Have spent a good part of the afternoon reading through the various threads and keeping myself updated on the latest goings on and I have to say if nothing else, these threads are a fascinating microcosm of the human psyche.
<modsnip>.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows exactly what was going through the mind of Allison immediately before her death, and indeed throughout her entire relationship with GBC. This includes medical professionals who have personally treated Allison, while they are in the best position to make assessments I can tell you from personal experience that some people are reluctant to share their most intimate thoughts and feelings, even with health professionals. There are any number of reasons why information may be withheld or less than truthful answered proffered - The patient may believe it is irrelevant, feel ashamed or may even fear involuntary committal. Again, it is my belief that nobody is qualified to answer on Allison's behalf or make suppositions that she would, or would not do a particular act.
Anyway with that aside, I believe that the prosecution is up the proverbial without a paddle and let me preface this by reminding some who may not be aware of my position - I believe that it is likely that Allison has met with foul play and if that is indeed the case, there is a high likelihood that GBC was involved. However on the evidence adduced at trial, I feel it falls well short of the standard required to convict on either charge.
Obviously at the forefront of the case is whether or not Allison was in fact the victim of a homicide. The prosecution hypothesis is that she was asphyxiated but this hypothesis has seemingly been arrived at by eliminating other potential causes of death including but not limited to - drowning, major trauma caused by a fall and poisoning. The prosecution led no evidence to support their assertion besides the elimination of other possibilities, there was no defining physical or pathological evidence of asphyxiation and no "weapon" has been located. Asphyxiation appears likely but on the evidence led could I be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that is the case? In my personal opinion, no.
Early on the prosecution relied on evidence that screams were heard in the vicinity of the BC household but to their credit, they presented a witness at late notice who essentially debunked the relevance to Allison's disappearance. Of course they have a legal duty to present all relevant evidence to the court but it is always nice to see, particularly when it's so potentially injurious to the prosecution case (brickbats to the investigators who totally ignored the initial statement btw). If there was more than 1 scream, Bruce Flegg later cast considerable doubt it's relevance as well as well as it bordering on absurd that Allison's 3 daughters did not hear a thing despite claims that the screams were heard several kilometers away.
Blood in the Captiva - Worthy of investigation? Absolutely but as was stated during the trial, it is impossible to determine the age of the blood transfer and the volume of blood required to make such a transfer. Furthermore there were no physical injuries found on Allison's body that would seemingly be consistent with this scenario and no alternative theory was put forward as to how the blood arrived to be there. Therefore I cannot place any significance on the blood stain.
The plant remnants found on Allison's body and clothing, this is an area where I think the investigators made a huge blunder. All of the plants found, while being present in and around the Baden-Clay property are all extremely common plants. The botanist who visited Kholo Creek to see if all of the plants were present in the area where Allison was found admitted that he searched only for live specimens, not leaf litter or debris and he did so only 50 metres upsteam and 50 metres downstream of the bridge (albeit with the aid of binoculars). Kholo Creek and it's numerous tributaries extend amount to tens of kilometers of waterways upsteam, the vast majority not being visible from the botanist's perspective even with the aid of binoculars. Should any of those plants grow in the vast waterways upstream, it is obvious that debris from the could have found their way downstream (adding to his admission that at least 1 plant variety was commonly spread long distances by the wind alone). Adding to that, as Kholo Creek is tidal, the leaves and branches could have come from literally anywhere along the Brisbane River and it's catchments, and I don't need to tell you how vast that area is. Investigators needed to conduct a much more thorough survey of the area in my opinion.
Tying in to the above, the hydrologist called gave evidence that even disregarding the heavy rain that fell in the area in the days prior to Allison's discovery, the tidal heights at the time were significant enough to cover Allison's body. Early on in the trial local residents gave evidence that the flow of the river was much higher and faster than usual due to the rainfall so it makes sense that this flow would have carried a significant amount of debris from the catchment. It even gives rise to the possibility, although discounted by the hydrologist (who admitted he had no idea of the flow following the rain), that perhaps the flow moved Allison's body to her final resting place. Given that the area is popular amongst canoeists, is it coincidence that her body was discovered immediate after the heavy rain? Presumably canoeists were in the vicinity fairly frequently, could it be that they missed seeing Allison's body because it wasn't actually there until after the heavy rain? Obviously this doesn't in any way discount the possibility of foul play but it's not inconceivable that Allison's body was left in a different area than where it was found.
Under cross examination the prosecution relied heavily on highlighting GBC's infidelities and financial position. Without doubt they painted a picture of a deceptive and manipulative person but I can guarantee that had any one of us been subject to 2 years of intense scrutiny by investigators that a skilled prosecutor would make us look like absolute monsters on the stand. Yes, GBC did some things that most would consider distasteful to say the least but every single one of us has skeletons in the closet that we would prefer the world not to know about.
While statistics on such activities are understandably unreliable, a large percentage of people have either conducted or at least considered extra marital/relationship affairs (in that they admit they would have an affair if there was a guarantee that they would not be caught). One study that I have seen quoted that figure at ~70% for both men and women (lest this become a male bashing exercise). Of the 12 jurors, statistically there will be numerous adulterers among them. This is where I believe Fuller QC may have made a slight error in judgement in hammering GBC on his infidelities, I can easily picture someone on the jury who has had an affair (or has considered one) and said to themselves "hey, I've done/thought of that but I am certainly not capable of killing my spouse". As for alleged misrepresentations of his financial affairs, I'm sure every one of us has been guilty at one point of either under or over stating our financial position. GBC seems to genuinely believe that his business was turning a corner, some may call that deluded (and you may well be right) but my feeling is that GBC genuinely thought that this was the case. The ever so eloquent "bones of my...." comment seems to indicate otherwise but aside from that he seemed to have some confidence, as presumably did his investors.
The seemingly imminent crossing of the paths of Allison and Toni at the conference didn't really strike a chord with me, I understand that others may take a different view of this but I cannot see this as being motive for murder.
Which brings us to the obvious, the facial scratches and other wounds. As a male no, they do not look like any injury I've ever caused myself while shaving but I have seen some friends give themselves surprisingly substantial injuries whilst shaving (much to the amusement of myself and others at the time!). I'm totally willing to concede that they
could be fingernail scratches, in fact it seems likely but with so little other supporting evidence? Allison's DNA was extracted from the fingernail swabs conducted, given the extent of the injuries to GBC's face (and to a lesser degree, his neck) it would seem that a significant amount of material of which DNA could be extracted from would have been on Allison's fingernails. The witness who conducted the swab did explain that DNA will degrade upon exposure to the elements which would explain why secondary DNA could not be found, yet Allison's DNA was still present. Without going into gory detail, it's possible that the fingernails contained a larger amount of "testable matter" where they were previously attached to her fingers and therefore was less susceptible to decay by the elements but I don't believe it was sufficiently explored for me to say with confidence that GBC's DNA would almost certainly have either disappeared or decayed to a level where comparison was not possible.
Apologies for the novel and as always, my opinion only but purely on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (which is what matters to the jury), I could not say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I expect that he will be acquitted
If I had to put a number on it I'd say something along the lines of 80% acquittal, 10% hung jury and 10% guilty.
Edit - There are other matters I have not addressed but I've omitted them to keep the length to a short novel, no doubt I'll explore them shortly, in particular how Allison could have possibly arrived at that location without GBC's involvement and the plausibility of GBC being able to, without a single person noticing, murder Alison, drag her through the house or yard, load her into the car and drive off, much less placing him at any point on the 30-40km round trip at the time in question.
Edit again - Excuse the typos, can't be bothered going back to fix them all (can't believe I got
their wrong, that is one of my pet hates)!