Aunty
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 0
Good thinking GMT , that really does explain how all those leaves were completely entangled in her hair.
Theories about the murder of Allison
- Thread starter marlywings
- Start date
New Posts
-
VERDICT WATCH Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #215- Latest: detectivewannab
-
-
-
Good thinking GMT , that really does explain how all those leaves were completely entangled in her hair.
PlainJaneDoe
Verified expert in neuroscience
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,130
- Reaction score
- 29
Here are some diagrams I have submitted -
Thank-you to Dr Watson for correcting some of the details before being submitted.
Please note - the areas marked on the pics are my interpretation only of the injuries from what I can gather from the Autopsy Report.
They are a guide. They are not to be used as fact.
Please see the Autopsy Report for the details in full.
ABC Injuries
ETA: On the red area of the left leg shin: There is a large defect (150mm x 135mm) over the central anterior left lower leg with exposure of the tibia.
I have been wondering about this shin defect. Does it mean probably an injury?
Aunty
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 0
Wow, you guys are amazing. Thank you for doing this for us. Super Sleuthers :happydance:
FigTree
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 3,476
- Reaction score
- 385
The little boxes of text come from the Autopsy Report - same as the ETA about the defect.
I think that is what is being implied - I got the impression that there was possible shin skin (or that area) was damaged.
Maybe someone can elaborate on the meaning of what 'defect' implies in an Autopsy report.
Amee
Active Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,197
- Reaction score
- 6
Dr Milne told the court there were no injuries to Allison Baden-Clay's neck, sternum, or ribs, but there was a possible bruise on the inside of her chest and what could have been an injury on her left shin
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4023367.htm
Why thank you Aunty! I find that NPD's will sprinkle a little bit of truth in their fabricated stories its like they need a thread in there to find the lie again to follow. He definitely says to the first police on tape we had a 15 min talk last night and this is the kicker but there wasnt any problems about it or something to that effect which I believe is the total opposite he volunteered this info straight up which to me is part lie ie. there was no problem, ie. the truth that they indeed have a chat part truth. Yep the leaves are entangled like in wrapped in knots they had to cut the leaves out of her hair which I assume would only been able to be down in a sweeping from side to side motion.
Bekazzled
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, at first I thought that he probably smothered her with a pillow while she was sleeping as it would be the easiest thing for him to do (if she was asleep, no initial resistance). However after a while I also felt this theory is right. I think it explains the chipped tooth and hand injury (hand to mouth contact) and importantly, the fact that so much leaf matter was threaded so extensively through her hair. It sounds like so much plant material was retained in her hair that it must have been extremely mussed up - probably on top of the leaf matter itself during a struggle. It also makes sense he might have done it outside given that the children were in the house and might hear.
I'm very glad the botanist's evidence was so thorough and conclusive. If he had killed Allison inside, there would be no leaf matter - thank God he was stupid in this regard. Allison left the fingernail marks as evidence, and the house left the leaf matter on her as evidence of where it happened.
It's also possible he strangled her, but for some reason suffocation comes to mind first (before it was suggested in the trial).
I think he'd thought of killing her for some time and it came to fruition during an argument. So, it was premeditated but probably happened on that exact night as all the factors fell into place for him. Though I think they argued about TM and the conference the next day, I don't think this is the real reason why he killed Allison. To him it was "convenient" but incidental. I believe he thought of killing her on several occasions because of the money - he could have kept TM and his other mistresses stringing along for a while. I also think he had a dream of being unmarried and responsibility-free. He wasn't used to responsibility at all - thought he should be able to do what he wanted when he wanted and money should just come to him. Seems like he never really earned anything growing up - it all came easily.
Bekazzled
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
This is very insightful. I also think he unconsciously revealed a few truths during the trial that support the theory that he killed Allison but that someone else moved the body. He responded to accusations of murdering Allison in a flurry of questions with the generic "No, I did not" but seemed to suddenly grow hostile and aggressive at the suggestion he left his kids alone that night. It seemed like his real self was revealed for a moment at the idea that he would leave the children alone, like he slipped up and told the truth in the heat of the moment (the questioning was quite intense).
Bekazzled
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Good theory and nicely worded. I smirked at the end - a few times I've walked past the television over the last week when GBC media was on and said snidely, "Sucks to be you."
FigTree
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 3,476
- Reaction score
- 385
Though from the Autopsy Report is said:
*my headings
In the diagram the solid red lined areas marked out are the areas mentioned in the Autopsy that were possibly pre-existing areas.
The purple dots are the detected possible haemorrhage areas
:seeya:
BatWoman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 250
- Reaction score
- 10
I noticed that and have been trying to work it out. It's like leaving the kids alone was a greater crime than the other dastardly stuff. He's such a liar I don't know what to make of it, but I tend to think that it's one thing he can categorically say is true and he's shouting it from the rooftops, while the other stuff just gets an "that's below someone of my calibre" indignant response. Although I believe there were one or more others involved after the fact, I doubt that there will be evidence enough to take it further.
Tigerlily75
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 14,484
Yes, this is what they do! Mix in a little bit of truth. Along with a lot of contradictions, and a little bit of stupidity.
I listened to the recordings of the first police interviews at his house that morning, and he was talking about the Find My Friends app. He said - "but it doesn't work if you turn Location Services off, you just have to go to settings ..."
It was an ODD thing to say, especially at that point .. he said it because that was exactly what he'd done.
This is a great thread and all the theories are very interesting and close to the truth IMO. I just want to add something about NBC (I hope this thread is the appropriate place for this discussion). I have always thought there was some level of involvement of others after the murder and subsequently a cover up.
Now however, I'm wondering if NBC really did just turn up early that day as they have always said (there are no phone records to indicate contact made through the night, no evidence from NBC neighbours that cars turned up or left there through the night - of course I realise there could be other explanations and ways they got around this). Perhaps he did turn up there early after GBC rang him in the morning, and as soon as he saw GBC's face he knew darn well what happened and that something serious was going on. He then methodically stepped into damage control, perhaps tried to tidy up, get rid of vacuum if he was suspicious about that - and when he could see that the police were thinking the same thing he was, he started the process of finding the lawyer quick smart.
I guess what I'm saying is, perhaps he wasn't actually involved in any way - but as soon as he turned up that day he knew GBC had murdered Allison and he had to move into damage control (sickening but anyway). He has been in damage control ever since. Just a thought.
GBC is the convicted murderer. It is HE who wears Allison's scratches received in the battle for her life/death on the back patio, which took place at arms length. As she vigorously fought for her life, lying on her back on the back patio, the leaf matter became entangled in her hair IMO.
If he only dragged her through the leaf matter, it would only have been superficially attached and fallen off when he picked her up and threw her body into the car. But if her head was moving around, grinding on the leaf matter in the vigorous fight for her life, then it would become embedded within her hair and remain. That is what was found which identified the crime scene as the back patio.We have a witness
We have a witness to this murder. Little 'Scraps". He knew what was happening on the BC back patio. The timing of his incessant barking is significant as to the timing of this murderous event. My opinion only.
Good theory. Pretty much fits in with a lot of the theories I have as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if he put the phone on charge just before he left so it would appear not to move (or run out of battery and his location be put into question)
I am also not convinced someone else was involved. However having visited Kholo Creek and walking down that bank, I would be surprised if someone could carry a 70-80kg body alone.
Warning - Novel alert!
After a few days of the dreaded man flu which allowed me a bit of time to reflect on this case and an impromptu visit to the Kholo Creek Bridge, I'd like to weigh in with some observations if I may
During the case I purposely ignored any evidence ruled inadmissible, some of it I had obviously heard and had to discount for the purposes of this exercise and other parts I had neither heard or read. The autopsy report was one such document that I had not read until recently.
During the trial the pathologist who examined Allison, Dr Milne, said that he would expect fairly significant injuries (bone fractures were mentioned) if a person was to fall 14 metres. Common sense would deem that to be the case, there have been isolated reports of falls from a similar or greater height where minor or indeed no injuries were sustained, but they were isolated.
I had no qualms with this until my recent trip to the western suburbs where, on a whim, I visited the site. Let me go on record as saying that there is absolutely no chance that the position of Allison's body was 14 metres or more below the bridge. I note the wording in the autopsy report where Dr Milne states "approximately 14 metres above the water" (this is ambiguous in any case, the water level could have differed by anywhere up to about 2 metres depending on the state of the tide). Given that the prosecution argument was that she was 'lapped' by the water at best, I think the defence dropped the ball by not pointing out that she must have fallen less than 14 metres by the prosecution's own admissions. Anyway, moving on.
Even if the measurement was taken to the mean low tide mark (which was well below where Allison came to rest), I don't believe it to be accurate. Humans are prone to overestimating their height above the ground, for some kind of reference, 14 metres is the equivalent of a 4-5 story building. I find it difficult to imagine that the distance to Allison wasn't measured exactly but given the obvious discrepancy and the vague reference 'to the water' it appears to me that it wasn't. It was possibly eyeballed or perhaps an investigator relied on a reading from an altimeter which showed a reading of 14m above sea level (which would be somewhere in the ballpark I imagine) and erroneously thought sea level equated to the water level in Kholo Creek.
I had no measuring equipment on me but if I have the location of Allison right, and I'm quite sure that I do, I estimate the drop to be ~8m with perhaps a margin of 1m either side. Obviously I'm only eyeballing this myself but after many years as a rock climber, I'd like to think that I have a pretty good grasp of distances as quite literally your life depends on it sometimes!
8 metres, or somewhere around that mark, is obviously still significant but at almost half of 14m, the potential for a fall with no fractured bones is considerably greater than what it would be from 14m. You can die from a 2m fall but likewise you can avoid injury from a fall from a surprising height either through good fortune or good management (parachute landing techniques etc.).
I obviously think that this should have been examined more in depth at trial, ultimately it may not have made any difference (as Allison was found partly under the bridge it unlikely, if not impossible that she could have fallen directly to that location anyway) but it is something that should have been explored anyway IMO. Which brings me to my next point.
If, as the Crown suggested (and seemingly was not countered by the defence) Allison could not have fallen directly to that location from the bridge overhead, why was the figure of 14 metres even mentioned in terms of potential injury that could be sustained? It seems to have been a needless tangent which may well have had a negative flow on effect throughout the trial.
I understand that the embankment under the bridge is not as steep as it was in 2012 and after examining photos from that time, it's obvious that there was indeed quite a steep gradient, indeed it had to have been for Allison to come to rest from where the prosecution said she was pushed from. If we assume that she could not have jumped/fallen/been pushed from the bridge directly to her location, why was the possibility ignored that she came off the bridge (by whatever means) at a location above the gradient at which point she then rolled to her final location or is it possible that she could have slipped somewhere in the vicinity of where the Crown established that she was pushed? Obviously it was accepted that GBC pushed her from a ledge adjacent to the bridge so it has to be equally plausible, if not more so that she could have wound up in that location as a result of attempting to arrest her fall or attempting to extricate herself before losing consciousness (Dr Milne also indicated this in his report). FWIW it’s not my personal belief that either scenario occurred, but I couldn’t exclude it and I'm puzzled as to why the defence did not question Dr Milne at length over this possibility and of course I don't know why they accepted the 14m measurement (assuming it is wrong, and I'm virtually certain that this is the case).
Another height reference - Many people who visited the site will have also walked over the Goodwill Bridge. The height of the GB is 13.25m above the highest yearly tide making it roughly 14m above an average high tide which makes it an almost perfect example. Anyone who has seen the 2 couldn't possibly argue that the heights are similar, the Goodwill is noticeably higher. I will endeavour to get out there with a rope and measure, or anyone local please feel free to do it on my behalf
Moving on to parts of the autopsy report that were excluded from trial (on defence application). Obviously of specific concern are both the possible subdural hemorrhage to Allison's brain and the bruising to her left ribs. Dr Milne was of the opinion that one or either injury could have been the result of either a fall or an assault (presumably it's possible for both to have occurred) but was not permitted to advance this opinion at trial.
I can understand the defence application in light of their suicide theory but even then I would have been tempted to allow the evidence as Dr Milne agreed that the injuries could have been the result of a fall, and the possible subdural hemorrhage was indeed a potentially fatal injury. Obviously the question still remained as to how Allison got there of her own volition but that's neither here or there now.
In my opinion, a far more plausible theory than suicide (which in light of the autopsy report still seems somewhat possible, albeit unlikely) which remained favourable to the defence was that Allison was the victim of a terrible accident after an altercation with GBC although obviously this scenario would have necessitated either GBC not giving evidence or giving a different version of events than he did.
People have speculated on his seemingly odd behaviour during and after the time he reported Allison missing. Although I have never been in a position where a loved one has gone missing, and I hope I never am, he did seem rather unconcerned given the circumstances. I can only conclude that either he just didn't care, or he knew what had happened to Allison.
One of the reasons I bring up GBC's behaviour is his reaction to the guilty verdict. Typically people who are found guilty either show little emotion or occasionally fly into a full on rage but GBC's behavour, as described to me as I wasn't present, seemed at odds with a typical reaction given the circumstances. I raised this subject with a respected criminologist who has a significant degree of knowledge of this particular case and they agreed that it was not a typical reaction. Obviously neither of us are psychologists but it crossed my mind that although he could have been responsible for Allison's death (and ultimately a jury decided that he was and that it was murder), it did not occur in the way portrayed at trial which could also explain his confidence that he would ultimately be acquitted.
I put the following to the WS jury....
On the night Allison went missing, she and GBC had a disagreement about something (whether it be about TM, finances or whatever). Not wanting to alarm the kids they went outside to talk and for whatever reason it turned physical at which point one of 3 things happened.
1. Allison and GBC were both engaged in an assault, Allison scratching and bruising GBC's face and torso and GBC attempting to fend off or punch Allison (bruise to the ribs) and then punching her to the left side of her head at which point she became unconscious and fell to the ground.
2. As above but Allison's fall may have been accidental and not the result of a blow to the head, the hemorrhage occurring upon contact with the ground.
3. And this is going to be distasteful to many, could it be possible that GBC was not trying to engage in any assault (limited superficial injuries to ABC) and instead was trying to extricate himself from the situation, pushed Allison away who then fell?
All of the above could explain the leaves in Allison's hair, the injuries that Dr Milne noted (particularly if GBC is right handed, I'm unsure of his dexterity though), the blood in the Captiva and the injuries to GBC. It would also go some way to explaining his demeanor immediately after the event and his bewilderment of being found guilty when the prosecution case was significantly off the mark.
Obviously you'd have to ask why wasn't medical attention sought and the subsequent subterfuge but GBC certainly wouldn't be the first person to panic and act irrationally when an accidental death has occurred.
I have to add this disclaimer, I'm in absolutely no way suggesting any of the following occurred and the Crown and jury may have got it right down to every last detail. But with the benefit of being privy to evidence that was not admissible, I would have taken a completely different tack from the one taken by the defence but which would have necessitated either recanting previous statements or GBC not giving evidence at all. Disregarding potentially incriminating behaviour after the fact, I can see no reason to suggest that the above scenarios are any less plausible than the asphyxiation theory which was ultimately accepted by the jury. It may well be the case that it was manslaughter (in that it was 'just' an assault with no intention to kill or inflict GBH) or even just a tragic accident after which GBC panicked.
I have to say that as prosecutor, I would have been a bit uncomfortable leading a case where evidence that had been excluded (again, at the request of the defence) may potentially have contradicted the evidence led. It's of course possible that the injuries occurred during asphyxiation or when Allison was rolled down the embankment, but to my mind at least it's entirely possible that Allison's death was the result of the hemorrhage (by whatever means) and not asphyxiation. I'm uncomfortable with a conviction based entirely on the exclusion of all other possibilities when evidence exists, even though it was excluded at trial, that potentially a scenario other than that put forward by the prosecution played out. I understand that Fuller QC was not authorised to make the decision to discontinue the prosecution in any case so no attack on his character is intended whatsoever.
All my opinion only and no disrespect intended, least of all to Allison. I hope that those who may have a different opinion can still understand where I am coming from.
After a few days of the dreaded man flu which allowed me a bit of time to reflect on this case and an impromptu visit to the Kholo Creek Bridge, I'd like to weigh in with some observations if I may
During the case I purposely ignored any evidence ruled inadmissible, some of it I had obviously heard and had to discount for the purposes of this exercise and other parts I had neither heard or read. The autopsy report was one such document that I had not read until recently.
During the trial the pathologist who examined Allison, Dr Milne, said that he would expect fairly significant injuries (bone fractures were mentioned) if a person was to fall 14 metres. Common sense would deem that to be the case, there have been isolated reports of falls from a similar or greater height where minor or indeed no injuries were sustained, but they were isolated.
I had no qualms with this until my recent trip to the western suburbs where, on a whim, I visited the site. Let me go on record as saying that there is absolutely no chance that the position of Allison's body was 14 metres or more below the bridge. I note the wording in the autopsy report where Dr Milne states "approximately 14 metres above the water" (this is ambiguous in any case, the water level could have differed by anywhere up to about 2 metres depending on the state of the tide). Given that the prosecution argument was that she was 'lapped' by the water at best, I think the defence dropped the ball by not pointing out that she must have fallen less than 14 metres by the prosecution's own admissions. Anyway, moving on.
Even if the measurement was taken to the mean low tide mark (which was well below where Allison came to rest), I don't believe it to be accurate. Humans are prone to overestimating their height above the ground, for some kind of reference, 14 metres is the equivalent of a 4-5 story building. I find it difficult to imagine that the distance to Allison wasn't measured exactly but given the obvious discrepancy and the vague reference 'to the water' it appears to me that it wasn't. It was possibly eyeballed or perhaps an investigator relied on a reading from an altimeter which showed a reading of 14m above sea level (which would be somewhere in the ballpark I imagine) and erroneously thought sea level equated to the water level in Kholo Creek.
I had no measuring equipment on me but if I have the location of Allison right, and I'm quite sure that I do, I estimate the drop to be ~8m with perhaps a margin of 1m either side. Obviously I'm only eyeballing this myself but after many years as a rock climber, I'd like to think that I have a pretty good grasp of distances as quite literally your life depends on it sometimes!
8 metres, or somewhere around that mark, is obviously still significant but at almost half of 14m, the potential for a fall with no fractured bones is considerably greater than what it would be from 14m. You can die from a 2m fall but likewise you can avoid injury from a fall from a surprising height either through good fortune or good management (parachute landing techniques etc.).
I obviously think that this should have been examined more in depth at trial, ultimately it may not have made any difference (as Allison was found partly under the bridge it unlikely, if not impossible that she could have fallen directly to that location anyway) but it is something that should have been explored anyway IMO. Which brings me to my next point.
If, as the Crown suggested (and seemingly was not countered by the defence) Allison could not have fallen directly to that location from the bridge overhead, why was the figure of 14 metres even mentioned in terms of potential injury that could be sustained? It seems to have been a needless tangent which may well have had a negative flow on effect throughout the trial.
I understand that the embankment under the bridge is not as steep as it was in 2012 and after examining photos from that time, it's obvious that there was indeed quite a steep gradient, indeed it had to have been for Allison to come to rest from where the prosecution said she was pushed from. If we assume that she could not have jumped/fallen/been pushed from the bridge directly to her location, why was the possibility ignored that she came off the bridge (by whatever means) at a location above the gradient at which point she then rolled to her final location or is it possible that she could have slipped somewhere in the vicinity of where the Crown established that she was pushed? Obviously it was accepted that GBC pushed her from a ledge adjacent to the bridge so it has to be equally plausible, if not more so that she could have wound up in that location as a result of attempting to arrest her fall or attempting to extricate herself before losing consciousness (Dr Milne also indicated this in his report). FWIW it’s not my personal belief that either scenario occurred, but I couldn’t exclude it and I'm puzzled as to why the defence did not question Dr Milne at length over this possibility and of course I don't know why they accepted the 14m measurement (assuming it is wrong, and I'm virtually certain that this is the case).
Another height reference - Many people who visited the site will have also walked over the Goodwill Bridge. The height of the GB is 13.25m above the highest yearly tide making it roughly 14m above an average high tide which makes it an almost perfect example. Anyone who has seen the 2 couldn't possibly argue that the heights are similar, the Goodwill is noticeably higher. I will endeavour to get out there with a rope and measure, or anyone local please feel free to do it on my behalf
Moving on to parts of the autopsy report that were excluded from trial (on defence application). Obviously of specific concern are both the possible subdural hemorrhage to Allison's brain and the bruising to her left ribs. Dr Milne was of the opinion that one or either injury could have been the result of either a fall or an assault (presumably it's possible for both to have occurred) but was not permitted to advance this opinion at trial.
I can understand the defence application in light of their suicide theory but even then I would have been tempted to allow the evidence as Dr Milne agreed that the injuries could have been the result of a fall, and the possible subdural hemorrhage was indeed a potentially fatal injury. Obviously the question still remained as to how Allison got there of her own volition but that's neither here or there now.
In my opinion, a far more plausible theory than suicide (which in light of the autopsy report still seems somewhat possible, albeit unlikely) which remained favourable to the defence was that Allison was the victim of a terrible accident after an altercation with GBC although obviously this scenario would have necessitated either GBC not giving evidence or giving a different version of events than he did.
People have speculated on his seemingly odd behaviour during and after the time he reported Allison missing. Although I have never been in a position where a loved one has gone missing, and I hope I never am, he did seem rather unconcerned given the circumstances. I can only conclude that either he just didn't care, or he knew what had happened to Allison.
One of the reasons I bring up GBC's behaviour is his reaction to the guilty verdict. Typically people who are found guilty either show little emotion or occasionally fly into a full on rage but GBC's behavour, as described to me as I wasn't present, seemed at odds with a typical reaction given the circumstances. I raised this subject with a respected criminologist who has a significant degree of knowledge of this particular case and they agreed that it was not a typical reaction. Obviously neither of us are psychologists but it crossed my mind that although he could have been responsible for Allison's death (and ultimately a jury decided that he was and that it was murder), it did not occur in the way portrayed at trial which could also explain his confidence that he would ultimately be acquitted.
I put the following to the WS jury....
On the night Allison went missing, she and GBC had a disagreement about something (whether it be about TM, finances or whatever). Not wanting to alarm the kids they went outside to talk and for whatever reason it turned physical at which point one of 3 things happened.
1. Allison and GBC were both engaged in an assault, Allison scratching and bruising GBC's face and torso and GBC attempting to fend off or punch Allison (bruise to the ribs) and then punching her to the left side of her head at which point she became unconscious and fell to the ground.
2. As above but Allison's fall may have been accidental and not the result of a blow to the head, the hemorrhage occurring upon contact with the ground.
3. And this is going to be distasteful to many, could it be possible that GBC was not trying to engage in any assault (limited superficial injuries to ABC) and instead was trying to extricate himself from the situation, pushed Allison away who then fell?
All of the above could explain the leaves in Allison's hair, the injuries that Dr Milne noted (particularly if GBC is right handed, I'm unsure of his dexterity though), the blood in the Captiva and the injuries to GBC. It would also go some way to explaining his demeanor immediately after the event and his bewilderment of being found guilty when the prosecution case was significantly off the mark.
Obviously you'd have to ask why wasn't medical attention sought and the subsequent subterfuge but GBC certainly wouldn't be the first person to panic and act irrationally when an accidental death has occurred.
I have to add this disclaimer, I'm in absolutely no way suggesting any of the following occurred and the Crown and jury may have got it right down to every last detail. But with the benefit of being privy to evidence that was not admissible, I would have taken a completely different tack from the one taken by the defence but which would have necessitated either recanting previous statements or GBC not giving evidence at all. Disregarding potentially incriminating behaviour after the fact, I can see no reason to suggest that the above scenarios are any less plausible than the asphyxiation theory which was ultimately accepted by the jury. It may well be the case that it was manslaughter (in that it was 'just' an assault with no intention to kill or inflict GBH) or even just a tragic accident after which GBC panicked.
I have to say that as prosecutor, I would have been a bit uncomfortable leading a case where evidence that had been excluded (again, at the request of the defence) may potentially have contradicted the evidence led. It's of course possible that the injuries occurred during asphyxiation or when Allison was rolled down the embankment, but to my mind at least it's entirely possible that Allison's death was the result of the hemorrhage (by whatever means) and not asphyxiation. I'm uncomfortable with a conviction based entirely on the exclusion of all other possibilities when evidence exists, even though it was excluded at trial, that potentially a scenario other than that put forward by the prosecution played out. I understand that Fuller QC was not authorised to make the decision to discontinue the prosecution in any case so no attack on his character is intended whatsoever.
All my opinion only and no disrespect intended, least of all to Allison. I hope that those who may have a different opinion can still understand where I am coming from.
FYI
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...sband-expected-an-early-arrest/story-fnn8dlfs
Baden-Clay book reveals details about Allison’s first fiance and how her husband expected an early arrest
KATE KYRIACOU THE COURIER-MAIL NOVEMBER 27, 2014 12:00AM
ALLISON Baden-Clay could have lived a long, happy and safe life with her first fiance – a scuba instructor she’d bought two properties with – but was wooed away by a relentless Gerard, it can be revealed...His family also asked wealthy State MP Dr Bruce Flegg to put up $1 million to help his bid for bail after he was arrested for his wife’s murder...The revelations are contained in the new book, The Murder of Allison Baden-Clay, by David Murray, the Courier-Mail crime and courts editor ...
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...sband-expected-an-early-arrest/story-fnn8dlfs
Baden-Clay book reveals details about Allison’s first fiance and how her husband expected an early arrest
KATE KYRIACOU THE COURIER-MAIL NOVEMBER 27, 2014 12:00AM
ALLISON Baden-Clay could have lived a long, happy and safe life with her first fiance – a scuba instructor she’d bought two properties with – but was wooed away by a relentless Gerard, it can be revealed...His family also asked wealthy State MP Dr Bruce Flegg to put up $1 million to help his bid for bail after he was arrested for his wife’s murder...The revelations are contained in the new book, The Murder of Allison Baden-Clay, by David Murray, the Courier-Mail crime and courts editor ...
Amee
Active Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,197
- Reaction score
- 6
has anyone read this book?
Beauty Queen Murder - Allison Baden-Clay
By Pamela Lillian Valemont
http://www.lulu.com/shop/pamela-lil...on-baden-clay/hardcover/product-21815599.html
Beauty Queen Murder - Allison Baden-Clay
By Pamela Lillian Valemont
http://www.lulu.com/shop/pamela-lil...on-baden-clay/hardcover/product-21815599.html
Kate Kyriacou ‏@KateKyriacou 44m44 minutes ago
You can buy this from TODAY. An amazing read. http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/david-murray/the-murder-of-allison-baden-clay-9781742759838.aspx …
http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/david-murray/the-murder-of-allison-baden-clay-9781742759838.aspx
The Murder of Allison Baden-Clay
by David Murray
"... How did a father with no criminal history come to be on trial for the brutal murder of his wife?
It began with a phone call to Brisbane police on 20 April 2012. Allison, wife of real-estate agent Gerard Baden-Clay, was missing.
When investigating officers arrived at the family home, in one of the city's wealthiest suburbs, a neatly dressed Gerard had been getting the couple's three daughters ready for school. Scratches on his face were shaving cuts, he told them.
Police weren't so sure and opened one of Australia's biggest ever missing persons investigations.
Ten days after Gerard reported Allison's disappearance, the body of the former beauty queen was discovered on a creek bank 14 kilometres from home.
The Murder of Allison Baden-Clay is written by the investigative journalist who covered the case from the start. It weaves together exclusive interviews and police and court records to explain how a father with no criminal history came to be on trial for a brutal murder. It's also a story about everyday choices and their consequences..."
- See more at: http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books...-clay-9781742759838.aspx#sthash.1CNV8nHn.dpuf
You can buy this from TODAY. An amazing read. http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/david-murray/the-murder-of-allison-baden-clay-9781742759838.aspx …
http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/david-murray/the-murder-of-allison-baden-clay-9781742759838.aspx
The Murder of Allison Baden-Clay
by David Murray
"... How did a father with no criminal history come to be on trial for the brutal murder of his wife?
It began with a phone call to Brisbane police on 20 April 2012. Allison, wife of real-estate agent Gerard Baden-Clay, was missing.
When investigating officers arrived at the family home, in one of the city's wealthiest suburbs, a neatly dressed Gerard had been getting the couple's three daughters ready for school. Scratches on his face were shaving cuts, he told them.
Police weren't so sure and opened one of Australia's biggest ever missing persons investigations.
Ten days after Gerard reported Allison's disappearance, the body of the former beauty queen was discovered on a creek bank 14 kilometres from home.
The Murder of Allison Baden-Clay is written by the investigative journalist who covered the case from the start. It weaves together exclusive interviews and police and court records to explain how a father with no criminal history came to be on trial for a brutal murder. It's also a story about everyday choices and their consequences..."
- See more at: http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books...-clay-9781742759838.aspx#sthash.1CNV8nHn.dpuf