Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #38

[Chief of Funtime]

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

Thanks Marly "keeping out of trouble? " almost funny .

 

[summer_breeze]

<snipped>

I don't think we really need to split loyalties - justice for Allison - in reality all we say is going to have ZERO effect on anything that happens in the court room or in the families lives. So instead of taking sides and getting narky about who is supporting who and who knows most about what - lets settle down and re-evaluate why this case has been emotional. Yes we all want the best outcome for Allison BUT we figure at level zero in that scheme. So lets just realise that we have common interest - different opinions and totally diverse backgrounds this alone is indeed capable of stimulating and constructing interesting educated discussion.

Very well said Liadan!

And we have all played devil's advocate to some degree at one point or another. As long as the discussion is respectful of the other members' point of view, and responses address the content of the post we should have some interesting discussion.

Yes, we are very much a victim friendly forum. That does not mean we cannot question, discuss and debate the finer points that are within the allowable scope of the case. From all points of view.

It's when we start to personalize our comments towards other members that it becomes a problem, for everyone!

 

[summer_breeze]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...baden-clay-files/story-e6frg6nf-1226463795583

ROSANNE BARRETT From: The Australian September 03, 2012 10:46AM

<snipped>

The affidavit states that he is alleged to have given inconsistent versions of events to witnesses and there was "some degree of planning" from web searches around the time of her disappearance.

 

[summer_breeze]

http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/story/2012/09/03/446-witness-docs-baden-clay-case/

Ava Benny-Morrison | 3rd September 2012 11:00 AM

<snipped>

"(That is) the idea of that material being given so they (defence) can conduct an analysis in a timely way instead of waiting and waiting and waiting..." the magistrate said.

 

[LollyPop]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...baden-clay-files/story-e6frg6nf-1226463795583

ROSANNE BARRETT From: The Australian September 03, 2012 10:46AM

<snipped>

I see the reporters are still getting their suburbs mixed up :banghead:

 

[Mani]

Regarding why the two key investigators had not yet submitted their statements, it could be that theirs are quite significant, lengthy and take a lot of time to prepare (no doubt while still working on the case and taking statements??). They most likely would be very critical too so no doubt they are being checked and rechecked. They could also be waiting on the other missing statements as these would be of major importance to the case.
Frustrating though it is, I'd much prefer a water tight case than rushing things through and leaving holes in the case.

Well said MOO.

 

[Cyansea]

I wonder if they all drove through the roundabout? :floorlaugh:

Makara, you have made my day! :floorlaugh:

How many times I think of that roundabout and.....and.....and....

:juggle:

I'll be up there with bells on if when there is a trial, nothing will stop me.

 

[Mani]

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.

I agree. There will be a weight of evidence against him. Good point Keen. IMO

 

[Cyansea]

I embarked upon the Queensland Courts early this morning.

My notes:
3/9/12 Brisbane Magistrates Court, Magistrate Chris Callaghan presiding for the Further Committal Mention
Public Prosecutor: Danny Boyle
Defense Lawyer: Darren Mahony

In a nutshell, the prosecution is experiencing delays and the Committal Hearing date has been set for 24/9/12. GBC to remain in custody and to appear on that date. Mahony consented to this as he stated this was better than the original suggestion of November 2012.

Progress & Delays:
Prosecution was presented with a bulk brief last Friday from QPS
5 signed statements are outstanding including 2 from investigating officers, Roddick and Pascoe.
The delays were caused due to additional data being received.
The 5 statements are expected by the end of the week.
Financial forensics are expected by 14/9/12 from the accountant rather than by November as previously stated.
Dr Milne, the forensic pathologist in WA is expected to hand over findings by 14/9/12.
Further analysis of phones and computers has been conducted. There are 32 exhibits resulting from this analysis. Data from this is also expected 14/9/12.

Magistrate Callaghan expressed his concern over the delays.
Danny Boyle said that delays were due to "Warrants being required, etc." and that it took a lot of work to get financial records in.

Thank you so much chekoutchik! If I wasn't so far away I would have and I'm sure many others here would have come with you, thank you again, very interesting. Hope we get some tiny bit of info on the 14th! I console myself by knowing that GBC is walking on broken glass atm.

:yourock::yourock::yourock:

 

[Fuskier]

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".... Baden-Clay allegedly clicked on the "self-incrimination" Wikipedia link. ...

Amee: Dr Watson we do know some of what he searched on his iphone I just posted the link above...

DrWatson:
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)...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.

Amee: 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?...

Marlywings:
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/to...=Top%20Stories

The facts stated by Mr Boyle speak for themselves. Allison left her message on GBC's armpit, chest and face. This tells the story. One could equally say that it was up to the Defence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it was otherwise. My opinion only, not fact.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

I've just popped in after a long break. I don't have much to say except "Hello". I hope to see a friend on Saturday who grew up down the road from the B-Ps rental house, and still has family in there. I'm hoping for some good inside info to share. Fingers crossed.

 

[Amee]

Amee: Dr Watson we do know some of what he searched on his iphone I just posted the link above...

DrWatson:
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)...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.

Amee: 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?...

Marlywings:
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/to...=Top%20Stories

The facts stated by Mr Boyle speak for themselves. Allison left her message on GBC's armpit, chest and face. This tells the story. One could equally say that it was up to the Defence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it was otherwise. My opinion only, not fact.

Yes Exactly.

 

[DrWatson]

Morning all

Amee - who said they could prove that the phone was in the house when those messages were sent, or the searches done?

Don't worry - I'm actually with you on the whole thing - but I'm just pointing out that strict logic - as would be applied by lawyers in a trial, for example - would suggest that even if the iPhone were used for all of those things, it still wouldn't PROVE that (a) the phone was in the house when used, or that (b) it was GBC what dun it....

Now I agree totally that the chance of it NOT being him is miniscule - but not impossible. And yes - it's a "beyond reasonable doubt" situation. but my point is that the defence could counter a lot of the allegations as being inference only.

As I said - I'm with you - I agree. But I'm just poking the hornet's nest again, the way a defence lawyer might.

And as KTK said last night, hopefully the prosecution have all the ducks nicely lined up and it will be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But with circumstantial evidence, it really needs to be based on the total weight of probabilities, if there is no one thing that actually proves the fact.

Just saying... OK - gotta get back to work.

 

[Radster]

and



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.

The Lloyd Rayney case currently being heard in WA's courts is very similar to this one in terms of being based around a "voluminous" amount of circumstantial evidence. There is no smoking gun, but also no viable alternative theory for the murder other than the husband having (allegedly) done it. It's interesting, though, to read the daily and weekly transcripts of this case because the defence seems to be having a high degree of success in poking small holes of doubt in every little piece of evidence (just a simple "but what if ...?" thrown at every single piece) such that the prosecution actually appears to be losing at this point ... death by a thousand paper cuts. It's actually looking like Lloyd may (allegedly) get away with murder thanks to a very thorough assault by his legal team. GBC's team will no doubt be appreciating the extra time to get their ducks in a row and find 446+ ways to poke small holes of doubt in evidence. On that score, Rayney is a lawyer and his legal team are the best of the best - he can afford them and also choose very wisely. The same cannot necessariyl be said of GBC.

 

[DrWatson]

The Lloyd Rayney case currently being heard in WA's courts is very similar to this one in terms of being based around a "voluminous" amount of circumstantial evidence. There is no smoking gun, but also no viable alternative theory for the murder other than the husband having (allegedly) done it. It's interesting, though, to read the daily and weekly transcripts of this case because the defence seems to be having a high degree of success in poking small holes of doubt in every little piece of evidence (just a simple "but what if ...?" thrown at every single piece) such that the prosecution actually appears to be losing at this point ... death by a thousand paper cuts. It's actually looking like Lloyd may (allegedly) get away with murder thanks to a very thorough assault by his legal team. GBC's team will no doubt be appreciating the extra time to get their ducks in a row and find 446+ ways to poke small holes of doubt in evidence. On that score, Rayney is a lawyer and his legal team are the best of the best - he can afford them and also choose very wisely. The same cannot necessariyl be said of GBC.

Excellent points, Radster. And the same points that I was trying to raise by poking the hornet's nest.. As you say, poking those 446+ small holes of doubt will presumably be the strategy.

The only thing on which I would disagree with you is that you say that Raney may get away with murder. But if that doubt exists, on all points, how do we KNOW that he may get away with murder? May he, in fact, actually be innocent? I don't know, and I haven't been following that case. But if he is FOUND not guilty, then shouldn't we assume that he is in fact - not guilty?

I'm not talking about an O J Simpson situation here - but the Leanne Holland case haunts me somewhat, as I can remember when it all hit the fan back in 1991. Everyone, including the police, had Graham Stafford guilty from the outset. It was all circumstantial. And of course the forensics weren't as sophisticated back then - but maybe they're not as sophisticated now as they may be in another 20 years time either? But now his conviction has been quashed, and I read yesterday that they are about to charge someone - presumably somebody else.

Poking those little holes of doubt into every point raised is a good defence strategy, and you can bet that GBC's legal team will be following the Raney case closely and taking pointers on how to do it.

What the police - and the rest of us - REALLY need is that one smoking gun piece of evidence, the FACT that cannot be disputed, that irrevocably ties the culprit (GBC or otherwise) to the crime. Maybe the prosecution has that - we don't know. But if they don't, then poking all those little doubt holes may become very frustrating for all those following the case.

 

[Thinking]

What the police - and the rest of us - REALLY need is that one smoking gun piece of evidence, the FACT that cannot be disputed, that irrevocably ties the culprit (GBC or otherwise) to the crime. Maybe the prosecution has that - we don't know. But if they don't, then poking all those little doubt holes may become very frustrating for all those following the case.

full details of the FaceTime call lease: lease: lease:

 

[Amee]

Morning all

Amee - who said they could prove that the phone was in the house when those messages were sent, or the searches done?

Gerard Baden-Clay told police he sent text messages to his wife Allison when he woke up on the morning of April 20 and found she was not home.

The text messages, sent at 6:20 and 6:41 in the morning, contained questions of Allison's whereabouts.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/356789/20120627/gerard-baden-clay-murder-court-news.htm#.UEVp2iL7e1s


The following timeline has been compiled from police and forensic investigations of Mr Baden-Clay's iPhone submitted to the court:

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...d-badenclay-20120626-210bz.html#ixzz25SwfeJah

(you can poke the hornets nest all you like Im used to it. My BIL is a Lawyer and my Sister is a Doctor.)

 

[DrWatson]

Morning all

Amee - who said they could prove that the phone was in the house when those messages were sent, or the searches done?

Gerard Baden-Clay told police he sent text messages to his wife Allison when he woke up on the morning of April 20 and found she was not home.

The text messages, sent at 6:20 and 6:41 in the morning, contained questions of Allison's whereabouts.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/356789/20120627/gerard-baden-clay-murder-court-news.htm#.UEVp2iL7e1s


The following timeline has been compiled from police and forensic investigations of Mr Baden-Clay's iPhone submitted to the court:

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...d-badenclay-20120626-210bz.html#ixzz25SwfeJah

(you can poke the hornets nest all you like Im used to it. My BIL is a Lawyer and my Sister is a Doctor.)

Heheh It's nothing personal - just doing what I suspect the defence lawyers would be doing, and as Radster said, what they're doing in Perth already.

Your point is a good one, though - GBC admitted sending the messages. But as far as I know, he hasn't admitted doing those Google searches ("investigoogling" - is that a new word?)

And yes, full details of the Facetime call, particularly if it includes a recording of the call, would be a smoking gun. Although I gather that Apple don't keep those, so they're not available from their servers. Bummer. And I don't think that the phone itself would record and store it.

There would also be lots of other potential smoking gun bits of evidence, that would depend on the cause of death, for example. But we have no idea of that - yet...

Glad to hear that your family of doctors and lawyers tend to think logically and poke the hornets as well... :rocker:

 

[Nads]

I thought Amee meant her BIL would sue you and her sister would fix her stings.

 

[Dodo]

I thought Amee meant her BIL would sue you and her sister would fix her stings.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: