Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #6

[mumof2]

Yeah, cheers! Just seen your first post. Trying to find a map of Kholo Creek

i've looked on google maps but its so overgrown that you cant see anything beyond where it joins into the brisbane river

 

[Susan12]

My thinking is, if he did not do it, but helped with cover-up, he is as guilty as the person who did it and deserves the full force of the law. But, IMO, the other woman (if any) has nothing to do with it, except now provide info to assist police. If there is an accomplice, it would be someone in his family iMO.

I don't expect the police to take kindly to any accomplice either and even more than usual with all those man hours and tax payer dollars spent looking for her when they'd have known where she was all along.

If GBC did it and the mistress wasn't present then i'd agree, if you wanted to go to someone for help you would expect your parents to be the most likely to protect you.

 

[Rational]

On a lighter note, after spending the last two weeks straining my eyes to read everything from post 1, I have just realised if I turn my iPad sideways the font is much larger!! Yes I am a Luddite from way back!

 

[MysteriousWorld]

I am fairly sure that between setting up forward command posts and dedicating phone lines encouraging public interaction, the QPS absolutely want the public to provide leads, information and local inside information which may be useful in their investigations. Once received it is up to them what and how the information is used.

 

[truth_morph]

But not for me.

Oh but I am. WS is for amatuer sleuthing, it's a bit of arm chair detective fun. It's NOT an extension of the law.

 

[Elspeth]

These are a few points that either don't add up for me or are in the 'alternative theory' basket (as opposed to IMO).
If G & A were in fact separated, is it possible that G didn't stay at the 'marital' home that night? He was, perhaps, there in the evening and again in the AM when he dropped the girls to school but at his parents/elsewhere to sleep. He may have regularly had the girls overnight if they were living in different homes.
This rolls on to my next point.
Why did he call 000 as opposed to the local police number? Unless of course he went to the house because Allison's car was still there when she should have left already and he found signs of a struggle? The 000 call has really bothered me; surely it would make more sense to call a station. But then why did police respond so quickly to the call, for all intents and purposes a missing person call, unless there was a history of violence as discussed previously.

Alt. theory: Bad business dealings/ bad blood from a realationship one or both were involved with, person comes over after G has left, nasty situation ensues, the white 4x4 is used by unkown person/people to move Allison's body, G comes back to the house to find disarray, calls police etc and is now acting as a foil for the investigators?

I haven't been overly specific with details or referenced some of my points which I know have been suggested before, but it is possible the WhoDunnit is not so cut and dried.

Do I duck now?? I love the humorous and tounge in cheek style of some members BTW. Lol

Because there has been no *verification* by the police about times/dates of calls/anything much etc...there could always be the possibility that ABC gave the children early dinner then the husband took the children to his parents for a prearranged sleep over as they both had an early start...she said she was going for a walk whilst he was away..hence his knowing the clothes she wore even through the girls...he stayed talking for a while and when he came back she had not come home...he could have thought she had called in to see neighbours etc maybe called a friend to visit..we do not know when or who he called in what time frame...he could have been calling people all night for all we know...when she didn't return for the conference that is possibly when the police decided to act instantly...Her Mother only said he told them she went for a walk and did not return...times were not mentioned I don't think...

Maybe far fetched but I feel a possiblity as no definite details of these times have ever been confirmed by the police...

 

[CaseClosed]

I don't expect the police to take kindly to any accomplice either and even more than usual with all those man hours and tax payer dollars spent looking for her when they'd have known where she was all along.

If GBC did it and the mistress wasn't present then i'd agree, if you wanted to go to someone for help you would expect your parents to be the most likely to protect you.

In particular because he seems to be very close to his family! I don't think there was anybody else present and I don't believe it was planned in advance. IMO it was a spur of the moment kind of thing with previous history of DV.

 

[JK673]

I believe he does.

And, if you look at that clip again, you can see how almost as soon as he has said that, he does that smacking thing with his lips, almost a "tsk" which indicates to me an "Oops, didn't mean to say that" moment.

Can someone explain the "They've got three young girls" quote?? I do not get it

 

[itsthevibe]

Very true! Lawyers are doing a job, the same as the police. People condemn in particular defence lawyers, I don't (and am not involved in law). I agree that in the heat of a moment, someone can unintentionally kill someone, which is what I personally believe happened in this case. Police are being praised for the way they have handled this case, however there are many other cases when the mob have criticised police. Human nature.

Could you elaborate in detail how this would happen - i mean step by step, an example of an actual killing? And why you would describe it as 'unintentional'? I was trying to point out in my recent post about this that there is a knowledge at the time that you are actually killing someone, you can either see clearly that you are, you continue actions until you have, or you are performing extremely violent actions that would reasonably be known to result in killing someone (such as bludgeoning them) and you can decide to stop. Unless you bash someone and stop while they are still conscious and then they die later, you have intentionally murdered them. (even if the intentions only arose in a short space of time).

But then, I don't agree that the rage takes over and therefore the person is excused in some way. There is a choice to control the rage at any point, or decide not to act it out it at all.

Just so you know, i am not trying to be sarcastic and am not angry right now, I am really trying to examine this issue. I've asked for a step by step example because I think that generalising can make it easier to make those kind of statements but when you break it down it becomes a bit harder to see how it could happen 'unintentionally' and say there was no choice at all. Well IMO, anyway.

I think this is relevant because at some point, hopefully, there will be an arrest and there is the possibility that this very issue will arise. I actually think in this case the police are trying to be as meticulous as possible to get as much evidence and hard facts and ensure every little detail is covered before they make a move, because they believe it is murder and they want to do all they can to have the case proceed as murder and be successful.

 

[CaseClosed]

Because there has been no *verification* by the police about times/dates of calls/anything much etc...there could always be the possibility that ABC gave the children early dinner then the husband took the children to his parents for a prearranged sleep over as they both had an early start...she said she was going for a walk whilst he was away..hence his knowing the clothes she wore even through the girls...he stayed talking for a while and when he came back she had not come home...he could have thought she had called in to see neighbours etc maybe called a friend to visit..we do not know when or who he called in what time frame...he could have been calling people all night for all we know...when she didn't return for the conference that is possibly when the police decided to act instantly...Her Mother only said he told them she went for a walk and did not return...times were not mentioned I don't think...

Maybe far fetched but I feel a possiblity as no definite details of these times have ever been confirmed by the police...

... but he said he saw her last at 10 pm watching the Footy Show, at which point he went to bed ....

 

[Rational]

But he didn't say where he went to bed.

 

[Elspeth]

... but he said he saw her last at 10 pm watching the Footy Show, at which point he went to bed ....

But was this verified by the police or was it just in the media? If so I apologize for being so wrong...

 

[CaseClosed]

Could you elaborate in detail how this would happen - i mean step by step, an example of an actual killing? And why you would describe it as 'unintentional'? I was trying to point out in my recent post about this that there is a knowledge at the time that you are actually killing someone, you can either see clearly that you are, you continue actions until you have, or you are performing extremely violent actions that would reasonably be known to result in killing someone (such as bludgeoning them) and you can decide to stop. Unless you bash someone and stop while they are still conscious and then they die later, you have intentionally murdered them. (even if the intentions only arose in a short space of time).

But then, I don't agree that the rage takes over and therefore the person is excused in some way. There is a choice to control the rage at any point, or decide not to act it out it at all.

Just so you know, i am not trying to be sarcastic and am not angry right now, I am really trying to examine this issue. I've asked for a step by step example because I think that generalising can make it easier to make those kind of statements but when you break it down it becomes a bit harder to see how it could happen 'unintentionally' and say there was no choice at all. Well IMO, anyway.

I think this is relevant because at some point, hopefully, there will be an arrest and there is the possibility that this very issue will arise. I actually think in this case the police are trying to be as meticulous as possible to get as much evidence and hard facts and ensure every little detail is covered before they make a move, because they believe it is murder and they want to do all they can to have the case proceed as murder and be successful.

I won't put a stop by step example because there could be many scenarios, but I admit the word "unintentional" was not what I meant (sorry, English is not my first language). I meant "not planned in advance". I don't think, if the husband killed her, that he walked into the room thinking: I'm going to kill you now!!
I think it evolved from an argument into a physical fight and rage took over. If, strangulation was the COD, then I still believe it evolved from an argument and it was not pre-planned.

 

[coolcat]

Just catching up on Posts over the last 24hrs.....Wow! Not much has happened..Only 2 significant things that got my attention......

1. TM is 6ft tall and not person at BC snrs.
2. Police paid GBC a visit at GBC snrs home. (How did they know he was there?)

On the second point I woud just like to add my thoughts on this...If it were my spouse or loved one, I would invite them in and probe them for all the imformation they had and demand to know what was taking so long??

I would need more then 10mins of there time...That is for Sure!

I also liked the theory that ABC caught GBC with Lady friend at Scout Hall....I know people thought this to be out of charachter for ABC...But hell hath no fury for a woman scorned...(No one is angrier than a woman who has been rejected in love....)

This can apply to either ABC or TM.....Love makes us to strange things.....

Example..Follow husband to Mistress or Kill lovers Wife?

 

[CaseClosed]

But was this verified by the police or was it just in the media? If so I apologize for being so wrong...

Sorry, I won't go back through all the threads and links to check if the police actually said it, but it has been widely reported in the press and TV as what he said about her disappearance.

 

[clem1970]

I won't put a stop by step example because there could be many scenarios, but I admit the word "unintentional" was not what I meant (sorry, English is not my first language). I meant "not planned in advance". I don't think, if the husband killed her, that he walked into the room thinking: I'm going to kill you now!!
I think it evolved from an argument into a physical fight and rage took over. If, strangulation was the COD, then I still believe it evolved from an argument and it was not pre-planned.

This document by the CMC may help - it defines unintentional death and murder

www.cmc.qld.gov.au/research-and.../cjc/murder-in-queensland

If you get an error message just open the doc at the bottom of the page titled "Murder in Queensland"

 

[TheStupidTree]

... but he said he saw her last at 10 pm watching the Footy Show, at which point he went to bed ....

I was wondering about this today. If my hubby didn't come to bed, I would know. I never sleep right through the night (not sure if anyone does) but I'd be checking on him by about 1am. This makes me wonder if they were sleeping in the same room. I know that when people are in the process of separating they sleep separately under the same roof.

 

[MysteriousWorld]

theory that ABC caught GBC with Lady friend at Scout Hall

.
This may appear to be pedantic, but I am 99% sure there is no hall at this particular site.

 

[itsthevibe]

Because there has been no *verification* by the police about times/dates of calls/anything much etc...there could always be the possibility that ABC gave the children early dinner then the husband took the children to his parents for a prearranged sleep over as they both had an early start...she said she was going for a walk whilst he was away..hence his knowing the clothes she wore even through the girls...he stayed talking for a while and when he came back she had not come home...he could have thought she had called in to see neighbours etc maybe called a friend to visit..we do not know when or who he called in what time frame...he could have been calling people all night for all we know...when she didn't return for the conference that is possibly when the police decided to act instantly...Her Mother only said he told them she went for a walk and did not return...times were not mentioned I don't think...

Maybe far fetched but I feel a possiblity as no definite details of these times have ever been confirmed by the police...

Elspeth, it has already been established that the kids were having a sleepover with friends on that night. If you haven't been following the discussion here in detail from the beginning, there are a couple of things which were misreported or taken out of context at first, which have since been cleared up. One was the childrens sleepover location, the other was initial reports about the 10pm walk at night thing, but this was clarified fairly soon to reflect that GBC reported he last saw Allison at 10pm when he went to bed and she was watching the footy show. I am not sure which link, or links, to find all these details, it may be on the timeline, but as i recall GBC reported Allison missing to police at 7.30am after she didnt return from her mornig walk. This has been taken to mean that he is saying that he wouldnt have questioned her absence in the morning at first, because if she goes on a regular walk it could be reasonable to expect that on some mornings he may wake after she has left. So bascially he has reported her missing at 7.30am because she should have been back by say, 6.30am or 7am.

Others may be able to clarify if I've got this right, but I consider this is where we are now. some people have questioned why GBC would call police if Allison had been late back from her walk for only half an hour, or 1 hour maximum.

As for the news reports that he was frantically texting people as to her whereabouts, I'm not sure of the time he was supposed to have done the texting. I thought I read this very early on and it was when there was the confusion about her going for a walk in the evening. I think the report implied the texting was done in the evening because it prompted some discussion about why he would have then gone to bed if she hadnt come back. Personally i think this was misreported by journos extrapolating on the misinformation that GBC had said Allison went for a walk at 10pm.

 

[Caviar]

If Allison did die by strangulation and if there was DV in the relationship (both unsubstantiated at this time), this may have not been the first time....just this time it may have gone further than usual.

Below is from a family violence website Ortner Unity...

Strangulation can be a recurring form of violence in abused women’s lives. In a study of 62 abused women who came to a shelter or a violence prevention center, 68% (n=42) had a history of strangulation, and on an average, each woman had been strangled 5.3 times in their intimate relationships.

I am still hoping that GBC was not involved in ABC's demise for the sake of the 3 girls and I'm keeping a very open mind.

My little boy told me this evening that he is very much looking forward to Mother's Day tomorrow so that he can show me how much he loves me.... He has already created a menu for breakfast in bed and a mummy day party in the garden for tea. I will cherish tomorrow so much more than usual as you never know when it may be your last. May Allison give her girls the strength to get through such a painful day.