The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 24th June - Trial Day 9, Week 3

[Fluffykins]

DNA me thinks. If he can grow plant tissue from the crepe myrtle flowers, seems to me that plant specific ID can be achieved. Can anyone provide any thoughts along this line?

Yes, yes!! If you go back to the second post from the top on page 30, you'll see a conversation I pulled up from earlier today between IBR, wewillgetyou and BJsleuth. It seems specific plant DNA can be identified. I'm wild with excitement at the thought of it being proven beyond reasonable doubt that Allison was murdered at her home address.

 

[Snails]

i was also speak8ng from experience and lots of it in all boys and all girls schools in Brisbane .....many in fact

Sent using Tapatalk

I totally agree. There seems to be a certain "self entitlement" that if you pay the money you get "special rewards". It obviously worked for GBC with his old school buddies handing over the dough left, right and centre. He had over-extended his line of credit with his financial institutions so he asked his mates for the money instead. I own & manage a small business and everything I've read about his financial dealings is just too bizarre.

 

[Trooper]

Oddly none of them appeared to be concerned about GBC's failure to replay the loan.

if I was a horrible cynical type of person I 'd say it smacks of money laundering.. but I'm not, so I 'll just say it bears a strong similiarity to it.

 

[JK673]

I find the whole thing just very ODD. I cannot describe it at all. Just Odd.

 

[LadyBird1]

I live locally and drive these streets everyday. I've been studying the maps and though BF's house is not far away, imo it would be too far from the BC 's house to be able to hear a scream clearly from that distance. However, by the look of the land, BF's house sits high on a rolling hill which would distantly overlook the show ground(lower in the valley) I could imagine sound might travel a fair way if the wind is right, and a scream could have been heard from there. Did he say it was distant? close? Why wasn't he asked?

I am still curious as to why GBC called the groundsman around noon, between chats with police & his lawyer. Maybe they fought at the show ground (was her car mentioned seen there? ) and now the groundsman has a new phone and ....
all imo. just :banghead::banghead:

and I'm a gardener and very rarely get plants stuck in my hair.
I'm frustrated. although everything points to GBC I need to see a solid link.

Brookfield: I wish that someone would go out at say 10.30pm somewhere near the BC household, give or take about 500 metres, and let out a blood curdling scream. Anything at all for that matter, Coee would be fine!
At the same time, please if locals could step outside (away from noises within their own homes)
And please may said locals then report what they hear? Might surprise even the locals.
Sound carries amazingly depending on the lay of the land.

 

[Trooper]

on the other hand.. the three C's on the stand today were in a rather humiliating position.. they'd taken a hit from Gerard, and mostly because of relying on Gerards enthusiasm, .. no matter what they say about doing a rigorous investigative study of the business, the fact is, either they lied on the stand or they were lied to by Gerard..

All mentioned that Gerard had told them the business got hit hard by the floods..he needed money to tide him over until this situation rectified itself . ( how? mystery.. ) this is a stark and verifiable lie.. in the business partners statements, under oath, they say about 4 days before the flood, a meeting was held where they were informed to their collective and outraged astonishment, that the business was $350,000.00 in the red, and no one knew why.

The Brisbane floods were the nail in a coffin that was already 6 feet under.

 

[Groundedgirl]

A big thank you to everyone today, especially to those that helped explaining the plants that were being referred to. I have no botanical knowledge and this helped a lot, especially the pictures.

I feel a lot more confident this week with how the evidence is stacking up......

 

[Snails]

on the other hand.. the three C's on the stand today were in a rather humiliating position.. they'd taken a hit from Gerard, and mostly because of relying on Gerards enthusiasm, .. no matter what they say about doing a rigorous investigative study of the business, the fact is, either they lied on the stand or they were lied to by Gerard..



All mentioned that Gerard had told them the business got hit hard by the floods..he needed money to tide him over until this situation rectified itself . ( how? mystery.. ) this is a stark and verifiable lie.. in the business partners statements, under oath, they say about 4 days before the flood, a meeting was held where they were informed to their collective and outraged astonishment, that the business was $350,000.00 in the red, and no one knew why.



The Brisbane floods were the nail in a coffin that was already 6 feet under.

So foolish all round. BUT . . . they apparently didn't know about Gerred's love interest did they? Shows just how much they knew about him really. I wish I had a spare $90000 lying around to invest in a floundering business . . .

 

[BJsleuth]

SSGT CURTIS: Sorry about this. We just need to get this
sorted. What happened to the car, Gerard?

BADEN-CLAY: I had a car accident on Monday.


TRANSCRIPT
OF
POLICE RECORD OF INTERVIEW

Conveniently, there was a cop a few cars behind when it happened. Why he was called to the stand at the outset to disclose he knew GBC. It's mentioned in the transcript in the above quote.

Police officer Murray Watson told the court he had known Mr Baden-Clay for many years through Rotary and Chamber of Commerce.

He agreed he believed Mr Baden-Clay was "one of the nicest guys in the world".
http://m.qt.com.au/news/gerard-baden-clay-pleads-not-guilty-murder/2284633/

 

[Groundedgirl]

So foolish all round. BUT . . . they apparently didn't know about Gerred's love interest did they? Shows just how much they knew about him really. I wish I had a spare $90000 lying around to invest in a floundering business . . .

And GBC didn't put his own money into the business, so why would they? If he wasn't willing to risk his own money, why would they? Big red flag. It's like eating something from a chef who wouldn't eat it themselves.

 

[Bazinga]

I understand your frustration but the prosecution are trying to prove a murder case and not get answers to what we would like to know. They are trying to stick to the evidence that is most relevant from each witness and not overload the jury with stuff that is interesting but not relevant. They also don't want to piss the jury off by being attack dogs on their own witnesses. If they do this then the jury gets overloaded with the emotion of this and lose focus on the really important issues. The jury have so much info to consider that the prosecution need to keep it simple for them, well as much as possible.

The defence also have a strategy for each witness, for eg the 3 friends, it was to get them to say Allison suffered depression and also that they had never made a demand to GBC for repayment of their loans, thereby trying to show that GBC was not under financial pressure in that respect.

The prosecution are doing their job and it's slowly unfolding. I must admit though Danny Boyle did the cross examining of the mornings session that I attended and it annoyed me that he started nearly every sentence with UM. Come on Danny, that's a basic no no for a public speaker. You can be trained to not do this!

Thank you alioop,

Can you tell me why the prosecution don't go back to the witness after the defence have cross examined? Maybe they are sometimes and I'm missing that as following trial by tweets. I just feel they often leave the defence with the last point made and then the witness is dismissed.

Also, will there be transcripts of the testimony for us to read as the trial unfolds?
Thank you!! I'm looking forward to reading any extra information from your visit to court today.

 

[HoolyDooly]

As a lighthearted aside... beginning to think this trial has been brought to us by the letter C as well as the number 12. (Which in itself is an anagram of C21 - Century 21).

Cats Claw Creeper
Chinese Elm
Chamber of Commerce
Carport
Captiva
Cheesman
Christ
Cranna

Gee nothin', not nothing gets past you, Camp Chair...tee hee

 

[Snails]

And GBC didn't put his own money into the business, so why would they? If he wasn't willing to risk his own money, why would they? Big red flag. It's like eating something from a chef who wouldn't eat it themselves.

Well the big problem was that GBC had NO funds left to invest in his own business and the banks etc would not extend him any more credit. Without knowing exactly what was happening in his business, I think I can see where a few things may have gone wrong. If you have a few good years you might want to expand your business & improve your infrastructure as I have done over the past few years. It is a well thought out process. You look at the possible risks (drought, floods, new competitors etc) and you look at the benefits. There is always a risk in business that you could "lose it all" due to factors beyond your control. BUT a sudden expansion to much larger premises including a huge rent increase and a sudden intake of new staff is very high risk IMO. Better to do things slowly. Managing and owning a business is like having a whole other family to nurture and care for. Part of the problem of course was that apart from his wife, children and the business to nurture, he also had a mistress. That doesn't leave much time to focus on your business, and in my experience, if you want to be a successful business owner you need to be focused 24/7.

 

[marlywings]

As a lighthearted aside... beginning to think this trial has been brought to us by the letter C as well as the number 12. (Which in itself is an anagram of C21 - Century 21).

Cats Claw Creeper
Chinese Elm
Chamber of Commerce
Carport
Captiva
Cheesman
Christ
Cranna

- Conference ...

Please don't forget the beautiful Crepe Myrtle!

Clay....forgetting the baden...lol.

 

[Neuromancer]

I wonder were his clothes examined. If they had lantana and cobblers pegs on them that could place him at the creek.

I imagine whatever he was wearing that night would have been thrown in the washing machine, dried and put away before morning.

 

[Timmy]

Please don't forget the beautiful Crepe Myrtle!

Clay....forgetting the baden...lol.

...and Caterpillar!

 

[Neuromancer]

My second thought on this day of the trial is that the prosecution is eliminating possible causes of death so they can present their own (hopefully fact based) theory.

The prosecution calls experts whose opinion must be taken as evidence in the case unless the defence calls an equally qualified expert who contradicts the prosecutions expert. The defence in taking trivial swipes at expert opinion is only showmanship and doesn't damage the prosecution case.

Allison apparently didn't die, according to experts, from ill-health, trauma or injury, drowning or drug overdose. That eliminates the great majority of ways to die leaving probably IMO only lack of air as the cause of death. There are signs from the autopsy that she had a bang on the head.

Based on evidence so far I'm thinking she was knocked unconscious and suffocated. If GBC is the perpetrator then Allison apparently put up a fight.

Strangulation's still very possible. Esp since her top was twisted around her neck and described in the autopsy as a possible ligature (= thing she was strangled with)

 

[Champagne4lulu]

I understand your frustration but the prosecution are trying to prove a murder case and not get answers to what we would like to know. They are trying to stick to the evidence that is most relevant from each witness and not overload the jury with stuff that is interesting but not relevant. They also don't want to piss the jury off by being attack dogs on their own witnesses. If they do this then the jury gets overloaded with the emotion of this and lose focus on the really important issues. The jury have so much info to consider that the prosecution need to keep it simple for them, well as much as possible.

The defence also have a strategy for each witness, for eg the 3 friends, it was to get them to say Allison suffered depression and also that they had never made a demand to GBC for repayment of their loans, thereby trying to show that GBC was not under financial pressure in that respect.

The prosecution are doing their job and it's slowly unfolding. I must admit though Danny Boyle did the cross examining of the mornings session that I attended and it annoyed me that he started nearly every sentence with UM. Come on Danny, that's a basic no no for a public speaker. You can be trained to not do this!

Ok, makes sense when you put it that way. It just feels like the defence are casting doubt on things we know to be true. Questioning credentials of experts with years of experience? I just worry the jury would take that to mean reasonable doubt iykwim.

Still hoping there's a clincher somewhere coming up! Hasn't got there for me...yet.

Does the defence and prosecution seem confident? What was the composure of GBCs friends? I wonder what they think of him now?

Day of ups and downs. :/

Thanks Ali.

 

[lycheefarmer]

This might be a Chinese Elm. We have several just over the fence on our boundary with Main Roads.

And the drag marks are???? Those leaves on the patio look pretty undisturbed and random to me. And wouldn't it be obvious if it was through the wet grass? That would be hard to cover up I would have thought.

 

[marlywings]

A basic summary & a little exercise. Try pretending you're one of the jurors & you know nothing or very little about the murder of Allison....

Prosecutor begins the trial with description of the case...

A mother of three is murdered, found dumped in the mud below a bridge 14kms from her home. Her husband was the last person to see her alive. This murder is said to have taken place at the house which they shared. The husband is also charged with interfering with a body.

Testimony to date from numerous doctors/experts show she wasn't depressed, she wasn't suicidal. She was taking care of herself, her appearance, had a new hairdo & was looking forward to attending a conference.

Testimony from a mistress of the husband states they had an ongoing affair spanning many years & he'd promised to be with her by July 1st.....all unbeknown to the wife.

Testimony to date from numerous doctors/experts show the scratches on the husband's body aren't from a shaver & are more than likely fingernail scratches.

Testimony from close friends of the husband testify their friend was having extremely serious financial problems. Dodgy deals were made in an attempt to rectify those problems. Those deals failed & he was left owing a lot of money to numerous people.

Testimony from leaf/tree expert states the leaves/leaf litter found in the woman's hair are consistent with the plant matter found in back patio & carport areas of the home the husband & wife shared. Certain pieces of this leaf matter suggest she'd been dragged along.

Some leaf matter was mentioned as being found only at Kholo. Some leaf matter was found in the Captiva.

Will any of that leaf matter from Kholo match with the leaf matter found in Captiva??

To be continued tomorrow