***Day 6 -Committal Hearing*** 18th,19,20th March 2013***

[elmo343]

If my partner was missing the furtherest thing from my mind would be going to see doctors about an itch????

 

[Perthgirl62]

Why? Because he knew he'd be suspected of his wife's future murder and took photos to document it just in case? Ok ok, I'll go sit on the naughty chair.

Maybe he was sending a photo of his sexy bod (cough cough):yuck: to TM

 

[Aberline_1979]

If my partner was missing the furtherest thing from my mind would be going to see doctors about an itch????

Or beetling 'round the neighborhood at 7AM with my pop and a beat-up old vacuum cleaner, on dust patrol at various Century 21 properties :giggle:

 

[BJsleuth]

IMO The injuries appear like possible struggle injuries inflicted by someone being held down either in a strangulation or suffocation hold. Just my opinion.

I agree. Like he sat on her while he did it. MOO

 

[Thinking]

I thought some of you might be interested to see my brief notes from Dr Stark's testimony on Monday again, now that you have seen the photos. I've pasted it below:

"1. I found it interesting that Dr Stark (first witness) thought that the left side chest (near neck) scratch (the one I understand to be the “caterpillar” scratch) was NOT caused by scraping of any kind. Rather, she thought the mark came from a blunt force to the skin, which could have been through clothing. Davis seemed to be trying to get her to agree that it could have been caused by “scraping” but she seemed quite definite that there was no abrasion, rather it was pinpoint bruising. She said the same thing about the bigger chest injury – she believed it was likely to have come from pressure being applied to the skin through clothing and it was not likely to have been self inflicted (I think he may have also explained this one away blaming the poor caterpillar too).

2. The armpit injury intrigues me a bit. She said she believes it is also pinpoint bruising – as an example she said this type of bruising could have been caused by a heavy backpack pulling under the armpits or a t-shirt being pulled tightly under the arms (in my view a shirt would have to be pulled VERY tightly to cause this sort of a lasting mark on a man?). Does anyone have any theories about this injury? I wonder how he got it, and I’m not sure of how he has explained this one in his “version”.

3. The Dr had seen pictures of Allison’s hands and confirmed the other expert evidence that Allison’s fingernails were long enough to have been capable of causing such scratches as those on GBC. Davis said as a throwaway line: “fingernails grow a bit post-morten don’t they?” – there was a murmur of disgust through the gallery in response to this comment and Davis quickly moved on."

 

[CouchCop]

Haven't read all the posts today .... they have been coming through like a tsunami, but my thoughts and particular query of all you guy sleuthers out there who go through the daily humdrum of a shave.

In the real explosive pictures today published at the time of the decision, can I talk about Picture 1. This one is were GBC is apparently not wearing a shirt. I see two primary wounds ... one to the left, and one slightly right of that which is broken into two parts. Wound to the left seems to move in a leftward direction. Ditto the top part of wound two, however, the bottom part of Wound 2 moves in another direction. In this picture, which I assume was taken "some hours later"shows he has considerable stubble. Does anyone know when this picture might have been taken and can all you shavers out there estimate from this picture, when he might have taken his morning shave.

Another picture, further down on the Courier Mail site shows a picture of the same wound site, but it also shows him in a shirt. I'm assuming this picture was taken much earlier ... soon after police arrived on the scene. I don't think there is the same degree of "stubble" seen in the picture described above. What I can see though is to the southern end of the major wounds some almost "dot"blood that I wondered might have been true shaving nicks. Could these have been caused because the wounds above them caused protrusions or depressions to the skin.

If the timing of the morning shave can be varied from what GBC suggests (i.e. earlier) , a further plus can be added to the prosecution case.

At the end of the day, I am concerned about how this apparently broke guy has been able to continue to retain the work of Peter Davis. He has to have funding sources some how. To even have come up with the money thus far seems unthinkable to me, but the party has just begun as far as the legal dollars needed is required. Is it possible Davis is doing a pro bono? Ditto for Mahony?

 

[CaseClosed]

I thought some of you might be interested to see my brief notes from Dr Stark's testimony on Monday again, now that you have seen the photos. I've pasted it below:

"1. I found it interesting that Dr Stark (first witness) thought that the left side chest (near neck) scratch (the one I understand to be the “caterpillar” scratch) was NOT caused by scraping of any kind. Rather, she thought the mark came from a blunt force to the skin, which could have been through clothing. Davis seemed to be trying to get her to agree that it could have been caused by “scraping” but she seemed quite definite that there was no abrasion, rather it was pinpoint bruising. She said the same thing about the bigger chest injury – she believed it was likely to have come from pressure being applied to the skin through clothing and it was not likely to have been self inflicted (I think he may have also explained this one away blaming the poor caterpillar too).

2. The armpit injury intrigues me a bit. She said she believes it is also pinpoint bruising – as an example she said this type of bruising could have been caused by a heavy backpack pulling under the armpits or a t-shirt being pulled tightly under the arms (in my view a shirt would have to be pulled VERY tightly to cause this sort of a lasting mark on a man?). Does anyone have any theories about this injury? I wonder how he got it, and I’m not sure of how he has explained this one in his “version”.

3. The Dr had seen pictures of Allison’s hands and confirmed the other expert evidence that Allison’s fingernails were long enough to have been capable of causing such scratches as those on GBC. Davis said as a throwaway line: “fingernails grow a bit post-morten don’t they?” – there was a murmur of disgust through the gallery in response to this comment and Davis quickly moved on."

Thanks!! Point 2. I tend to think (like Doc) that it could have been by someone pulling his shirt back strongly and making it really tight around the armpit, but I cannot workout how it could have been Allison pulling? Unless is was during a physical argument in which she pulled him back while he is walking away from her. A mystery.

 

[Aberline_1979]

I thought some of you might be interested to see my brief notes from Dr Stark's testimony on Monday again, now that you have seen the photos. I've pasted it below:

"1. I found it interesting that Dr Stark (first witness) thought that the left side chest (near neck) scratch (the one I understand to be the “caterpillar” scratch) was NOT caused by scraping of any kind. Rather, she thought the mark came from a blunt force to the skin, which could have been through clothing. Davis seemed to be trying to get her to agree that it could have been caused by “scraping” but she seemed quite definite that there was no abrasion, rather it was pinpoint bruising. She said the same thing about the bigger chest injury – she believed it was likely to have come from pressure being applied to the skin through clothing and it was not likely to have been self inflicted (I think he may have also explained this one away blaming the poor caterpillar too).

2. The armpit injury intrigues me a bit. She said she believes it is also pinpoint bruising – as an example she said this type of bruising could have been caused by a heavy backpack pulling under the armpits or a t-shirt being pulled tightly under the arms (in my view a shirt would have to be pulled VERY tightly to cause this sort of a lasting mark on a man?). Does anyone have any theories about this injury? I wonder how he got it, and I’m not sure of how he has explained this one in his “version”.

The closest thing I've experienced to marks that look like this is barbell squatting at the gym without using any padding on the bar. The 'grips' on the bar press hard onto your upper back / trapz and you get marks that look just like that (whether your wear a shirt/singlet). It's not painful at all, though...just, well, kind of annoying I guess.

Mind you though, the OTHER marks on his body more than seal the deal for me.

 

[CaseClosed]

Haven't read all the posts today .... they have been coming through like a tsunami, but my thoughts and particular query of all you guy sleuthers out there who go through the daily humdrum of a shave.

In the real explosive pictures today published at the time of the decision, can I talk about Picture 1. This one is were GBC is apparently not wearing a shirt. I see two primary wounds ... one to the left, and one slightly right of that which is broken into two parts. Wound to the left seems to move in a leftward direction. Ditto the top part of wound two, however, the bottom part of Wound 2 moves in another direction. In this picture, which I assume was taken "some hours later"shows he has considerable stubble. Does anyone know when this picture might have been taken and can all you shavers out there estimate from this picture, when he might have taken his morning shave.

Another picture, further down on the Courier Mail site shows a picture of the same wound site, but it also shows him in a shirt. I'm assuming this picture was taken much earlier ... soon after police arrived on the scene. I don't think there is the same degree of "stubble" seen in the picture described above. What I can see though is to the southern end of the major wounds some almost "dot"blood that I wondered might have been true shaving nicks. Could these have been caused because the wounds above them caused protrusions or depressions to the skin.

If the timing of the morning shave can be varied from what GBC suggests (i.e. earlier) , a further plus can be added to the prosecution case.

At the end of the day, I am concerned about how this apparently broke guy has been able to continue to retain the work of Peter Davis. He has to have funding sources some how. To even have come up with the money thus far seems unthinkable to me, but the party has just begun as far as the legal dollars needed is required. Is it possible Davis is doing a pro bono? Ditto for Mahony?

The funds could be coming from the sale of the house on the Gold Coast. I don't know how much equity they had in that property, but it surely was sold quickly by GBC. It wouldn't surprise me if his Defence team told him to sell that property or else ...

 

[SandyGG]

I have seen bruising that appeared similar to this. Red and speckly. As the Dr said, "pressure". that would not preclude a blow of some kind or a prolonged pushing in that area? I believe that he got on top of her.

 

[CouchCop]

Thanks Case Closed. Didn't I see somewhere where there was something like $135K in recognisable dollars where he collected $67K of that. If so, that wouldn't even cover his costs to date. How on earth can he go to trial with the backing of Peter Davis/Mahony and have any expectation of covering it. Does anyone out there have any idea if Mahony and Davis are looking for celebrity status. Doh. Have I been watching too much crap on TV?

 

[SandyGG]

I also believe that he has tried to cover up his injuries by deliberately cutting his face with the razor, note the small knicks. And scratching himself stupid in the other places. He has just made it look worse and not particularly concealed the original trauma.

 

[CouchCop]

I am way older than GBC (by 15 years). There have been times when I have given my skin a quite vigourous scratch and end up with the appearance of "minature blood blisters"which is just how one of his ""wounds"appear. I can't recall that happening at his "skin age"though. Where is Dr Watson when we need him?

 

[Sleuthilicious]

1. Does anyone know if Allison's girls were questioned by police, surely if people in neighbouring properties heard "blood curdling screams" coming from the BC house at least one of the 3 girls heard something?

2. When TM said she won't be made feel guilty for Allison being missing I truly believe she thought she was talking about a wife taking off and giving her husband something to think about, I really don't think she anticipate the horrible outcome when she made that comment. Of course she must feel guilt, anyone who knew about the affair would feel guilt, anyone who knew Allison was struggling within her marriage would feel guilt. Everyone would be asking themselves "what could I have done to prevent Allison's murder"

3. I think despite all the evidence in the world if my sibling was accused of something so terrible, I think it would be hard to see. Your mind wouldn't believe it, so you wouldn't see it. Just think of someone you love and trust being in GBC's shoes, the whole world may know what he did, but I think unless they said it with their own mouth for you to hear with your own, it could be next to impossible to believe. Could your mother, father, sister, brother or child commit murder, a person you trust a love. No! Most people on this Earth are trusted and loved by someone, but there are an awful lot of murders out there. I'm sure OW is not the first person to be deluded by the idea of who they truly believe their loved one to be V who is really is. I think she 'could' be forgiven for blindly standing by her brother despite him stinking like a rat. I don't think you are a liar unless you genuinely know you are lying.

All moo, obviously.

I think you and I are kindred spirits I've found it really hard to be overly critical of the family and TM. If they aren't involved then they could never have predicted this awful scenario. I think they just handled themselves poorly.

 

[BJsleuth]

I thought some of you might be interested to see my brief notes from Dr Stark's testimony on Monday again, now that you have seen the photos.

2. The armpit injury intrigues me a bit. She said she believes it is also pinpoint bruising – as an example she said this type of bruising could have been caused by a heavy backpack pulling under the armpits or a t-shirt being pulled tightly under the arms (in my view a shirt would have to be pulled VERY tightly to cause this sort of a lasting mark on a man?). Does anyone have any theories about this injury? I wonder how he got it, and I’m not sure of how he has explained this one in his “version”.

Respectfully snipped. Well, if there were someone else present, I'd say that they'd try to drag him off. It would seem to require some pulling force from above if that were how it occured. IMO

 

[Happygolucky]

We will never really know how she died, but my take is a head injury of some sort. I have read the Autopsy Report and the decomposition around her head was very severe, therefore difficult to come to any conclusions.

When I was in court Monday of last week the coroner was quite clear that he was unable to determine the cause of death. This, unfortunately leaves, scope for the defence at trial to present an alternative theory. As Zoloft overdose is quite dead, the only other theory I can see they may come up with is an attack by a random stranger. Whether there will be much credibility is another matter in the light of all those injuries in the photos. Gee GBC must have had a very unfortunate 14 hours with broken light bulbs, caterpiller and shaving injuries. One would have been awake all night scratching, not sleeping so soundly that you were not aware Alison had not come to bed.

 

[CouchCop]

In addition to the experts that Danny Boyle has engaged, I think it would be wise to engage the opinion of applied linguists. For example, when OW says "I still believe he is innocent"" ... to me, the word ""still"has important meaning. A smart applied linguist could research the normal "spoken patterns"of a particular person and compare them with the "spoken patterns"" of a person under duration.

 

[possumheart]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs6HbYit5-A&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs6HbYit5-A&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

<3 big day today.

 

[BJsleuth]

Yes, it will be interesting. Could GBC have been preparing a "file" of injuries sustained during aggressive behaviour by Allison, in preparation for divorce?? What I mean, was he trying to set her up for a future divorce case, saying "she is aggressive, she beats me, she scratches me, she leaves bruises on me, etc. etc." ... and I'm a little bit hurt!

It's funny you should say that. Reading the statements to police, it sounded to me like he was trying to garner a little bit of sympathy with his comments about the affair and how she kept tabs on him, didn't trust him, organised marriage counseling which he attended twice, setting aside 15 minutes a night to talk about the affair so it didn't drag on. How he had to get the girls ready for school. Then he switches to tooting his horn how he renovated that house. There was something about all that which bothered me but I can't put my finger on it. IMO

 

[wewillgetyou]

I just remembered something else the judge said from today. In his summarising after committing GBC to trial he said that if he had any of his own witnesses or alibi he had 14 days from today's date to lodge with ??

Liaden - can you remember this ?