Its been very interesting reading all the different aspects and views on this case from facts to what certain characteristics, statements or events may or may not mean.
There was an interesting quote today in the Herald Sun from Ted Duhs who was a lecturer in criminal studies.
"A murder is about theories, who the perpetrator was, what the motive was and so on," he said. "I noticed the investigating detective said he did not believe it was a random killing - and if that is true then they have eliminated at least one theory."
I thought it might be interesting to summarize what had been identified on this site and in the news and see what theories of other information or assessments people make when everything is looked at holistically.
My theories of why the events might show guilt or innocence are below. Whilst I respect peoples rights to make a judgement or lean strongly one way or the other, personally I prefer to see more facts but would love to hear what others have heard, read etc that might point more strongly one way or the other.
1. Alison went out for a late / early morning walk.
Innocent: They had an argument and she went out for a walk late or they slept separately that night and she went out for her usual early morning walk; and met misadventure at the hands of another person known or unknown
Guilty: It was an excuse to explain her absence.
2. He waited until the next morning to call the police.
Innocent: If they had an argument he presumed she might have gone to a local friends place to cool down and would come home or he fell asleep waiting for her because he was angry too.
Guilty: He didnt want to leave it too long before appearing worried about her absence.
3.He contacted a lawyer early in the situation.
Innocent: He contacted the lawyer initially about a divorce out of anger. He realised when his wife did not return that statistically as her husband he was the most likely suspect. (Noting according to the FBI 26% of women killed are killed by husbands or boyfriends interestingly 75% of people know their murderer).
Guilty: He realised he had done something wrong and wanted to make sure he was represented early.
4. The children had been staying with their grandparents.
Innocent: He wanted to keep them away from the glare of cameras and stickybeaks and from the investigations of the police in the home.
Guilty: As per innocent but he potentially wanted to deny police opportunistic chances to talk to the children and ascertain further information that might be incriminating.
5. Hes lost weight.
Innocent: He is stressed over the situation and grieving for his wife.
Guilty: He is stressed over the situation and worried about being caught.
6. She was found within relatively close proximity of their home (10km).
Innocent: She was out for a walk and another person known or unknown killed her locally and disposed of her locally. (Noting it still hasn't been released if she was left there or the rain took her there).
Guilty: He knew the area and either wanted to use the river to dispose of her or thought the location remote enough that detection was unlikely.
7. He was having an affair (possible motivation)
Innocent: They argued over it and she stormed out possibly threatening divorce and to take him to the cleaners (see lawyer issue).
Guilty: She threatened divorce and to take him to the cleaners or they just argued about it and he snapped.
8. He wasnt a pall bearer.
Innocent: He could not face carrying his dead wifes body and/or wanted to be with his daughters. (I dont find this odd I have been to a number of funerals where it was not the closest family members who were pall bearers.)
Guilty: He felt guilt or did not want to potentially antagonise other family members whose suspicious are correct.
9. His in-laws gave him no attention at the church.
Innocent: They were too grief stricken themselves to deal with or sympathise with the grief of another adult. (I have seen this at a funeral when a parent died and an adult child and the other parent were too caught up in their own grief and did not acknowledge each other at the funeral.)
Guilty: They think he is guilty and cannot bear to deal with him directly.
10. He did not say a eulogy.
Innocent: He was too distraught to talk (Seen this at a funeral too where a young father was too upset to talk at his sons funeral, and another where a husband was too upset to say anything about his wife of 45 years).
Guilty: He felt guilt and knew he either could not pull off a convincing eulogy or it would antagonise other family members who suspected his guilt.
11. The police responded early and with a significant response. (In less then 24hrs the SED and police were both involved.)
Innocent: Gerard either heard something from another party that indicated something concerning had happened or police found early evidence of foul play by a person other than Gerard.
Guilty: Gerard admitted they had argued or gave the police cause to be suspicious or there was other evidence from the neighbours or other sources eg. a local security camera that arouse suspicions.
12. His early public calls for help were self directed.
Innocent: Hes self absorbed but not guilty and/or in a state of stress/grief was not clearly articulating his real intent.
Guilty: He has psychopathic tendencies and was trying to manipulate the situation and as a result of his ego thought what he was saying things that were expected.
13. The police were interested in a white car like the Baden Clays going around the roundabout.
Innocent:There was some indication she had been seen in the family car after the argument with Gerard/leaving the home which might indicate she had been out more than once that night and met with someone else leading to her later death.
Guilty: The police have some evidence possibly security camera footage or evidence on car tyres that shows the car may have been used on the night of her disappearance.
14. The police did a thorough check of the house.
Innocent: Its standard procedure and normal for the spouse to be eliminated first.
Guilty: The police were looking for something specific or more evidence due to strong suspicions.
15. Residents 4km away heard creams that appeared to become muffled.
Innocent: It was Allison being assaulted by someone else, or was in unrelated argument that ended badly; either whilst on her walk or after meeting up with a third party.
Guilty: Gerard had taken her out in the car for reasons unknown and either intentionally or as an escalation of an existing argument purposefully or accidentally killed her.
There was an interesting quote today in the Herald Sun from Ted Duhs who was a lecturer in criminal studies.
"A murder is about theories, who the perpetrator was, what the motive was and so on," he said. "I noticed the investigating detective said he did not believe it was a random killing - and if that is true then they have eliminated at least one theory."
I thought it might be interesting to summarize what had been identified on this site and in the news and see what theories of other information or assessments people make when everything is looked at holistically.
My theories of why the events might show guilt or innocence are below. Whilst I respect peoples rights to make a judgement or lean strongly one way or the other, personally I prefer to see more facts but would love to hear what others have heard, read etc that might point more strongly one way or the other.
1. Alison went out for a late / early morning walk.
Innocent: They had an argument and she went out for a walk late or they slept separately that night and she went out for her usual early morning walk; and met misadventure at the hands of another person known or unknown
Guilty: It was an excuse to explain her absence.
2. He waited until the next morning to call the police.
Innocent: If they had an argument he presumed she might have gone to a local friends place to cool down and would come home or he fell asleep waiting for her because he was angry too.
Guilty: He didnt want to leave it too long before appearing worried about her absence.
3.He contacted a lawyer early in the situation.
Innocent: He contacted the lawyer initially about a divorce out of anger. He realised when his wife did not return that statistically as her husband he was the most likely suspect. (Noting according to the FBI 26% of women killed are killed by husbands or boyfriends interestingly 75% of people know their murderer).
Guilty: He realised he had done something wrong and wanted to make sure he was represented early.
4. The children had been staying with their grandparents.
Innocent: He wanted to keep them away from the glare of cameras and stickybeaks and from the investigations of the police in the home.
Guilty: As per innocent but he potentially wanted to deny police opportunistic chances to talk to the children and ascertain further information that might be incriminating.
5. Hes lost weight.
Innocent: He is stressed over the situation and grieving for his wife.
Guilty: He is stressed over the situation and worried about being caught.
6. She was found within relatively close proximity of their home (10km).
Innocent: She was out for a walk and another person known or unknown killed her locally and disposed of her locally. (Noting it still hasn't been released if she was left there or the rain took her there).
Guilty: He knew the area and either wanted to use the river to dispose of her or thought the location remote enough that detection was unlikely.
7. He was having an affair (possible motivation)
Innocent: They argued over it and she stormed out possibly threatening divorce and to take him to the cleaners (see lawyer issue).
Guilty: She threatened divorce and to take him to the cleaners or they just argued about it and he snapped.
8. He wasnt a pall bearer.
Innocent: He could not face carrying his dead wifes body and/or wanted to be with his daughters. (I dont find this odd I have been to a number of funerals where it was not the closest family members who were pall bearers.)
Guilty: He felt guilt or did not want to potentially antagonise other family members whose suspicious are correct.
9. His in-laws gave him no attention at the church.
Innocent: They were too grief stricken themselves to deal with or sympathise with the grief of another adult. (I have seen this at a funeral when a parent died and an adult child and the other parent were too caught up in their own grief and did not acknowledge each other at the funeral.)
Guilty: They think he is guilty and cannot bear to deal with him directly.
10. He did not say a eulogy.
Innocent: He was too distraught to talk (Seen this at a funeral too where a young father was too upset to talk at his sons funeral, and another where a husband was too upset to say anything about his wife of 45 years).
Guilty: He felt guilt and knew he either could not pull off a convincing eulogy or it would antagonise other family members who suspected his guilt.
11. The police responded early and with a significant response. (In less then 24hrs the SED and police were both involved.)
Innocent: Gerard either heard something from another party that indicated something concerning had happened or police found early evidence of foul play by a person other than Gerard.
Guilty: Gerard admitted they had argued or gave the police cause to be suspicious or there was other evidence from the neighbours or other sources eg. a local security camera that arouse suspicions.
12. His early public calls for help were self directed.
Innocent: Hes self absorbed but not guilty and/or in a state of stress/grief was not clearly articulating his real intent.
Guilty: He has psychopathic tendencies and was trying to manipulate the situation and as a result of his ego thought what he was saying things that were expected.
13. The police were interested in a white car like the Baden Clays going around the roundabout.
Innocent:There was some indication she had been seen in the family car after the argument with Gerard/leaving the home which might indicate she had been out more than once that night and met with someone else leading to her later death.
Guilty: The police have some evidence possibly security camera footage or evidence on car tyres that shows the car may have been used on the night of her disappearance.
14. The police did a thorough check of the house.
Innocent: Its standard procedure and normal for the spouse to be eliminated first.
Guilty: The police were looking for something specific or more evidence due to strong suspicions.
15. Residents 4km away heard creams that appeared to become muffled.
Innocent: It was Allison being assaulted by someone else, or was in unrelated argument that ended badly; either whilst on her walk or after meeting up with a third party.
Guilty: Gerard had taken her out in the car for reasons unknown and either intentionally or as an escalation of an existing argument purposefully or accidentally killed her.
