Me again
The man many of you love to hate!
Kidding aside, while my opinion on the likely verdict hasn't changed, if he is indeed convicted I will say that I will lose no sleep over it whatsoever. Furthermore I was earlier concerned about a potential appealable error but after hearing my, my fears have been allayed. I'd still expect an appeal of course, it is almost inevitable in cases with mandatory life imprisonment but nothing absolutely stands out as reason for worry (in my non verified expert opinion).
I am particularly concerned with the Crown's failure to adequately address how the blood came to be in the Captiva and the lack of plant material present. It is my (again, non verified expert) belief that the Crown's case becomes defective if they cannot establish that Alison was bundled into the Captiva postmortem and driven out to where she was ultimately discovered. The Crown did not (could not?) offer, at least to me, a reasonable and logical explanation as to how Allison's blood came to be in the car. There were no obvious wounds which would be consistent with what appears to be a not insignificant amount of blood, I guess one could make the argument that it could have been a facial wound which from what I can gather, would have been hard to identify after her discovery but even this possibility was not raised. As for the lack of plant material, the Crown has conceded that there was no evidence of a clean up and offered only the positioning of the toys as "odd".
Given that nobody heard or saw GBC leaving their residence, in transit to KCB, at the scene itself or returning home it must surely mean that Crown relies exclusively on the Captiva evidence which I fear is lacking to the extent that it is likely the undoing of the Crown case.
Quickly before court once again resumes, I have 2 questions that I would invite opinion on.
1. Why was Kholo Creek chosen when there are numerous secluded and rugged areas closer to the BC residence which are accessed along much less heavily trafficed roads? I am not a local but I do know the area fairly well, there are numerous areas within perhaps a 10 minute radius where a body may never even be found. It is odd that he took the chance to travel perhaps twice that distance, along much busier roads.
2. The prosecution alleges that Alison was dragged down an embankment, placed on a ledge and rolled off. Why is this the case when, not 20 metres away, GBC could have stopped the car momentarily on the bridge, removed Allison from the boot and thrown her into the middle of the river which at the time was within an hour either side of high tide and so would have been likely to sweep Allison's body away into the Brisbane River as the tide ebbed, possibly never to be seen again. Not only would this seem (to me) to be the most obvious and efficient method, it would have taken mere seconds whereas physically taking her down the embankment, at least partially, must have taken some minutes (not to mention greatly increasing the chance of GBC dragging some evidence of being in that location back into the car with him). The only possible reason that I can come up with, and I feel like I'm grasping at straws in the context of the evidence, is that he wanted her found which would indicate obvious premeditation and scope for perhaps a harsher penalty than the 15 year minimum which (in my opinion only) would seem likely otherwise.