NO BAIL! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#30

[CaseClosed]

Can't help thinking that poor Gerard is feeling a little bit lonely - 3 lawyers will mean he'll get more visitors!!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Even]

:floorlaugh:.. That would be a funny sight, in the middle of the night!



No I didn't suggest this. I mentioned something about the wifi call being at a close time to when somebody witnessed something odd at the roundabout.. And whether he could have had the facetime call from there..not specifically that the odd thing was him wandering around trying to pick up wi fi..lol

But its funny one statement I saw in the news actually put the facecall at 12:20pm(rather than approximating it to 12:30pm)..and the 'odd' thing seen at the roundabout(which may or may not be relevant), was at approximately 12:30pm.. if the person who saw something odd was pretty spot on with time and facecall was actually 12:20pm leaves approx 10mins to get there from BC seniors house- if he took the facecall at home...just something to consider.

So what is NBC address, can he walk there in 10 minutes ?

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

The best thing Campbell Newman could do is reassure the Dickies and the public that he will ensure the prosecution team have all resources at their disposal, to match the might and power that will hit from the accused's defence team. However we know CN was until recently an FB friend of GBC's and NBC is connected to police commish Bob Atkinson.....so perhaps you might understand why I might sound a little skeptical about a successful conviction here??

Then what - massive compensation payout? Could earn more that he ever earned in real estate. JMO

Sorry, I understand your concern. But I do not think Commisioner Bob Atkinson would compromise himself in such a way. And Politically for CN, not sure it would be a good idea. Just MOO

The link to NBC I do not necessarily believe is as has been suggested on other sites. Bob Atkinson amongst many others is on the board of scouting or something along those lines.. NBC is involved. DOes not mean they had alot to do with each other or even knew each other well. I believe the head of scouting Queensland said he did not know GBC didn't he? (this was early on in the investigation)

MOO

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

So what is NBC address, can he walk there in 10 minutes ?

I din't necessarily mean walked there. I know someone suggested it or there was local hearsay that he had walked there. But not sure we know that for sure. Could he have parked his car out of sight somewhere perhaps?

 

[Isabellnecessary]

People who know me consider me a very fair minded person and I really try to be. Innocent until proven guilty ... yes, and believe me, I have tried to come up with other explanations for ABC's death ... but I can't.

Without ALL the facts, it's difficult to come up with anything other than what the prosecution and media WANT us to come up with.
We do not have ALL the facts.
We are being drip fed the details which will call him 'guilty' in our minds.

THAT is what they want.

We have absolutely NO idea what happened that night.

What if the drink bottle near Allison is one she took on her evening walk?
What if a random stranger had killed ABC?
We have no idea what his story is.

I agree with you, it's hard to think that he isn't guilty, but we have so little detail that we can't make a judgement call.

Until the Bail Hearing, I did not want to entertain the thought that this murder was premeditated and only thought of it being accidental after a bad argument, but with the info that was revealed after his arrest, I just find it almost impossible to think that a) someone else is responsible and b) that no thought of killing her had ever crossed his mind. All my opinion.

This is what I mean... 'this murder'... What if it wasn't a murder? What if it wasn't all a horrible accident, like you say?
What if he panicked after she was accidentally killed and called his father because he thought he'd be condemned as guilty... I mean, who knows?

We don't.

I really cannot happily sit here and think up how he killed her. It's wrong.

We should not be assuming anything. We are surely better than that.

Australia's legal system is built on the presumption of innocence.
PROVED.

Where is the proof?

What the police and media want to show us?

I think not.

Here, we know hardly anything. Perhaps we have a sighting at a roundabout/bridge/bus stop... Perhaps we do not. Perhaps we have a crazy person who rings the police with their imagined story.

We have a man whose wife is missing who realises she might be dead after possibly telling him she's going to end it all... perhaps she's fitted him up... perhaps he's terrified he's going to get strung up with her accidntal death and has googled how not to get incriminated.

How the heck do we know?

That's my point. Sure he might be guilty.

Is he going to get a jury trial? What if this is all part of the evidence? What if they look at us and see that every person here thinks he's guilty?
Is that going to be in his favour?
I think so.

The web is an awesome thing. I love that there's a place for all us who are interested in this... and in justice for ABC.
GBC is possibly going to be in remand for about 3 years... before we hear his case....
These threads will exist on the web for that time... persuading others that he's guilty, perhaps.

What if he's not?

Where's the justice for ABC if the wrong person gets convicted?

 

[mouse detective]

Bingo - Just worked something out about FaceTime and how they might have used wifi via mobile network. A mifi router - portable mobile hotspot router device. Cheap as chips and perfect for people who want to created a wifi network on the move ( real estate agents love them!!!)

With this type of device in their pockets, the face time call would create a virtual wifi connection - either of them could have been anywhere on a telco GSM Data connection.

http://www.cnet.com.au/telstra-prepaid-mobile-broadband-hotspot-339306407.htm

 

[Woof]

I think it's unnatural to reverse park in to a carport, but I realise some people might like it.

I do it all the time. Makes leaving the driveway quicker and safer. And loading and unloading the boot easier too, as it's closer to the house.

 

[alicat]

I din't necessarily mean walked there. I know someone suggested it or there was local hearsay that he had walked there. But not sure we know that for sure. Could he have parked his car out of sight somewhere perhaps?

Maybe he was on rollerblades and hitched a ride on GBCs car whilst hanging onto the tow ball?

 

[Fuskier]

You may or may not recall my first post here - only a week or so ago - in which I suggested that we really do need to keep a little corner of our mind open to the possibility that he may NOT be guilty. I got pretty soundly "scolded' for saying it, too. But I have a thick enough skin and accepted the general mood. However, no matter how unlikely (and I do think it is unlikely) there is the possibility (not the probability) that the real story may just be something we least expect.

I think that all the postulating, the hypothesizing, the sleuthing, etc etc is all fine - and I have to say that I enjoy it as much as the rest of you.

But maybe it's just my medical training (and I'm sure those with legal training would tend to think similarly) but I keep coming back to the reality that we have very little in the way of FACTS. We only have what we are told by the media, and what came out in that bail hearing.

If I were trying to diagnose a medical problem, there would be a degree of "gut instinct" in there for sure, but before suggesting treatment, we would need to have as many facts (eg history, examination, test results, etc) before making a provisional diagnosis. Even then, the final diagnosis is often not achieved until the pathologist gives us the reports on the tumour we've removed, or whatever.

It is that very logical, fact and evidence-based approach, that dictates that we MUST leave open the possibility that GBC is not guilty of what he APPEARS to be guilty of.

We just don't have enough information to make that call yet - that's what the legal process is for.

Dang - now I've gone and put myself in everybody's bad books again....! lease:
:truce:

Agreed. That is what the Criminal Law proceedings are there for to establish 'beyond resonable doubt' in a Criminal Court of Law, the guilt or innocence of an accused. Until that time, the alleged murderer is considered accused, but innocent until proved guilty. However, in your own words above, the Barristers who are the best actors in the Court usually win. This demonstrates that 'truth' and Justice are not necessarily the same thing, that the guilty can be found innocent and vice versa. MOO.

 

[Isabellnecessary]

You may or may not recall my first post here - only a week or so ago - in which I suggested that we really do need to keep a little corner of our mind open to the possibility that he may NOT be guilty. I got pretty soundly "scolded' for saying it, too. But I have a thick enough skin and accepted the general mood. However, no matter how unlikely (and I do think it is unlikely) there is the possibility (not the probability) that the real story may just be something we least expect.

I think that all the postulating, the hypothesizing, the sleuthing, etc etc is all fine - and I have to say that I enjoy it as much as the rest of you.

But maybe it's just my medical training (and I'm sure those with legal training would tend to think similarly) but I keep coming back to the reality that we have very little in the way of FACTS. We only have what we are told by the media, and what came out in that bail hearing.

If I were trying to diagnose a medical problem, there would be a degree of "gut instinct" in there for sure, but before suggesting treatment, we would need to have as many facts (eg history, examination, test results, etc) before making a provisional diagnosis. Even then, the final diagnosis is often not achieved until the pathologist gives us the reports on the tumour we've removed, or whatever.

It is that very logical, fact and evidence-based approach, that dictates that we MUST leave open the possibility that GBC is not guilty of what he APPEARS to be guilty of.

We just don't have enough information to make that call yet - that's what the legal process is for.

Dang - now I've gone and put myself in everybody's bad books again....! lease:
:truce:

I really don't care about bad books. I care the right person is bought to trial.

I want facts. I think we risk the outcome otherwise. To say a message board/forum doesn't sway public opinion is crazy. This place is googlable, picked up by people who then post it to FB. That stuff is there... on the internet... forever.

And I totally agree with you that there must be legal due process. I tried to present alternatives when you asked for them and there is still that possibility.

I hate the thought that we are all in a game being fed info by someone who wants a certain outcome. We're just all playing along.

The guy is innocent unless someone has fact otherwise.

 

[mouse detective]

This is the key, he has absolute no one pumping for him.

The man has become a social leper

Personally the more I think about the man the more I am inclined to believe he is an "Oxygen Thief" on this beautiful planet of ours.

I am of the belief that all convicted criminals should be hit with a massive carbon tax bill!!!

 

[Woof]

Without ALL the facts, it's difficult to come up with anything other than what the prosecution and media WANT us to come up with.
We do not have ALL the facts.
We are being drip fed the details which will call him 'guilty' in our minds.

THAT is what they want.

We have absolutely NO idea what happened that night.

What if the drink bottle near Allison is one she took on her evening walk?
What if a random stranger had killed ABC?
We have no idea what his story is.

I agree with you, it's hard to think that he isn't guilty, but we have so little detail that we can't make a judgement call.



This is what I mean... 'this murder'... What if it wasn't a murder? What if it wasn't all a horrible accident, like you say?
What if he panicked after she was accidentally killed and called his father because he thought he'd be condemned as guilty... I mean, who knows?

We don't.

I really cannot happily sit here and think up how he killed her. It's wrong.

We should not be assuming anything. We are surely better than that.

Australia's legal system is built on the presumption of innocence.
PROVED.

Where is the proof?

What the police and media want to show us?

I think not.

Here, we know hardly anything. Perhaps we have a sighting at a roundabout/bridge/bus stop... Perhaps we do not. Perhaps we have a crazy person who rings the police with their imagined story.

We have a man whose wife is missing who realises she might be dead after possibly telling him she's going to end it all... perhaps she's fitted him up... perhaps he's terrified he's going to get strung up with her accidntal death and has googled how not to get incriminated.

How the heck do we know?

That's my point. Sure he might be guilty.

Is he going to get a jury trial? What if this is all part of the evidence? What if they look at us and see that every person here thinks he's guilty?
Is that going to be in his favour?
I think so.

The web is an awesome thing. I love that there's a place for all us who are interested in this... and in justice for ABC.
GBC is possibly going to be in remand for about 3 years... before we hear his case....
These threads will exist on the web for that time... persuading others that he's guilty, perhaps.

What if he's not?

Where's the justice for ABC if the wrong person gets convicted?

It is murder. QPS said she was murdered. Why are you casting aspersions on the men and women solving this crime, by saying we only see 'what police want to show us'? Are you accusing them of something sinister? QPS says ABC was murdered. I believe them. JMO.

 

[Isabellnecessary]

It is murder. QPS said she was murdered. Why are you casting aspersions on the men and women solving this crime, by saying we only see 'what police want to show us'? Are you accusing them of something sinister? QPS says ABC was murdered. I believe them. JMO.

How am I casting aspersions on anyone? One of my best friends is a member of the police on the case. When I say 'what they want to show us' - I mean what's been publicly released. ie - not much!

ABC was murdered. All I'm saying is that perhaps GBC didn't do it OR there's possibly a better explanation.
How can I accuse someone of anything sinister? There's a murderer out there.
I hope he or she gets caught.

Life is never as simple as we want it to be. It carries twists and turns with it that are so convoluted, we will all sit back in astonishment when the full story is out and wonder if we've all been right... Obviously there's a 'defence' which we haven't heard one iota of yet.
How about we wait to hear both sides before we condemn someone?

Like, actual facts and actual reasons for actions.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Without ALL the facts, it's difficult to come up with anything other than what the prosecution and media WANT us to come up with.
We do not have ALL the facts.
We are being drip fed the details which will call him 'guilty' in our minds.

THAT is what they want.

We have absolutely NO idea what happened that night.

What if the drink bottle near Allison is one she took on her evening walk?
What if a random stranger had killed ABC?
We have no idea what his story is.

I agree with you, it's hard to think that he isn't guilty, but we have so little detail that we can't make a judgement call.



This is what I mean... 'this murder'... What if it wasn't a murder? What if it wasn't all a horrible accident, like you say?
What if he panicked after she was accidentally killed and called his father because he thought he'd be condemned as guilty... I mean, who knows?

We don't.

I really cannot happily sit here and think up how he killed her. It's wrong.

We should not be assuming anything. We are surely better than that.

Australia's legal system is built on the presumption of innocence.
PROVED.

Where is the proof?

What the police and media want to show us?

I think not.

Here, we know hardly anything. Perhaps we have a sighting at a roundabout/bridge/bus stop... Perhaps we do not. Perhaps we have a crazy person who rings the police with their imagined story.

We have a man whose wife is missing who realises she might be dead after possibly telling him she's going to end it all... perhaps she's fitted him up... perhaps he's terrified he's going to get strung up with her accidntal death and has googled how not to get incriminated.

How the heck do we know?

That's my point. Sure he might be guilty.

Is he going to get a jury trial? What if this is all part of the evidence? What if they look at us and see that every person here thinks he's guilty?
Is that going to be in his favour?
I think so.

The web is an awesome thing. I love that there's a place for all us who are interested in this... and in justice for ABC.
GBC is possibly going to be in remand for about 3 years... before we hear his case....
These threads will exist on the web for that time... persuading others that he's guilty, perhaps.

What if he's not?

Where's the justice for ABC if the wrong person gets convicted?

I appreciate your thoughts and I agree we don't know all the facts.

however a couple of things I want to point out..What if a random stranger had killed ABC?(you're question)- The police have stated they believe the person who killed Allison was someone known to her NOT a random Killer. I trust they have a reason for this and they have not been issuing warnings for people regarding a random killer.

I don't really think the police are there trying to frame someone and just trying to show us what they want us to see. They have to have reason to arrest and they do not do so without evidence. If they have no evidence it will get thrown out of court or the accused is found not guilty. They also are not going to be putting out in the public all the evidence they do have, to avoid jeopardizing the case.

It is speculation also to say perhaps she set him up..pretty drastic step to take. Also does not add up that she killed herself. And he googled the self incrimintaing and 5th amendment BEFORE she went missing and again in the morning before reporting her missing and before he would have known she was dead- if he was innocent.

I am not saying he is guilty. It is Alleged..I believe it looks extremely likely, and I do put my faith in the legal system to do the right thing.

 

[Woof]

Fair call Woof. I'd dispute that "everyone in business needs a financial advisor" though. That's not necessarily true and I know many business people who successfully manage their own finances.

I'll say fair call back at you. Although being in business and employing staff, there's no way I would not have a FA. Too busy running the business itself to worry about the financial side.

 

[Even]

The latest android mobile phones have the ability to create a wireless hotspot for other devices to connect to the Internet via the android mobile phone. So in theory an iPhone could connect to an android wifi hotspot and use FaceTime from anywhere a mobile signal is obtained. But again the ip of the android mobile phone would be registered with the apple servers, which in turn would allow the QPS, to find the owner of the android mobile phone.

My feeling is the timing of the arrest was based on the life insurance companies being passed the death certificate. I suspect being a POI is not enough to permit the insurance companies paying out but an arrest would stop that process. If GBC had that money it would have given him many options.

 

[BJsleuth]

I do it all the time. Makes leaving the driveway quicker and safer. And loading and unloading the boot easier too, as it's closer to the house.

My hubby does too, the driveway is on a slope and drops away at the sides so it's easier to reverse into than reverse out of, he also likes to reverse park wherever he can.

 

[Fuskier]

I really don't care about bad books. I care the right person is bought to trial.

I want facts. I think we risk the outcome otherwise. To say a message board/forum doesn't sway public opinion is crazy. This place is googlable, picked up by people who then post it to FB. That stuff is there... on the internet... forever.

And I totally agree with you that there must be legal due process. I tried to present alternatives when you asked for them and there is still that possibility.

I hate the thought that we are all in a game being fed info by someone who wants a certain outcome. We're just all playing along.

The guy is innocent unless someone has fact otherwise.

I disagree IsabellNecessary. The QPolice conducted an investigation, their evidence led them to charge the alleged murderer within The Law. We are talking about 'murder'. It is the place of the QPolice to conduct such an investigation. It is the place of the Courts to test the evidence. Please do not degrade our Police men and women or their ability to conduct an investigation. My opinion, not fact.

 

[Woof]

How am I casting aspersions on anyone? One of my best friends is a member of the police on the case.

ABC was murdered. All I'm saying is that perhaps GBC didn't do it OR there's possibly a better explanation.
How can I accuse someone of anything sinister? There's a murderer out there.
I hope he or she gets caught.

Life is never as simple as we want it to be. It carries twists and turns with it that are so convoluted, we will all sit back in astonishment when the full story is out and wonder if we've all been right... Obviously there's a 'defence' which we haven't heard one iota of yet.
How about we wait to hear both sides before we condemn someone?

Like, actual facts and actual reasons for actions.

Then please stop contradicting yourself. In your previous post you said 'what if it wasn't murder?'. Now you say she was. And when you write that we only see what police want us to see, it appears as though you think they are hiding something, which, IMO, is casting aspersions on them.

 

[Strangeworld]

Without ALL the facts, it's difficult to come up with anything other than what the prosecution and media WANT us to come up with.
We do not have ALL the facts.
We are being drip fed the details which will call him 'guilty' in our minds.

THAT is what they want.

We have absolutely NO idea what happened that night.

What if the drink bottle near Allison is one she took on her evening walk?
What if a random stranger had killed ABC?
We have no idea what his story is.

I agree with you, it's hard to think that he isn't guilty, but we have so little detail that we can't make a judgement call.



This is what I mean... 'this murder'... What if it wasn't a murder? What if it wasn't all a horrible accident, like you say?
What if he panicked after she was accidentally killed and called his father because he thought he'd be condemned as guilty... I mean, who knows?

We don't.

I really cannot happily sit here and think up how he killed her. It's wrong.

We should not be assuming anything. We are surely better than that.

Australia's legal system is built on the presumption of innocence.
PROVED.

Where is the proof?

What the police and media want to show us?

I think not.

Here, we know hardly anything. Perhaps we have a sighting at a roundabout/bridge/bus stop... Perhaps we do not. Perhaps we have a crazy person who rings the police with their imagined story.

We have a man whose wife is missing who realises she might be dead after possibly telling him she's going to end it all... perhaps she's fitted him up... perhaps he's terrified he's going to get strung up with her accidntal death and has googled how not to get incriminated.

How the heck do we know?

That's my point. Sure he might be guilty.

Is he going to get a jury trial? What if this is all part of the evidence? What if they look at us and see that every person here thinks he's guilty?
Is that going to be in his favour?
I think so.

The web is an awesome thing. I love that there's a place for all us who are interested in this... and in justice for ABC.
GBC is possibly going to be in remand for about 3 years... before we hear his case....
These threads will exist on the web for that time... persuading others that he's guilty, perhaps.

What if he's not?

Where's the justice for ABC if the wrong person gets convicted?

Just a couple of points re the BBM parts of your post:

1. I CAN make a judgement call. Don't need the full picture to do this. And I HAVE made a judgement call. Doesn't mean I'm not open to alternatives, but there's nothing wrong with having an opinion.

2. Murder, manslaughter, disposal of Allison's body. If (and I mean IF) GBC is involved in any of these crimes, accident or no accident, he has not been truthful. Buck stops here for me.

3. I'm ok with who I am, don't feel guilty about how I feel about this case. My opinions are based on the facts presented (not just by MSM but also the prosecution's case). I ponder things outside the evidence, but assumptions, nope.

3. I don't believe everyone here thinks he is guilty. That's obvious by the amount of to'ing and fro'ing in posts and varying opinions. Otherwise, this would a very calm, and boring, forum!

4. re 'persuading others' - I'm sorry to say but I really don't think there are a lot of people (i.e. % of the population) outside the members of this forum that read our babblings Persuasion, possible. Maybe some who are easily influenced may read some posts and change their views, but my guess is that most people who search for and find this forum already have strong views one way or the other. Some will jump on the forum and post their views (as you have), and others will just read and absorb. Can't see it reaching a wide section of the community though.


I think I've covered most of what I wanted to say. Don't take this personally, just thought I'd respond to your post with my thoughts on what you've said.