Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #35

[Thebuttlerdidntdoit]

Sorry, caught on the school pick up
Yes, my fingers got clumsy. The whole roundabout thing is weird - was the something unusual NBC or car going round the wrong way, right way with out plates. Just couldn't make sense of it. But NBC at the wrong roundabout did & perhaps having to wait until someone trying to avoid the lit & camera roundabout turned up. Does. Sitting at that bus stop right now wishing it could talk. My appologies if my poorly written post sounded like I'd heard anything. Ears open though

My thank you button diSappared but I agree, onlyone.

 

[Rational]

Just going to jump in here with some food for thought. Cutting off hands is not a simple task. If GBC was concerned about the possibility of trace evidence or skin under the finger nails it would be MUCH easier to cut off fingers. As gruesome as that sounds. Literature I've read (forensic psych journal articles & studies for my own role) over the years shows that is also more prevalent that cutting off the hands. Just saying that's all

I suppose pulp you have not seen me in action with my Chinese cleaver, sharpened every week. Big ribs take me two good blows. A pig's tail like fingers I would be gentle with as I wouldn't want to damage the chopping board too much. I suppose what I am saying is it depends on what you use.

Ps no forensics for me just an avid foodie!!

 

[possumheart]

Thankyou So, I guess in his mind he has nothing to gain by pleading guilty then?

He would be a bigger man if he did.

 

[Rational]

Thankyou So, I guess in his mind he has nothing to gain by pleading guilty then?

He has heaps to gain. His supposed defence would centre around caterpillars, car accidents, possible domestic violence, incompetent financial handling of business and personal affairs, mistresses etc etc.

If he doesn't want to win the Oscar for comedy of the year and give the jury apoplexy with the sheer stupidity of his ramblings he should plead guilty.

Not too mention, what exposing all if that would do to his perceived standing in his new social order at the prison. Can you imagine 'ah Brucey come here, we will only hurt you a little bit! Hey Mr Overland I hear you are a whizz at finance,can you help me with mine???'

 

[alioop]

Thankyou So, I guess in his mind he has nothing to gain by pleading guilty then?

Save the family money and limit the shame to himself, mistresses, colleagues and last but most importantly his daughters of a dragged out trial with all the sordid details. I think it is a good possibility if the evidence has him 'nailed" as someone posted a few pages back on this thread.

 

[Rational]

He would be a bigger man if he did.

:gasp: oh Possum, did you save this for Friday afternoon?? :floorlaugh:

 

[Amee]

He would be a bigger man if he did.

Thats Gold Possum :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Mani]

Thank you so very much Mani. I've copied the beautiful sunflower cross for my tribute page. Trust I have your permission... xox

MM,

The photos were taken for everyone but especially so that the people who live faraway (who can't see for themselves) have access to the topography here.

Cheers

 

[marlywings]

I suppose pulp you have not seen me in action with my Chinese cleaver, sharpened every week. Big ribs take me two good blows. A pig's tail like fingers I would be gentle with as I wouldn't want to damage the chopping board too much. I suppose what I am saying is it depends on what you use.

Yikes Rational....that funny crazy guy emoticon of yours just came to mind...lol..

But on a serious note...Hawkins words also came to mind...

""a particularly nasty and confronting matter. Not the sort of case that would be pleasant for jurors""

 

[Rational]

Yikes Rational....that funny crazy guy emoticon of yours just came to mind...lol..

But on a serious note...Hawkins words also came to mind...

""a particularly nasty and confronting matter. Not the sort of case that would be pleasant for jurors""

Totally agree, those words keep haunting me!

 

[DrWatson]

Yikes Rational....that funny crazy guy emoticon of yours just came to mind...lol..

But on a serious note...Hawkins words also came to mind...

""a particularly nasty and confronting matter. Not the sort of case that would be pleasant for jurors""

Can I just ask, in light of this apparent inside knowledge, how Hawkins knows this? I'm not trying to question his sources, but I note that he isn't a verified professional or insider, possibly through his own choice, which is fine.

But to hint that there is something that we don't know about that will be confronting to a jury is perhaps a little teasing?

Having said that, I have noted from his posts that he does seem to have a good legal slant on things - just wondering why he isn't a verified professional on here? In which case, how seriously do we take these "hints"?

If he DOES have a bit of inside running on the case, then shouldn't he verify that so it can be taken in that context by everyone else? Otherwise it's no more or less than the same conjecture than the rest of us come up with....

Nothing personal - just curious?

 

[linette]

Save the family money and limit the shame to himself, mistresses, colleagues and last but most importantly his daughters of a dragged out trial with all the sordid details. I think it is a good possibility if the evidence has him 'nailed" as someone posted a few pages back on this thread.

That's right. But he's only interested in himself it seems, so he's more interested in how pleading guilty would help HIM... not his daughters or family etc. If he was concerned about it, then he's had a very long time to reconsider, but still silence.

 

[linette]

Can I just ask, in light of this apparent inside knowledge, how Hawkins knows this? I'm not trying to question his sources, but I note that he isn't a verified professional or insider, possibly through his own choice, which is fine.

But to hint that there is something that we don't know about that will be confronting to a jury is perhaps a little teasing?

Having said that, I have noted from his posts that he does seem to have a good legal slant on things - just wondering why he isn't a verified professional on here? In which case, how seriously do we take these "hints"?

If he DOES have a bit of inside running on the case, then shouldn't he verify that so it can be taken in that context by everyone else? Otherwise it's no more or less than the same conjecture than the rest of us come up with....

Nothing personal - just curious?

This was mentioned much earlier on... it went with the general conversation.
Hawkins has chosen not to be verified, and I totally respect that.
As far as I recall he gave opinions that were general, and he never claimed to be speaking of the case as though he had inside knowledge so to speak. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't but he never pretended to know something we didn't.
He answered alot of our questions from his own experiences etc. I don't think he ever crossed the line where needing to be verified came up.

 

[marlywings]

Can I just ask, in light of this apparent inside knowledge, how Hawkins knows this? I'm not trying to question his sources, but I note that he isn't a verified professional or insider, possibly through his own choice, which is fine.

But to hint that there is something that we don't know about that will be confronting to a jury is perhaps a little teasing?

Having said that, I have noted from his posts that he does seem to have a good legal slant on things - just wondering why he isn't a verified professional on here? In which case, how seriously do we take these "hints"?

If he DOES have a bit of inside running on the case, then shouldn't he verify that so it can be taken in that context by everyone else? Otherwise it's no more or less than the same conjecture than the rest of us come up with....

Nothing personal - just curious?

Hawkins did seem to know quite a lot about the legal side of things...but as we're not to sleuth/question other members I guess we'll never know.

I've said it before but I think it just comes down to choices...everyone has the choice to believe or not.

 

[linette]

Can I just ask, in light of this apparent inside knowledge, how Hawkins knows this? I'm not trying to question his sources, but I note that he isn't a verified professional or insider, possibly through his own choice, which is fine.

But to hint that there is something that we don't know about that will be confronting to a jury is perhaps a little teasing?

Having said that, I have noted from his posts that he does seem to have a good legal slant on things - just wondering why he isn't a verified professional on here? In which case, how seriously do we take these "hints"?

If he DOES have a bit of inside running on the case, then shouldn't he verify that so it can be taken in that context by everyone else? Otherwise it's no more or less than the same conjecture than the rest of us come up with....

Nothing personal - just curious?

Just thought I'd add that while some people may wish to be verified, I think some may not want to cross the professional 'line', and may just continue to keep posting in a more general sense.

 

[BreakingNews]

He wouldn't tell me any more. I heard it as meaning that the missing hands was a furfy, rumour and nothing more. His lips were tightly sealed despite my plying him with alcohol...lol

Sorry, just catching up. MM I read the meaning as you did. No hands missing, so give that line up. Much more to come ...

 

[AAAA]

Any drink in the desert is welcome is it not?

Last evening from QPS Inspector's mouth (speaking to me personally), "Forget the missing hands. There is a lot more to come out."
I know we've heard, spoken about, and chewed over all this before, however it's a new source so sharing to uplift us all.

Avagudwun team. xox

Totally agree, I have a friend in the media who told me the hands were intact. IMO

 

[Makara]

I have compared the pictures of the BC captiva with the specs and details on the holden website and I think the BC model is the SX model, the lowest in the range. Only the SX does not have roof racks and I can't see any in the only exterior photo of the BC captiva that I could find- the one in the garage. The internal seats from the QPS luminol photos shows cloth seats which the SX and CX model have. Also both those models had the colour coded door handles as does the BC captiva whereas the LX has the chrome handles and leather seats.

So as the LX model was the only one with an inbuilt GPS, I am certain that the BC model does not have inbuilt GPS.

They may well have had their own add on GPS system of course like many people do. I imagine most real estate agents would have one of these.

Thank you very much for this alioop. It pretty much puts paid to my theory that QPS may have placed the Captiva at or near Kholo Creek using onboard GPS. I sincerely hope that there was an add on GPS system. QPS must have very strong evidence to have charged GBC with the interference of a corpse at Kholo Creek. It's one thing to be able to state that the vehicle was there, it's quite another thing to prove that GBC was the driver.

 

[Aunty]

I have missed this afternoons posts so don't know if anyone has posted this.
Go to this forum if you need to talk about DV or anything else that upsets you.
Thanks you are all precious and important.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8193709&postcount=36"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Domestic Violence - Our Stories and Information[/ame]

 

[DrWatson]

Just thought I'd add that while some people may wish to be verified, I think some may not want to cross the professional 'line', and may just continue to keep posting in a more general sense.

Yup - I fully understand that. But it was just the apparent hints that there was more knowledge than the rest had, and that it would be confronting to a jury. I understood when I went to the trouble to get myself verified that if I didn't, then I was restricted to posting nothing that could be construed as me having any expertise in my area. In other words, I had to post nothing that would pertain to my professional knowledge unless I was verified.

Maybe I misunderstood that, or maybe I just misunderstood the essence of Hawkins' post suggesting that there was more to this than meets the eye.

But never mind - I'm not trying to sleuth Hawkins - I enjoy his posts. It was just me wondering about the "confronting to the jury" bits....

I'll just have to wait (sigh) along with everyone else (sigh) unless I can pry any info out of my forensic contacts (sigh). If I don't stop this sighing, (sigh) I'm going to hyperventilate... :floorlaugh: