thanks for the list of facts etc, very helpful. When this headache goes away I'll have a better look at it and see if there is anything else needing to be added.

But for now I do have a couple of comments about these points -

- Allison was found wearing the clothes (or something like the clothes) someone described she would be wearing - most likely GBC. He could have assumed this by guessing she was wearing her usual walking outfit or by clothes missing from her room/wardrobe-

I dont know too many husbands that could look in a womans cupboards and wardrobe and work out what was missing. I dont agree with your implication here. I believe this is a difficult point - if Allison always wears the same thing when out walking, and she really did go out walking (which we are not sure even happened), then he may, and then it's only a may, have known what she had on. But if she had a range of different things she wore he wouldnt have known because from his story he did not see her leave the house. Aren't we still working on the premise that he has said he saw her at night watching TV, and she was gone in the morning when he woke up, he assumed she was on her regular walk and then he raised the alrm when she was 1/2 late in returning?

I think on the clothing point it should be - "there is a question mark over how GBC knew what she was wearing."

- screams happened 2.5-4 km away from Allison's home on the night she disappeared, most likely put down to noisy teens (and this is quite likely given the behaviour of teens in our area)

You are the main person concluding the screams were put down to noisy teens. It's just your opinion on this point. To be more factual on this one I would just say - "A couple of screams and a sound like a scream being muffled by a hand going over a mouth were reported, 2.5-4 km away from Allison's home on the night she disappeared." (this was what was reported). You could add "there was a party in the area with noisy teens but nothing official has been announced to connect the screams to the party."

Regarding the clothing, my issue with this is that there is really no evidence that Allison ever went for a walk at all. I think GBC has slipped up - if he had thought out his story more he would have said he didnt know what she had on because he didnt see her leave the house. He may have said to the police :"this is what she usually wore" I suppose.

Regarding the screams i felt they could be significant because they were heard in the hot zone close to where the mobile phone was triangulated to before the battery ran out. They might have come from the party but i dont think its the only consideration.

Did you mention the mobile phone and the location on your list?

BTW, this is not meant as a criticism, just trying to get things as accurate as possible. i think these summary lists are helpful, and maybe it can be checked and things can be added adjusted and reposted every so often? I like the categorising into facts reported and so on, it's helpful and it's good to have the other things listed in their correct context. (It's on page 37 if anyone wants to refer to it)

Thanks ItsTheVibe, not taken as criticism at all (but happy to accept criticism )

I included reference to the most recent advice where Allison's mobile phone 'should' be found. This is not in the 'hot zone' originally identified. Anything within 150 m of the Baden-Clay home is outside the original hot zone (I think).

You quite rightly pointed out neighbours were reported in the media as having heard a disturbance at the house on the night Allison went missing (so many articles I completely forgot it was reported and verified). Little has been mentioned by police on that issue, so it must be of significant and important interest (or, less likely imo, inaccurate).

Not sure if I am the main person concluding the screams weren't Allison's. (a neighbour later reported on TV news she disagreed with the newspaper article and said the screams came from local yahoos - don't have the exact link though sorry - think it was 7 News). The time the screams occurred doesn't coincide with other potential movements from the Baden-Clay residence as far as I know. The other reason I believe the screams could easily be from teen parties is I live in the area and 'blood-curdling' screams from teen parties are relatively common, from rich kids with too much time and a need for attention. I acknowledge this is my opinion only and the screams have not been reported by police as definitely connected or not connected with Allison's situation.

What I also forgot to mention on the 'unverified' list is that some residents speaking with police were told early on the police knew they weren't looking for a person who had gone missing on 'a walk'. This was from one local who said that's what the officer they spoke to said. I believe them, but it doesn't make it true or relevant.

I'm not really implicating anything by saying how GBC could have known what clothes Allison was wearing, just pointing out a potential explanation so we don't get too stuck on the point of 'what was Allison doing wearing runners at 10pm'.

I have my own opinions of what happened, and none of them tally with what GBC has claimed as far as I can see in the media. However, as I can't prove anything, and am not a detective, I choose not to state something I can't be sure is fact. I still think it is worth pointing out plausible explanations for what GBC says happened or what he says he knows. Some of the theories continue to be way 'out there' and while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I don't think it will be a completely unexpected or unusual explanation for what has happened when the murderer is finally charged. I'm fairly sure it won't involve debts to powerful figures, child *advertiser censored*, cross-dressing, and Allison attacking anyone before being attacked herself.

 

[True]

My husband can't even remember what he wore yesterday little own what I was wearing.

I'm sitting outside and just put my head around the corner and asked him to tell me what I was wearing. He saw me 2 mins ago, nope, couldn't tell me!

 

[bearbear]

And as i have said before i can't understand why (IF they think Gerard is a suspect (which the police haven't mentioned) they would allow him to have the children?? But then again i would like to know how many persons of interests there is considering they said numerous persons of interest were interviewed. Numerous sounds like there could be a few people involved and i think this case (like alot of other cases like this) will take quite some time.

in the kiesha weippeart case docs moved in quickly and took the remaining children when the parent/step parent were suspected but not officially charged, so its interesting gerard is still allowed his children if he is a suspect, but bearing in mind he is living with them at his parents home.

 

[pinhead]

The whole she went for a walk story was fabricted to allow the possibilities available to the investigators to include, her simply leaving i.e. having to take time due to mental health issues, walked off and killed herself due to mental health issues, walked off and was attacked and killed. He overplayed his hand in his statements to police firstly that she was watching the footy show (ill bet he was), secondly his knowledge of exactl what she was wearing, no self respecting male remembers such details, thirdly he stated he went to bed while she was watching TV so he didnt know that she went for a walk at night and if the walk was in the morning no way would have he called the fuzz at 7.30am.

 

[Keyboredom]

I'd like to disagree with the point that the media is 'sensationalising' this case. I think the Courier Mail is a poor excuse for a newspaper, but their coverage (other than their usual typo's and odd statements that eventually change) has been regular so far, and free of major conjecture or completely inaccurate information.

Particularly the space dedicated to Allison in today's paper contained respectful carefully-worded references to the case. Far from sensationalising it, I think they are doing a good job keeping the case in the public eye, and hopefully they will do so until it is solved.

Today's article helped take away some of the anger toward the person responsible and remind me what a wonderful person Allison obviously was, and that most of the emotion around the case should remain around the fact this lovely lady can no longer be there for her 3 daughters. Horrifically sad, but not sensationalised.

 

[CaseClosed]

in the kiesha weippeart case docs moved in quickly and took the remaining children when the parent/step parent were suspected but not officially charged, so its interesting gerard is still allowed his children if he is a suspect, but bearing in mind he is living with them at his parents home.

I think the difference is that the missing person was actually a child, not a spouse, hence the danger to the other children. He will at some stage move back to the house, if he hasn't already.

 

[Virgo]

I'd like to disagree with the point that the media is 'sensationalising' this case. I think the Courier Mail is a poor excuse for a newspaper, but their coverage (other than their usual typo's and odd statements that eventually change) has been regular so far, and free of major conjecture or completely inaccurate information.

Particularly the space dedicated to Allison in today's paper contained respectful carefully-worded references to the case. Far from sensationalising it, I think they are doing a good job keeping the case in the public eye, and hopefully they will do so until it is solved.

Today's article helped take away some of the anger toward the person responsible and remind me what a wonderful person Allison obviously was, and that most of the emotion around the case should remain around the fact this lovely lady can no longer be there for her 3 daughters. Horrifically sad, but not sensationalised.

I agree that the Courier Mail do the human interest, personal tributes very well. Today's tribute to Allison is an exemplary piece of writing as is the very careful selection of the photo on the front cover.