GBC Trial General Discussion Thread #2

[Total]

Yes he could get compensation.

If he did, not believing for one moment that will happen, but based on the last few years of taxable earnings before going to jail he won't be able to claim much for lost earnings. Really, going to jail probably stopped him going backwards financially even further.:facepalm:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Sorry if this has been discussed, but on the pictures of the BC house, what are those red dots with yellow circles?

The dots are from the 3D video house tour.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657052/Teddy-bears-family-portraits-childrens-drawings-Chilling-crime-scene-photographs-inside-Baden-Clay-family-home-four-days-Allison-disappeared.html

 

[Mumma Bear]

Re the hair stuck in the blood in the car (yes, again, sorry!) - blood dries super quick!

"Blood usually clots in 10 to 20 minutes. … A single drop of blood that falls on a dry surface often dries in about an hour at room temperature."

http://www.pimall.com/nais/nl/n.bloodstains.html

 

[they'll get you]

If he did, not believing for one moment that will happen, but based on the last few years of taxable earnings before going to jail he won't be able to claim much for lost earnings. Really, going to jail probably stopped him going backwards financially even further.:facepalm:

Gaol protected himself from himself.

Allison should be alive.
Bankruptcy was a cleaner, simpler option.
But too proud to contemplate.

I'm not sure of the laws but I think you can't run or own a business if you've been bankrupted.

c-21 is worldwide.
http://www.century21global.com

 

[Zim]

I agree. Imo, GBC would be having difficulty sleeping, the net is closing in on him. jmo

I believe he is guilty without a doubt. He was jailed because he was seen as a flight risk, innocent people don't run, well not with a civilized judicial system like in Australia. jmho

There must have been some evidence that he was going to run, maybe to Zimbabwe?

Zimbabwe ?
I don't think so. He was born in UK and only lived in Zimbabwe for 8 years (Aged 2 years old to 10 years old) 1972-1980 then moved to Aus. (They have been here for 34 years !
http://www.news.com.au/national/the...bail-application/story-e6frfkvr-1226410326970
(Nigel)
http://www.greatnorthroad.org/names/read.php?id=2882

Zimbabwe is not a place that someone born there can easily 'move' to and damn difficult if not born there....just sayin'....I KNOW !

 

[toe]

Has it been confirmed who owned the vehicle GBC crashed at Indooroopilly Shopping Centre?


My interest in this case was stirred after MSM showed the interview with GBC and Olivia where he said "It hurt a little bit but I'm okay" his body language and demeanor had me convinced he was not being truthful and there was more to his fake concern.

 

[Thinking]

Like many, I'm struggling to decide whether or not I would find him guilty on the evidence led so far. However, the more I think about the scratches, the more I think they are the clincher. Even with NO other circumstantial evidence except the scratches, the fact remains at it is highly improbable (beyond reasonable doubt in my opinion, and also seemingly in the opinion of several expert witnesses) that the scratches came from the razor as GBC says. Thus, beyond reasonable doubt (IMO) he is lying. There is only one reason why he would lie about these scratches - I can't think of any reason why he would lie about them except that the truth would incriminate him. Does anyone agree? I hope the jurors see it this way.

 

[spratsmum]

I know! I feel the same way. Almost 'driving myself crazy' with my obsession. So many questions that will probably never be answered.

A couple of random thoughts that have already been discussed but I just can't let go of...

1. Why did GBC not just say on that morning to police that he and Alison had had a fight the night before about his affair and she had scratched him and then ran off?

2. Why, when they asked about her state of mind, did he not say, she had been really depressed and he was worried she was suicidal and that's why he had phoned the police so early?

3. Like others have said, I really don't believe GBC would have known what Allison was wearing that morning AND it is far more likely that if she had a Lorna Jane outfit that she would wear that outfit when walking out in public in Brookfield and the actual outfit she had on when she was found would much more likely be what she was wearing around the house the night before (when he did actually see her) and also if it was baggy .... Much easier to get over her hair without messing up her new hairdo.

When I reread the autopsy report yesterday I realised those pants were XXL. Now I am a lot bigger that Allison, but XXL would be too big on me, and would fall off - how does one go walking in falling down track pants? and why would she have ever bought them in the first place? I would say they would be a better fit on Elaine.

 

[Thinking]

Here's a radical thought....

I'm one of those who has been saying "Bring on the roundabout", largely with tongue firmly in cheek, as a bit of a catchcry. BUT - what if there is nothing about the roundabout?

What if, for example, whatever "evidence" they were testing when they ran those tests with the closed-off roundabout all amounted to nothing?

I know GBC is alleged to have asked Fleggy about cameras at the roundabout - but we haven't yet heard that in evidence, so neither has the jury. And if the theories involving the roundabout all turned out to be fruitless, then we may well not hear anything about that bloody roundabout in the trial!

Howzat for stirring up the collywobbles?

Doc I mentioned this possibility last week and I think we need to mentally prepare ourselves for this possibility - we all may need some therapy if we don't hear a single thing about it.....

 

[DrWatson]

Doc I mentioned this possibility last week and I think we need to mentally prepare ourselves for this possibility - we all may need some therapy if we don't hear a single thing about it.....

Roundabout-withdrawal therapy - group session...! :loveyou:

 

[spratsmum]

Roundabout-withdrawal therapy - group session...! :loveyou:

Unfortunately Doc, I am begin to wonder if we are not going to need, Baden Clay withdrawal therapy 101!

 

[Amee]

Here's a radical thought....

I'm one of those who has been saying "Bring on the roundabout", largely with tongue firmly in cheek, as a bit of a catchcry. BUT - what if there is nothing about the roundabout?

What if, for example, whatever "evidence" they were testing when they ran those tests with the closed-off roundabout all amounted to nothing?

I know GBC is alleged to have asked Fleggy about cameras at the roundabout - but we haven't yet heard that in evidence, so neither has the jury. And if the theories involving the roundabout all turned out to be fruitless, then we may well not hear anything about that bloody roundabout in the trial!

Howzat for stirring up the collywobbles?

:thud:

 

[marlywings]

I agree. Imo, GBC would be having difficulty sleeping, the net is closing in on him. jmo

I believe he is guilty without a doubt. He was jailed because he was seen as a flight risk, innocent people don't run, well not with a civilized judicial system like in Australia. jmho

There must have been some evidence that he was going to run, maybe to Zimbabwe?

I agree re the possibility of him "running" ...more importantly, Justice Boddice thought so too.

At the bail hearing, which incidentally, was two years ago yesterday, one of the reporters tweeted his parents had left the house dressed up. They were not sighted at the bail hearing & there was some speculation about them possibly being at Arthur Gorrie ready to whisk him away if he was granted bail.

I think the BC's fully believed & expected he would be granted bail but our justice system decided otherwise....

June 22, 2012

However Justice Boddice dismissed the application, stating that strong ties to the community were not unusual.

He said the prospect of a mandatory life sentence – the penalty in Queensland if found guilty of murder - was “a powerful incentive not to appear” for trial.

And while Mr Baden-Clay had not “sought to flee despite intense media attention” in the lead-up to his arrest, he had now been charged with murder and had been in custody since.

Justice Boddice said Mr Baden-Clay’s ties to the community, his obligation to his daughters and his obligations to his business must be balanced against “the real risk of mandatory life imprisonment” and what that might mean to a person.

“The applicant is facing the real risk of mandatory life imprisonment, flight is a real possibility, a real possibility,” he said.

“Although he may have property and other work relationship ties with Queensland, that is not an unusual factor and would not necessarily prevent flight of someone determined to abscond because of fear of a lengthy prison sentence.”

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...denied-bail-20120622-20s73.html#ixzz35Lf8I3FM

 

[Timmy]

Roundabout-withdrawal therapy - group session...! :loveyou:

Sign me up Doc!

 

[KG1]

Years ago we had an unusually high phone bill and we phoned telstra to look in to it and requested an itemised account of all calls. We were sent an itemised account of every call made from our landline, including all local calls. I am almost certain that they would be able to trace the landline calls.

I receive online bills from Telstra each month - I can go into the landline account and see every call billed - local, STD and 13 numbers. This has been available online for a long time. Previously one had to request an itemized paper account, which also showed all calls made from the landline. I do not know if Optus or any of the other providers have this service.

 

[LadyBird1]

Like many, I'm struggling to decide whether or not I would find him guilty on the evidence led so far. However, the more I think about the scratches, the more I think they are the clincher. Even with NO other circumstantial evidence except the scratches, the fact remains at it is highly improbable (beyond reasonable doubt in my opinion, and also seemingly in the opinion of several expert witnesses) that the scratches came from the razor as GBC says. Thus, beyond reasonable doubt (IMO) he is lying. There is only one reason why he would lie about these scratches - I can't think of any reason why he would lie about them except that the truth would incriminate him. Does anyone agree? I hope the jurors see it this way.

FWIW or (For What It's Worth,) When I first heard the "little bit hurt" interview, I knew without any shadow of a doubt that this bloke, (whoever the hell he was) was LYING through his teeth about some thing.
Turned out later, I discovered, it was about a missing wife.
Thought to self, missing wife is not just missing. Missing wife has met a fate known to the person being interviewed.

The point of this comment is this;
If I, a humble Queensland Country Lady can see this clearly, (without all the etceteras), then a jury should be well and truly able to see likewise.

I mean at the time, I knew nothing about his affairs, or his financial duress, or the apparent fact that he was an abysmal liar. Knew nothing about his caterpillar story, or supposed blunt razor, or "mummy falling down a hole" or Allison's diary entries, or his narcissistic qualities.
Knew nothing about about his apparent con-artistry in regards financial dealings. "Your money in my pocket" appears to be his modes operandi in regards to getting ahead financially.
Many matters have surfaced since that Interview, foremost of which appears to be the fact that the Clay family is full of clay, otherwise understood to be dirt, or bull dust or outright crap.

 

[alioop]

It surprised me that EBC is not a witness.
She was the first person GBC called from his mobile the morning Allison went missing.

I did not think she would be called as a witness. She did not go to the Brookfield house that morning and likely not at all that day. Asking her what GBC said to her on the phone has little meaning for a jury. She is his mother. They did not ask NBC about details of phone calls he had with GBC if I recall.

I can't see any calls on G's phone to TM until the 19th April!!! He knew Allison would check right? Suddenly the day before she goes missing, it doesn't matter anymore?

Then there are a few calls the afternoon of the 20th to TM... so much for laying low!!! Why would he do that if Allison would find out?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-203836.html

I agree, this is important evidence but I am not sure if the prosecution will tender phone records.

I am sure somewhere when we were reading all the transcripts it said something about an antibiotic that Allison was on at the time. I cannot remember which one but I know it was quite a strong one and not usually prescribed for simple infections. I was quite surprised as no one had said anything about her being sick at that stage. The hairdresser then also said at that time she was not well. If they can bring that up it would give even more credence to the fact she wouldn't feel like walking either late on cold night or early the next morning.

Good point. We don't know if she had gone for a walk on any day that week. If she hadn't as she was unwell, it is more unlikely she went that Friday particularly as she had a fancy hair do and an early departure for the conference.

I think the pieces of wood shaped like a cross are the frames for real estate signs.

IF GBC wanted to claim the life insurance, why did he place Allison body in such a hard to find spot?

If GBC didn't do it, then who did?

I don't think Allisons body was in a hard spot to find from people other than those searching for her. I think it was fairly easy spot from the creek perspective. The kayaker saw her straight away as she was high up on the muddy bank and I think had there not been the heavy rains after she went missing, she would have been seen by a kayaker, maybe the same one, days earlier. I think it was a popular kayaking spot.

 

[Champagne4lulu]

This has been bugging me since I first read it, 2009 Toni is in the picture but the financial situation is not quite so dire. Gerard stays with Allison for almost another 3 years and Allison tolerates the situation for the same time. Early in 2012 they go to see a marriage counselor, who prescribes the face to face 15 minute chats. It seemed to me from reading that, that the counselor was, for want of a better term, "putting the blame" with Gerard. I really don't see Gerard as being the warm and fuzzy type who liked to share, too feminine for him. Also I would imagine these sessions were not cheap, so we have got the two major issues together in this situation. To be quite blunt I don't think Gerard wanted to save the marriage, he was over it. He didn't want to be with Toni either, she was just his bit on the side, staying in the marriage meant he didn't have to change anything with Toni, and he always had a excuse for not taking it a step further, he was already married.

The whole idea of sitting down for 15 minutes and berating yourself and letting your partner ask all the questions, is horrific I think. It would just make me more angry. So much in GBC life had robbed him of his male pride - women, money, business failure and nobody was helping HIM, everyone was against him. Allison was worth more dead than alive, eliminate her and you get rid of a lot of his worries. But I still can't work out many of the hows and whys, and I think a jury has to be based on fact not feeling, I hope the week ahead has some explanations.

Not sure if it's at all relevant here, but a friend of mine is seeing a psych bulk billed through her GP. Given Allison's prior consults this is a possibility?!? Maybe??

 

[spratsmum]

I recall how heavily it rained on the 28th of April, but it did it rain on the weekend of 21-22 APril 2012?o

 

[Happygolucky]

GBC must be considered innocent until proven guilty and considered guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. To my mind this means that he will not be convicted if there is some slight chance in the minds of the jury that he is innocent.

The onus lies on the prosecution to remove all doubts about his guilt and at this stage of the trial they obviously haven't done that. I think that so far they have convinced the jury (and me) that he has lied about how he got scratches on his face saying that they were caused by a safety-razor.

I think he is a liar and I think those face scratches are caused by something other than a safety razor and possibly by fingernails. From his other injuries I think he was in a fight with someone who scratches during the night of April 19th. I don't know why he lied and I don't know who he fought or where. It is up to the prosecution to paint a clearer picture with evidence and obviously they will.

As to whether there is some slight chance that he is innocent, that is the job of his defence: GBC doesn't have a watertight alibi otherwise it would have been offered and checked by now and he would be a free man. The defence could argue that some person unknown had the opportunity to murder ABC while GBC was 'heavy sleeping'. The defence could argue that there had been a violent domestic dispute and ABC scratched GBC but that does not prove murder. They could argue that GBC is taking the rap to protect the real murderer.

Lots of scenarios could be contrived that cause reasonable doubt unless the prosecution closes off all options.

I think most people reading this forum are of the same opinion as to whether GBC is guilty or not. The fascination for me is to watch how the prosecution presents what they must see as their watertight case against him.

I agree the prosecution need to present a watertight case. So far it is circumstantial and the injuries to GBCs face are the most damning. I think that GBC will take the stand. He has never made a formal statement. His best hope for aquittal is to say yes there was an awful fight and Alison scratched him, hit him etc and ran out. He could say she was provoked by his disclosure that TM would be at the conference the next day. He did not was to inflame her further and waited for her to come home and she never did. He could say he was embarrased to admit that he did not go out to look for her that was why he lied to the police. He believed she would come home but was getting concerned etc. That would be far more believable than caterpillers and shaving etc.

There is still the blood in the car but what concerns me the "rivulets" are human blood but there is no DNA evidence that it is Alison's.