GBC Trial General Discussion Thread #3

[Humdinger]

Do you think there's a chance more information could come out after BC's trial?



Off topic, but a farmer called Ewen MacDonald was acquitted of killing his brother in law in NZ. After the trial it came out he had vandalised the brother in laws house and committed some other awful crimes.



I really don't think the prosecution had enough evidence but I think if that information was allowed during the trial the verdict would've been different.

Yes my gut tells me that we're going to hear lots more!

That was a bizarre and horrible case wasn't it! Did he kill some animals too? I might do a google actually, I was only thinking of this one last week but couldn't remember all of the details!

 

[Smegal]

Which was lucky for us they were late. There was a near riot at the overflow court when the doors had been forgotten to be unlocked and opened. A member of the public went into a court next door and the judges assistant came out. He went into the courtroom being used for the overflow and rang downstairs to the bailiffs office to request somebody come up to open the doors.
Everyone was very twitchy and looking at their watches.
Imagine our surprise and relief when we were finally let in and it hadn't started for the day yet.


Somebody asked before about myself and Liaden giving our seats up for a family member. It wasn't necessary to do that on Thursday, we just made sure she was bought to near the front of the line to stand with us to make sure she got in.
We both agreed though we would give our seats up for family members if we needed to. It's far more important they are in the court than us.

Edited to add - to give you some idea of the number of people attending there was probably a couple of HUNDRED members of the public trying to push and shove their way through the doors.
Some peoples behaviour is just disgraceful. This is a murder trial, not a movie at the cinema. Have some respect for both families involved. I'm sure they would never have chosen to be mixed up in such a horrendous event

Those people's behaviour is sickening. Big hugs to you and Liaden.

Was the defence questioned about their tardiness? Like someone said, I think it was due to the lawyers trying to talk BC out of taking the stand.

One more question (sorry if you have already answered!): what was BC's tone like? Poor-me voice?

 

[Smegal]

It was during the trial that came out

"During the trial it was revealed that Macdonald had admitted to setting fire to Scott and Kylee Guy's old house in 2008, the vandalism of their new home in 2009, and to poaching trophy stags from a nearby farm then burying the carcasses on the Guy property."

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suppressions-lapse-ewen-macdonald-s-charges-5000890

Oh, my bad! Thanks for the correction.

 

[they'll get you]

I noticed that GBC never once called her Allison, it was 'her' or 'she'. In the beginning he lowered his voice, did I hear him say 'she used to'? This can be a red flag to police when some one speaks of the missing person in the past tense. In this audio GBC speaking with police the day after Allison's disappearance.

I hope the jurors have the maturity of hearing any past tense phrases and them seeing a murderer standing before them because I can't imagine seeing him speaking to the media a free man.
I think I might make an appointment with a physiatrist just in case I need help with coping.



http://media.smh.com.au/national/selections/badenclay-the-police-tapes-5543107.html

 

[Smegal]

It was during the trial that came out

"During the trial it was revealed that Macdonald had admitted to setting fire to Scott and Kylee Guy's old house in 2008, the vandalism of their new home in 2009, and to poaching trophy stags from a nearby farm then burying the carcasses on the Guy property."

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suppressions-lapse-ewen-macdonald-s-charges-5000890

Just read the article, some of the information was suppressed during the trial:

'All of the charges were suppressed out of concern they would unfairly influence the jury at his murder trial, but lapsed today following inquiries from ONE News.'

Sicko.

 

[redlightthroughpaper]

Wasn't he the one who was sleeping in Flegg's spare room and couldn't be woken the night of the screams?

I wonder what he was threatening to spill about Flegg? I've mentioned before that I have some misgivings about Flegg and his testimony - or even WHY he testified....

I wonder if the info Hallett was threatening to spill about Flegg is in any way related to this case?

Hmmmmmm........ :gasp:

EDIT: The words "tangled" and "web" spring to mind

I have some serious misgivings about some of BF's testimony too. IMO, it would be great if a reporter would go talk to some of the people that BF was in contact with early on the morning of the 20th April 2012 and then write an article in msm about what they might have to say (once the trial is over and is no longer sub judice of course).

 

[kiwi50]

It was during the trial that came out

"During the trial it was revealed that Macdonald had admitted to setting fire to Scott and Kylee Guy's old house in 2008, the vandalism of their new home in 2009, and to poaching trophy stags from a nearby farm then burying the carcasses on the Guy property."

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suppressions-lapse-ewen-macdonald-s-charges-5000890

Off topic but I used to go and watch this trial, people used to line up for ages trying to get in, the problem was we would get thrown out at morning tea time, and when you went out there was a queue allready of new people lined up, if you have a number to get into GBC trial, does it get you into each session for the day.
If anyone is tossing up whether to go or not, it is so worthwhile, you see/hear so much more plus you can pick up so much by how the jury are acting.
Things also come up that the media can't report but you see.

 

[they'll get you]

What kind of bandaid would cover two long scratches like that?? Just BS IMO.

 

[Susan12]

:floorlaugh:

What kind of bandaid would cover two long scratches like that?? Just BS IMO.

Yeah just a BS excuse to tell the shaving story to his daughter.

 

[Fuskier]

I agree suicidal people don't always act different before they go ahead with it. In Charlotte Dawson's case, she had already attempted suicide before, she was definitely in a high category risk of suicide.

Allison was not in that category, at least not in the last year or years, and had no previous attempts of suicide. Allison looked after herself, she sought help from psychiatrists, doctors and psychologists. She wasn't giving up. She was fighting for her marriage, she adored her daughters, why would she remove herself and allow Toni to become their full-time mother?! :no:

We should make GBC shoulder the blame for misdirecting us about suicide, it is he who is throwing around the idea that Allison remained the same as when she had her first child or the incident with the Lariam. He's trying to implant those thoughts into the jurors minds because he wants to escape justice.

Allison was murdered and dumped by the one person who should have loved and protected her. His motivation was greed and desperation. jmho

Thank you Prime Suspect. So well put. This specific case is a murder trial. It is in GBC's interest to influence the jury and the public towards suicide and away from murder because he is the alleged murderer. My opinion only.

 

[redlightthroughpaper]

Do you think there's a chance more information could come out after BC's trial?

I definitely think there will be more information that comes out after the trial. Until the trial is over, there are restrictions as to what can be reported, so it will be very interesting to see what pops up once the trial has finished. http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_03.html

 

[Zorro]

From the phone forensics report by Neil Robertson:

"58. On exhibit 48885-4225, I observed a delivered SMS message "Al, getting concerned where are you? The app doesn't say either? H and S now up. I'm dressed and about to make lunches. Please just text me back or call!". I observed this SMS message was sent on 20th April 2012 at 6:41 AM. The context "The app doesn't say either? " infers the usage of an iPhone application.
On exhibit 48885-4225, I observed the 'Find My Friends' application was installed on this
iPhone and the login user ID to sign into this application is 'gerardbc@century21westside.com.au'. As mentioned in paragraph 52, the first date and time entry of an application I observe being used in the CellLocationlocal table on exhibit 48885-4225 is 2O/04/2012 at 10:49am. Therefore, in my opinion it is likely that when this SMS message was sent on 20th April 2012 at 6:41 AM., the application Find My Friends was never used."

I think this is very incriminating and I can't see where this evidence has been refuted. GBC sends Allison an SMS saying he has attempted to find her using the FindMyFriends app when in fact he hadn't used that app on his phone prior to sending the text. (The expert says that the app only works on mobile devices).

Why on earth would he say that in a text at 6:41am when he is supposed to have been seriously looking for her?

 

[Neuromancer]

Very true! On a similar note, I remember reading Allison's friend saying she hated sport so I thought it was a bit weird that GBC (or was it his lawyer?) said on the stand that she loved The Footy Show . . . really? I mean I suppose just because you don't like playing sport/exercising doesn't mean you don't like to watch it. What's everyone else's thoughts?

I don't think Alison was quite the target demographic of the Footy Show...

 

[enthralled]

Gerard seems to do the opposite of what one would expect. Could he have connived to construct a self-incriminating scenario ~ through a wealth of circumstantial evidence .. with the aim of profiting through compensatory damages ?

I think he is after sponsorship from the makers of Toblerone lol.
Everyone heading to court tomorrow don't forget to take Toblerone for a snack!

 

[kiwijayne]

I don't think Alison was quite the target demographic of the Footy Show...

Maybe she watched it for any attractive men that might pop up?

 

[Moggill2]

I believe GBC will be found guilty of 'murder' (not manslaughter) and guilty of 'interfering with a corpse'.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
No matter how little the Prosecution has said and no matter how much the Defense and GBC in particular say, you can't get away from the 4 pieces of scientific evidence:

1. Scratches on his face - well documented with photographs and heavily supported by qualified experts to WITHIN 100% certainty. (MURDER)

2. Blood in Allison's car which has been DNA-matched to Allison herself. There is no refuting the DNA-matching - it's her blood.

Then the other factors presented:

a) Position/location of the blood
b) The type of blood transfer - smear and single drip/rivulet
c) No other blood smears or blood transfer anywhere else in the car

None of these factors support or gel with a normal everyday cut/injury. (MURDER & INTERFERING WITH A CORPSE)

3. The plant evidence. The expert was extremely thorough in his examination and investigation. As well, his testimony was extremely thorough, clear and well documented. ALL 6 species of plant material found on Allison was present at her home - only 2 species found at Kholo Creek & surrounding area. (MURDER & INTERFERING WITH A CORPSE)

4. The Autopsy Report. While some of the testimony given was a bit unclear for a layman, the general understanding I got was:

No definitive cause of death because of level of decomposition....HOWEVER:

a) No unusually high levels of medication/alcohol - Rules out overdose
b) No broken bones/visible injuries - rules out jumping or falling from bridge
c) No diatoms present - rules out drowning
d) Nothing to indicate death by Natural causes (heart attack, etc)
e) No sexual assault and expensive engagement wedding rings and all clothing intact - rules out attack by stranger/predator/robbery
f) Unable to determine other possible injuries (bruising, knocks, etc) - possible physical attack of some type (by someone) leading to her death
g) Jumper pushed up and bunched around neck with hands entangled within and positioned above her head - indicates she had no control of her body positioning and indicates someone else was involved.
h) Tip of a rubber glove caught within her tangled jumper - indicates the presence of someone else.
(MURDER & INTERFERING WITH A CORPSE)

THERE IS ZERO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (SO FAR) FROM THE DEFENSE SIDE TO SUPPORT A 'NOT GUILTY' FINDING.

OTHER EXPERT EVIDENCE

4 experts in the medical field (doctor, psychologists & counselor) have discounted suicide with certainty within their expertise and experience.

THE DEFENSE (SO FAR) HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY EXPERTS TO SUPPORT SUICIDE.

MOTIVE

1. Documents and independent witness testimony to support GBC's dire financial position
2. Documents and independent witness testimony to support GBC's affair with TMH and the seriousness of his relationship with her. (emails/texts to support his promises to her of a future together).

THE DEFENSE HAS PROVIDED ZERO DOCUMENTATION OR INDEPENDENT WITNESS TO REFUTE/NEGATE THE ALLEGED FINANCIAL MOTIVE.
(No documents or financial agreements extending/cancelling debt repayments, no financial documents to prove he had any other source or method to meet his debts & expenses.

THE DEFENSE HAS PROVIDED ZERO PROOF OR INDEPENDENT TESTIMONY TO REFUTE/NEGATE THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH TMH.
(No emails, texts or even witness testimony - apart from the word of GBC himself)

In summary, I believe the Prosecution has presented hard & solid scientific evidence, expert testimony, independent testimony and a lot of documentary evidence.

The Defense has presented gossip, testimony from biased individuals, no scientific evidence, no expert testimony (so far), no documentary evidence and the word of the accused himself (GBC).

While there are many other pieces of evidence/testimony (screams, phone placed on charger at 1.48am, children's testimony, etc) I think alot of it may end up being put aside as inconclusive.

I truly believe all the above is fairly straight-forward and obvious and I believe the Jury are normal people capable of understanding and working this out for themselves.

JUSTICE FOR ALLISON

ps. I'm no medical or science expert, so there's probably flaws in my understanding of things (autopsy report in particular), but I would like to think the Jury are average people just like me.

 

[toe]

I don't think Alison was quite the target demographic of the Footy Show...

Agree.

Even my OH who is a huge footy fan can't stand the infantile antics of the Footy Show and refuses to watch it.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

I don't think Alison was quite the target demographic of the Footy Show...

I've always thought this, but didn't say anything because I'm just a boring older middle class female with minus interest in football. I thought that I'd just sound snobby &/or out of touch with the "real world"!

 

[Liadan]

Those people's behaviour is sickening. Big hugs to you and Liaden.

Was the defence questioned about their tardiness? Like someone said, I think it was due to the lawyers trying to talk BC out of taking the stand.

One more question (sorry if you have already answered!): what was BC's tone like? Poor-me voice?

Smegal - GBC's tone was his standard whiney sales pitch - he was totally selling himself, he thinks he can captivate and entrance his audience. He was on the stand for murder but that fighting for his life involves wearing people down about his stellar capabilities. I am not sure that I will focus on his timbre of his voice here as opposed to his very obvious agenda to prove himself as the perfect guy. But that stupid and god forsaken tone - to say he sounds like a entitled real estate agent probably sums him up! He had the typical marketing sales pitch GBC voice, excited and high and fast when he spoke of the good times. Then as he emphasized what he would frame in his life as the darker moments he would speak slowly and thoughtfully and his demeanor was titchy, condescending, entitled, and just downright disrespectful.

As his barrister asked him questions GBC would be hammering how Allison's sickness was unbearable and inexplicable to him! I cannot fathom how a loving husband comes to speak so candidly of his dearest as if she was a dragging him down to the lowest of lows and preventing him from functioning as a man. No man would stand for a woman doing this to them - they would simply leave them. Obviously Allison was worth $$$$ to GBC. (I hate to say that but she was all class all brains and all capable about business!)

Then GBC was excitedly selling his Flight centre credos, cause you can't murder your wife if you have been the tops sales performer at flight center 10 or so years ago. You need to mention this stuff when you are on the stand for murder.

Then GBC was selling his love for life, while on tour of South America he told us how he was fully involved in the flag waving at a soccer game supporting the locals. Seriously, this man could not possibly do anything wrong. How is GBC on the stand for murder?

Then we hear about his amazing skills in parenting - GBC can show an open home while changing a nappy and almost breast feeding his daughter. (methinks he has got a case to give's men a real reason to be envious of man *advertiser censored*).

Honestly - the concessions that he seemed to make for Allison in his life were so far out of the realm of acceptance of any male. What did Allison bring to the relationship?

Sorry Smegal - I hope I have partially answered your question. I honestly couldn't listen to his pathetic diatribe. He was obviously spinning porkies. If you have read the notes about how he treated his daughters according Phil and Jocelyn, his partners - his warmth and sincerity flies in the face of the actions that they saw.

 

[Berry]

You don't actually lose them....they run away...

Haha, yep I indeed agree Tishy and all sock widows/widowers....

Our socks elope with every missing wire coathanger....:notgood: