Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #38

[Liadan]

Well doc you should hardly keep us in suspense - do share your insight about what angle the police are going to go. With what we have had from the court system today we have two tenths of nothing to accompany the two thirds of zilch that we had before - so if you can shed some light on the direction of the case just your opinion I am sure we will all be very very happy to explore something a bit different on here!

 

[marlywings]

It's starting to sound like the prosecution case is going to be highly circumstantial, from the sound of it, doesn't it? Even things on computers don't prove WHO did them, and have been known to have been falsified or planted in other cases. Easy enough to do - although we don't know just WHAT they have.

The more I think about this case, the more I find myself in one of two mindsets. Either GBC is innocent of the murder (although possibly guilty of other things, including the affairs etc), OR if he IS guilty of the murder, then he has been extraordinarily stupid.

And that is in both the carrying out of the crime, and also the attempted cover up. And I'm still not convinced that it would have all been about the money.

The police must have stuff that we have absolutely no inkling of yet, and I suspect that we will all be in for a fair number of surprises - from BOTH sides of the case.

I agree re the surprises. I think there may be quite a few but I don't think they'll be anything connected to GBC being innocent. So I'm thinking the "extraordinarily stupid" will apply.

I'm not sure if you've read the info which has been posted on here numerous times about Dr Milne. In one case she was involved with a little wattle flower brought the suspect undone. Now that we know she's involved with GBC's case, I think it may come down to something similar...little grass seeds or pollen from the creek area. Not necessarily found in the Captiva but on GBC's clothing. IF that is the case then he has no chance at all of claiming innocence...none whatsoever!!

 

[Keentoknow]

It's starting to sound like the prosecution case is going to be highly circumstantial, from the sound of it, doesn't it? Even things on computers don't prove WHO did them, and have been known to have been falsified or planted in other cases. Easy enough to do - although we don't know just WHAT they have.

The more I think about this case, the more I find myself in one of two mindsets. Either GBC is innocent of the murder (although possibly guilty of other things, including the affairs etc), OR if he IS guilty of the murder, then he has been extraordinarily stupid.

And that is in both the carrying out of the crime, and also the attempted cover up. And I'm still not convinced that it would have all been about the money.

The police must have stuff that we have absolutely no inkling of yet, and I suspect that we will all be in for a fair number of surprises - from BOTH sides of the case.

From the comments made here I see that you do not understand the rules of collecting evidence. There is such a thing as continuity and it must be maintained at all times. By doing this it proves that evidence has not been tampered with.

 

[DrWatson]

Doc, the circumstantial evidence is substantial - not just a few bits and pieces. What are your theories if GBC is innocent? Who is the murderer? And let's face it, GBC is thick as two short planks - he's proved that to the public in the past few months.

and

Well doc you should hardly keep us in suspense - do share your insight about what angle the police are going to go. With what we have had from the court system today we have two tenths of nothing to accompany the two thirds of zilch that we had before - so if you can shed some light on the direction of the case just your opinion I am sure we will all be very very happy to explore something a bit different on here!

I don't actually have any theories - I'm just waiting for more facts like everyone else.

I AM trying to keep an open mind, as I've stated previously, so I guess we can speculate on what may have happened if GBC is NOT the guilty party... was there a third party involved, eg somebody Allison met, or somebody that attacked her if she walked out in a huff?

But that is pure speculation, and I agree with Breaking News that the evidence would seem to be substantial (450-odd statements..!) Of course, what I'd REALLY like to hear is what the defence are going to argue against the prosecution's points. What possible defence argument could there be? We've already heard about caterpillars or a reaction to them, and we've heard that APPARENTLY the only sign of injury was a chipped tooth so where did the blood come from?

But I imagine that the defence will need to have answers for every single point that the prosecution raises, or else he's a goner.

As for how smart he is or isn't - I have to admit that in the dealings that we've had with him over a couple of family-owned rental properties, there was no suggestion that he was anything less than your average street-smart real estate agent. But the clumsy efforts at cover-up, from the scratches, the car crash, right through to the placement of the body close to the scout camp grounds, the Facetime call, and the apparent appearance of NBC at the Kenmore roundabout (why, oh why were they there???) all suggests somebody who is either really dumb, or panicked.

And as I said, I'm not sure which is which. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure he is the most likely culprit (and stats are on that side of things too), but then I keep finding myself thinking that surely he can't have been THAT stupid?

In an unrelated case, but to illustrate how the police can sometimes get things wrong by fixating on one prime suspect, I just read that Graham Stafford, who spent years in jail for the murder of Leanne Holland , had his murder conviction quashed, and that the police are just about to bring fresh charges against someone - presumably somebody else. Things aren't necessarily as obvious as they may seem, although in Allison's case, I suspect that they are. But sheesh, he must have been dumb to think that he could get away with it.

 

[DrWatson]

From the comments made here I see that you do not understand the rules of collecting evidence. There is such a thing as continuity and it must be maintained at all times. By doing this it proves that evidence has not been tampered with.

KTK - point taken, but I'm not referring to the computers having been tampered with AFTER the evidence has been collected. I'm talking about somebody setting up somebody else by doing things on the other person's computer that would later prove to be incriminating.

I'm trying to rack my memory about a case in the USA where that happened - but I can't remember the details. It was something to do with stuff that had been posted on social media, several emails that had apparently been sent from the computer, and others received, plus Google search history etc etc. I think it was a paedophile case, but somebody had set up the person who was arrested - the ex-husband set up the new boyfriend, that sort of thing.

All I was getting at was that just because something is on a computer doesn't necessarily prove that the person who usually uses that computer was the one who put it on there.

I'm aware of the rules on continuity of evidence - I have a niece who is a SOCO for the Met in London - they now call them Forensic Crime Scene Examiners over there.

 

[marlywings]

In an unrelated case, but to illustrate how the police can sometimes get things wrong by fixating on one prime suspect, I just read that Graham Stafford, who spent years in jail for the murder of Leanne Holland , had his murder conviction quashed, and that the police are just about to bring fresh charges against someone - presumably somebody else. Things aren't necessarily as obvious as they may seem, although in Allison's case, I suspect that they are. But sheesh, he must have been dumb to think that he could get away with it.

That case was back in 1991. Times have changed, technology has gone ahead in leaps & bounds since then..even more so in forensics area...you would know this.

Majority of criminals in prison all thought they could get away with committing crime....& most of them claim innocence.

 

[Keentoknow]

From the comments made here I see that you do not understand the rules of collecting evidence. There is such a thing as continuity and it must be maintained at all times. By doing this it proves that evidence has not been tampered with.

To add to this I cannot see any room to tamper with evidence


http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resour...orensic Services Organisational Structure.pdf

Quality Management Section
The Quality Management Section is tasked with maintaining the quality management
system for QPS Forensic Services, including:
• Development of forensic technical procedures;
• Development of administrative procedures associated with forensic services, i.e. case
information management and document control;
• Ensuring procedures keep instep with scientific advances and reflect world best
practice;
• Training and developing forensic officers and maintaining training records;
• Determining standards for equipment and consumables to be used for forensic
purposes;
• Determining standards for facilities to be used for forensic purposes;
• Determining standards for vehicles to be used for forensic purposes;
• Ensuring that forensic officers maintain competencies and undergo regular proficiency
tests;
• Ensuring that the court testimony of forensic officers is regularly assessed;
• Coordinating an Internal auditing program that monitors compliance with all NATA
requirements;
• Ensuring that all non-compliances are appropriately addressed;
• Consulting with regional forensic services coordinators in relation to the quality of
forensic services and the technical activities of forensic officers within their regions; and
• Providing advice to the Superintendent, Forensic Services Branch, in relation to the
quality of forensic services and the technical activities of forensic officers within the
regions.
Forensic
Services
Branch
Coronial
Support
Unit
DNA
Management
Section
Fingerprint
Bureau
Photographic
Section
Quality
Management
Section
Scientific
Section
Coronial
Liaison
Disaster
Victim
Identification
Sample
Management
Unit
Results
Management
Unit
Quality
Management
Unit
Ten Print Unit
Latent
Fingerprint
Unit
Training and
Research Unit
Quality
Management
Specialist
Photographic
Unit
Visual
Identification
Unit
Electronic
Recording
Laboratory
Training Unit Physical
Evidence Unit
Ballistics Unit
Document
Examination
Unit
Analytical
Services Unit
State Scenes of
Crime
Coordinator
Trainee
Scenes of
Crime
Monitoring
Unit
Standards
Unit
John Tonge
Centre
Photographic
Laboratory
Image
Processing
DNA Management

 

[DrWatson]

I agree re the surprises. I think there may be quite a few but I don't think they'll be anything connected to GBC being innocent. So I'm thinking the "extraordinarily stupid" will apply.

I'm not sure if you've read the info which has been posted on here numerous times about Dr Milne. In one case she was involved with a little wattle flower brought the suspect undone. Now that we know she's involved with GBC's case, I think it may come down to something similar...little grass seeds or pollen from the creek area. Not necessarily found in the Captiva but on GBC's clothing. IF that is the case then he has no chance at all of claiming innocence...none whatsoever!!

Hi MarlyWhizz Yes, I've read the stuff on Dr Milne. But - we don't know the results of the tests, presuming that they were indeed tests on pollens etc from GBC's clothes or the car. The tests could, in fact, have been negative.... One shouldn't assume that they prove the prosecution's point until we hear that in court, should we? lease:

 

[Liadan]

and




I AM trying to keep an open mind, as I've stated previously, so I guess we can speculate on what may have happened if GBC is NOT the guilty party... was there a third party involved, eg somebody Allison met, or somebody that attacked her if she walked out in a huff?

But that is pure speculation, and I agree with Breaking News that the evidence would seem to be substantial (450-odd statements..!) Of course, what I'd REALLY like to hear is what the defence are going to argue against the prosecution's points. What possible defence argument could there be? We've already heard about caterpillars or a reaction to them, and we've heard that APPARENTLY the only sign of injury was a chipped tooth so where did the blood come from?

.....
As for how smart he is or isn't - I have to admit that in the dealings that we've had with him over a couple of family-owned rental properties, there was no suggestion that he was anything less than your average street-smart real estate agent. But the clumsy efforts at cover-up, from the scratches, the car crash, right through to the placement of the body close to the scout camp grounds, the Facetime call, and the apparent appearance of NBC at the Kenmore roundabout (why, oh why were they there???) all suggests somebody who is either really dumb, or panicked.

And as I said, I'm not sure which is which. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure he is the most likely culprit (and stats are on that side of things too), but then I keep finding myself thinking that surely he can't have been THAT stupid?

In an unrelated case, but to illustrate how the police can sometimes get things wrong by fixating on one prime suspect, I just read that Graham Stafford, who spent years in jail for the murder of Leanne Holland , had his murder conviction quashed, and that the police are just about to bring fresh charges against someone - presumably somebody else. Things aren't necessarily as obvious as they may seem, although in Allison's case, I suspect that they are. But sheesh, he must have been dumb to think that he could get away with it.

____________________________________________________________
Doc -I have never wavered from my position of who did it and the strong belief of the culprit in this case so I am interested why you think 'stupidity' points to the case of GBC being possibly innocent. It is a very intriguing line of thought! And I hazard to say one that the defense may even capitalise to gain leverage for what would seem reasonable in normal everyday life. However, these are situational inferences are important in that we can use to expand our discussion here and really explore our motivations for the speculations/beliefs we hold.

 

[DrWatson]

To add to this I cannot see any room to tamper with evidence

KTK - no arguments from me on those points. See my previous post just before yours, though - I was referring more to the computer contents BEFORE they were collected as evidence. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that the evidence was tampered with once it entered the chain of evidence.

 

[Keentoknow]

KTK - point taken, but I'm not referring to the computers having been tampered with AFTER the evidence has been collected. I'm talking about somebody setting up somebody else by doing things on the other person's computer that would later prove to be incriminating.

I'm trying to rack my memory about a case in the USA where that happened - but I can't remember the details. It was something to do with stuff that had been posted on social media, several emails that had apparently been sent from the computer, and others received, plus Google search history etc etc. I think it was a paedophile case, but somebody had set up the person who was arrested - the ex-husband set up the new boyfriend, that sort of thing.

All I was getting at was that just because something is on a computer doesn't necessarily prove that the person who usually uses that computer was the one who put it on there.

I'm aware of the rules on continuity of evidence - I have a niece who is a SOCO for the Met in London - they now call them Forensic Crime Scene Examiners over there.

When did this person get the chance to this during the night after the murder?
Both homes were set up as a crime scene so who could have tamperd with the computers. At a crime scene noone goes in and noone goes out without examination.

 

[Amee]

The documents say that on April 18, two days before he would place a Triple 0 call to report his wife missing, Baden-Clay picked up his iPhone, logged onto the internet and searched the term "taking the Fifth".

The search yielded a raft of results, but Baden-Clay allegedly clicked on the "self-incrimination" Wikipedia link.

http://www.news.com.au/national-old...d-in-court-claim/story-e6frfkvr-1226406037780

I didnt realise he used his iphone to search the "Fifth" for some reason I thought he used the pc. Its interesting going back over news reports and picking up different things

 

[Champagne4lulu]

My biggest fear is the accused getting off on a technicality. Isn't that his defense counsel's specialty? I seem to remember way back discussions about his specialty being in DNA and he had successfully gotten quite a few people off on technicalities. That's why I'm interested in whether he is still involved.

Nothing much has been said about the defense team lately. Every man and his dog was rumored to have been a part of it when he was arrested.

I would love to hear from some legal minds here how strong they feel the case is (based on the limited info we know) and opinions on the defense and persecution teams.

 

[DrWatson]

____________________________________________________________
Doc -I have never wavered from my position and belief in this case so I am interested why you think stupidity points to the case of him being possibly innocent. It is a very intriguing line of thought! And I hazard to say but one that the defense may capitalise to gain leverage for what would seem reasonable. These are situational inferences that we can use to expand our discussion.

Hi Liadan I'm not suggesting that stupidity may point to him being innocent. I was merely pondering the fact that if he is indeed guilty, then one could add stupidity to the list of things he is guilty of.

But assuming the presumption of innocence applies, then we have to keep that 1% of "ze leetle grey cells" as Poirot would have put it into considering any other possibilities.

I should state again that I think he is the culprit. Or at least I'm 99% leaning that way. I can't be 100% as I don't know any more facts or evidence than anyone else here - so that 1% of doubt has to remain to anyone with a logical mind. And my profession tends to attract those with logical minds - bit like lawyers in some respects (right Alioops??) :blushing:

 

[chekoutchik]

Thanks, Checkout. You have done a good job. Was any of GBC's family there?

There was no-one there from either of the families that I could recognise. I only recognise the now famous ones. When the hearing concluded, the courtroom almost emptied and given that there was only standing space left by that time, you can imagine there were many there for this case.

At a guess I would say ~30 to ~40 odd were there for this case. Some may have been related and there to 'represent' either side of the family with a view of reporting back but that is complete hearsay and IMHO

 

[Keentoknow]

Hi Liadan I'm not suggesting that stupidity may point to him being innocent. I was merely pondering the fact that if he is indeed guilty, then one could add stupidity to the list of things he is guilty of.

But assuming the presumption of innocence applies, then we have to keep that 1% of "ze leetle grey cells" as Poirot would have put it into considering any other possibilities.

I should state again that I think he is the culprit. Or at least I'm 99% leaning that way. I can't be 100% as I don't know any more facts or evidence than anyone else here - so that 1% of doubt has to remain to anyone with a logical mind. And my profession tends to attract those with logical minds - bit like lawyers in some respects (right Alioops??) :blushing:

Well at this stage I would say guessing and making assumptions would have a very low accuracy rate. Do you.

 

[DrWatson]

When did this person get the chance to this during the night after the murder?
Both homes were set up as a crime scene so who could have tamperd with the computers. At a crime scene noone goes in and noone goes out without examination.

KTK - I didn't say it was done on the night after the murder. Please don't take me out of context or put words into my mouth. All I was doing was making the point - a valid one - that just because something is found on a computer doesn't mean that GBC put it there.

Let's just fantasize for a moment - let's just imagine somebody with a grudge against both GBC and Allison decided to set up GBC for the murder, and put stuff on his computer which would LATER prove incriminating. That could have happened quite some time before the murder. Who knows?

Of course, I'm just speculating, as we all are. but I'm just trying to raise OTHER possibilities (not probabilities) that COULD have occurred.

Heavens above - we don't even have a clue WHAT was found on the computer(s) or phone(s) do we?

Seem to be a few touchy folks in here - maybe it's just because I'm throwing up possibilities that don't necessarily fit in with current theories? If people are offended by the idea that GBC MIGHT be innocent, then I apologise for making you feel that way. But we really do have to try and be objective, surely?

Well at this stage I would say guessing and making assumptions would have a very low accuracy rate.

Isn't that basically what almost everyone on here has been doing since April? Including me?

OK - enough from me tonight - I can see I'm stirring the beehive again. I'm off to do other things for a while.

 

[enthralled]

Forgive me if I am wrong DocWatson.
I think you are just trying to keep us from assuming things. We have very little info and must prepare ourselves for the fact that things were not and may not go as we think.

 

[Liadan]

Hi Liadan I'm not suggesting that stupidity may point to him being innocent. I was merely pondering the fact that if he is indeed guilty, then one could add stupidity to the list of things he is guilty of.

But assuming the presumption of innocence applies, then we have to keep that 1% of "ze leetle grey cells" as Poirot would have put it into considering any other possibilities.

I should state again that I think he is the culprit. Or at least I'm 99% leaning that way. I can't be 100% as I don't know any more facts or evidence than anyone else here - so that 1% of doubt has to remain to anyone with a logical mind. And my profession tends to attract those with logical minds - bit like lawyers in some respects (right Alioops??) :blushing:

________________________________
Well thank GOD Doc Watson - great minds think alike yes you and Alioops are very close we are all very much aware. But the stupidity is really something that I feel defines our culprit. He has no mind of his own. He is lead by people - he makes poor decisions, worse business decisions - so one could argue that it is really part of his makeup - he has never and I mean never broken the umbilic cord from his family - they have been there propping him up till the very end.

These go toward - what seems to me to be pattern behaviour. He has no considerations for what is morally ok his goal is to please those around him and himself. His community facade and spruiking is just a pathetic guise for his lack of true values and cover for his debaucherous lifestyle. Certainly he held no value in his core family beliefs taking on a lover while his wife was dealing with the newborn and 2 others under 5.

 

[Amee]

Dr Watson we do know some of what he searched on his iphone I just posted the link above. Im sure there will be much more to come, as to what Im not sure.