Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #38

[Keentoknow]

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?

I am sure that scientific will know after questioning and examinations without doubt, who did what and when and why and how. All the evidence must line up with everyone one elses. I am sure that they wil lhave all their ducks in a row. So I feel the computer evidence will probably sink him.

 

[chekoutchik]

Interesting wording...

"Baden-Clay, 41, who did not appear today, is charged with murdering his wife Allison in April before dumping her body on the banks of a creek."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-provide-446-witness-statements-to-defence-team-of-gerard-baden-clay/story-e6freoof-1226463783472

Got to say though surely its considered poor form if the two main detectives have yet to do their statements. Considering they are waiting on others wouldn't that make them all the more aware to get their own done??

From memory, Danny Boyle also stated in court today that new [fresh] information was keeping inspectors from finishing their statements.

 

[DrWatson]

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.

That is EXACTLY what I'm trying to do, Enthralled. We really have very little in the way of hard facts, and most of the theories - including mine - are based on supposition and assumption. The way it all turns out will be quite an eye-opener, I suspect.

 

[Liadan]

Hey Doc be happy that this thread is moving again - wow we have discussion!

 

[DrWatson]

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.

Amee - we know what was searched on his iPhone, but we do NOT know that HE was the one who did it. That's my point (and I'm sure it is likely to be the defence's point too).

Of course, it is by FAR the most likely explanation - that HE did the searches etc - but it is not proof! Unless they have a voice recording of something like the Facetime call then they can only prove that his iPhone was used to make that search. But that doesn't prove it was him that did it. It's just a point of logic, but one that could be used by the defence.

 

[DrWatson]

I am sure that scientific will know after questioning and examinations without doubt, who did what and when and why and how. All the evidence must line up with everyone one elses. I am sure that they wil lhave all their ducks in a row. So I feel the computer evidence will probably sink him.

KTK - I'm almost sure you're spot on. And I hope you are right. Which presumably is why this whole evidence thing is taking so long. Ducks, t's and i's, etc.

 

[chekoutchik]

Ha ha Makara, love the CRAFT idea; looked it up and it describes my typical state of mind so I'll be using the expression all the time from now on (if I remember).

There was some mention of forensic help from W.A. in Thread 24, just after GBC’s arrest. LostSock reminded us that there is an expert on pollens who works in W.A. and plentyofnous posted this link http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2005/s1444413.htm to an Australian Story program about her forensic work.

Thanks for the link. Loved the transcript. There are some similarities to this case don't you think? Dr Milne's work is amazing and I hope she pulls some awesome rabbits out of her hat for Allison like she did in the case for Samantha Bodsworth. RIP Sam and Allison.

 

[DrWatson]

And on that note - although I did say I was going earlier - I'm off to do some other stuff. Thanks for the interesting discussions To and fro debates are always interesting, and I do sometimes get a bit carried away being the devil's advocate and stirring - just a bit... :blushing:

:seeya:

 

[Amee]

Amee - we know what was searched on his iPhone, but we do NOT know that HE was the one who did it. That's my point (and I'm sure it is likely to be the defence's point too).

Of course, it is by FAR the most likely explanation - that HE did the searches etc - but it is not proof! Unless they have a voice recording of something like the Facetime call then they can only prove that his iPhone was used to make that search. But that doesn't prove it was him that did it. It's just a point of logic, but one that could be used by the defence.

so are you saying it wasnt GBC who sent those msgs to Allison? Who was it then and why? The children were asleep and Allison was missing?
Who else was in the house?
IMO GBC is a guilty as it gets.
Otherwise wouldnt the police be looking for someone else and wouldnt the family be screaming from the rooftops asking who did it?

 

[Liadan]

And as any good journalist would say 'thank you Doc wats for your patience and good will in the heated discussions today!'

 

[Keentoknow]

Amee - we know what was searched on his iPhone, but we do NOT know that HE was the one who did it. That's my point (and I'm sure it is likely to be the defence's point too).

Of course, it is by FAR the most likely explanation - that HE did the searches etc - but it is not proof! Unless they have a voice recording of something like the Facetime call then they can only prove that his iPhone was used to make that search. But that doesn't prove it was him that did it. It's just a point of logic, but one that could be used by the defence.

He can use it. I that will prove that he continues to tell porkies. Whats new.

Often we hear prove it. They would not have bought the subject up if they could not.

 

[Keentoknow]

And on that note - although I did say I was going earlier - I'm off to do some other stuff. Thanks for the interesting discussions To and fro debates are always interesting, and I do sometimes get a bit carried away being the devil's advocate and stirring - just a bit... :blushing:

:seeya:

That is something that we are not allowed to do....Just come on here and be a devils advocate and stir....thanks for the admission.

 

[marlywings]

so are you saying it wasnt GBC who sent those msgs to Allison? Who was it then and why? The children were asleep and Allison was missing?
Who else was in the house?
IMO GBC is a guilty as it gets.
Otherwise wouldnt the police be looking for someone else and wouldnt the family be screaming from the rooftops asking who did it?

As you said earlier, it's interesting going back over old reports....re "who else was in the house"...

Sunday June 24, 2012

And he and the couple's three children were alone in the house with Allison on the night of her death, a fact which was particularly relevant, Mr Boyle said.

http://www.skynewsbusiness.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=763825&vId=3338762&cId=Top Stories

 

[DrWatson]

That is something that we are not allowed to do....Just come on here and be a devils advocate and stir....thanks for the admission.

Nothing wrong with being a devil's advocate in a debate, along with a little stirring, surely? Not if it is merely pointing out an occasional reality check among all the theories? If that is against the rules, then I apologise - but I don't recall that particular rule...

After all, debates in court use the devil's advocate approach all the time, don't they? And in Parliament? (oh sorry - poor example of reasoned debate there). Certainly in medical and scientific meetings the stirring can be much more pointed than the gentle stuff I may be guilty of in here...

'Night all :seeya:

 

[bearbear]

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.

im not convinced it was all about the money either. im wondering if allison knew something which would ruin him or the family. it just doesnt seem worth spending 20 odd years in prison for $900,000? when he could have just left and started again elsewhere.

 

[chekoutchik]

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 that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. However, as cases prior to this can attest, it only takes one piece of hard evidence to nail a perpetrator.

 

[miss plum]

Amee - we know what was searched on his iPhone, but we do NOT know that HE was the one who did it. That's my point (and I'm sure it is likely to be the defence's point too).

Of course, it is by FAR the most likely explanation - that HE did the searches etc - but it is not proof! Unless they have a voice recording of something like the Facetime call then they can only prove that his iPhone was used to make that search. But that doesn't prove it was him that did it. It's just a point of logic, but one that could be used by the defence.

I think most people with iPhones use the available autolocking 4-digit security code to keep them locked in case of loss or theft. Mine is set to lock after 2 mins of non-use and so is my husband's, as we keep a lot of personal information on them including our email accounts, many documents etc. I'm confident an incorrigible adulterer would make use of that function.

 

[Chief of Funtime]

I wonder if he had more than one phone . He was having more than one affairs . Also what exactly is a real estate conference ? How often are they ? Was it gbcs thing to go to them and not Allison's ? Did tm go on that Friday ? Are they 2 day events ?

 

[marlywings]

I wonder if he had more than one phone . He was having more than one affairs . Also what exactly is a real estate conference ? How often are they ? Was it gbcs thing to go to them and not Allison's ? Did tm go on that Friday ? Are they 2 day events ?

This may have been the conference...

2012 REIQ Property Management Conference on Friday, 20 April 2012, at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre.

REIQ executive manager policy and legal, will present the session 'Keeping out of trouble! Forms, claims & best practice'. Topics to be covered include:

http://www.carternewell.com/news/partner-to-speak-at-2012-property-management-conference.aspx

 

[Chief of Funtime]

im not convinced it was all about the money either. im wondering if allison knew something which would ruin him or the family. it just doesnt seem worth spending 20 odd years in prison for $900,000? when he could have just left and started again elsewhere.

If you declare yourself bankrupt which was what he would have to do , then you unable to start a new business for 2 years or until bankruptcy conditions have been fulfilled . He thought he would get away with it . Wonder what his total life insurance policies worth ?