Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #42

[Makara]

there has been a number of mentions that alison's body may have been wrapped in a shower curtain. Does anyone know if the bc household had a shower curtain and, if they did, whether it was missing?

The attachments below show the ensuite of the Brookfield house and also what would be the second bathroom. You can see that there is no shower curtain in the second bathroom but that doesn't mean to say that there ever was a shower curtain there at all. IMO the second bathroom would have been used mainly by the girls. Most kids of their age would tend to have a bath rather than a shower and it may not have been necessary (and probably more of a hindrance) to have a shower curtain there.

ETA: These photos were taken after GBC had vacated the house and it was being advertised as a rental again.

MOO.

Ensuite.


Second bathroom.

 

[alioop]

Wouldn't a body be floated out of its resting hole by a rising tide?

Apparently not Obby, at least not the case with Allison. I think the sticky mud must have kept her in place.

 

[alioop]

That exposed mud is the tidal mud, very sticky and goopy. It would go under on each rising tide. Hence no vegetation. But the pylons to the right of that picture - on our right of the yellow stretcher - are the ones that are smack-dab in the middle of the big picture further up this page. You can see that the vegetation to that point is very thick.

Then where the bank falls away to that tidal mud, there is no vegetation.

And Allison was found just at the base of the concrete footing of that pylon - the one in the middle of the picture up the page a bit. Just a foot or two down from there - in the muddy bit. She left a significant impression in that mud from having lain there.

Hope that all makes sense....

EDIT: sorry Ali - didn't mean to duplicate your point. Must have been posting at the same time

Thats ok Doc, you said it better than me!

 

[Obsessor]

That exposed mud is the tidal mud, very sticky and goopy. It would go under on each rising tide. Hence no vegetation. But the pylons to the right of that picture - on our right of the yellow stretcher - are the ones that are smack-dab in the middle of the big picture further up this page. You can see that the vegetation to that point is very thick.

Then where the bank falls away to that tidal mud, there is no vegetation.

And Allison was found just at the base of the concrete footing of that pylon - the one in the middle of the picture up the page a bit. Just a foot or two down from there - in the muddy bit. She left a significant impression in that mud from having lain there.

Hope that all makes sense....

EDIT: sorry Ali - didn't mean to duplicate your point. Must have been posting at the same time

Doc, I hate doing this, but wasn't she found below the next set of pylons up the bank? The ones higher than the ones in the middle of the big picture?
(she says peeping thru her fingers)

 

[DrWatson]

Doc, I hate doing this, but wasn't she found below the next set of pylons up the bank? The ones higher than the ones in the middle of the big picture?
(she says peeping thru her fingers)

LOL You don't have to peep... :great:

Unless I'm badly mistaken (always a possibility, of course), the set of pylons in the middle of the big picture further up this page (EDIT - on the previous page now) is the first set as you go over the bridge. Further to the right - out of the picture but where the road is only a metre or so above the bank, there are no pylons - it is a retaining wall. You can see it on Makara's cleaning-crew shot towards the bottom of page 3 in this thread.

The other point to note is that those pylons where Allison was found DON'T have a crossbeam joining them. The next set - the ones that are actually based in the water most of the time, and are much higher, DO have a cross beam joining them.

Have I confuzzled you even more? lease:

 

[Obsessor]

LOL You don't have to peep... :great:

Unless I'm badly mistaken (always a possibility, of course), the set of pylons in the middle of the big picture further up this page (EDIT - on the previous page now) is the first set as you go over the bridge. Further to the right - out of the picture but where the road is only a metre or so above the bank, there are no pylons - it is a retaining wall. You can see it on Makara's cleaning-crew shot towards the bottom of page 3 in this thread.

The other point to note is that those pylons where Allison was found DON'T have a crossbeam joining them. The next set - the ones that are actually based in the water most of the time, and are much higher, DO have a cross beam joining them.

Have I confuzzled you even more? lease:

I absolutely see now. My most humble apologies.

I agree the hydrologists report was a bit interpretive. I think this threw me off as well as my incorrect perspective of the pylons.

Thanks so much for your patience. :blushing:

 

[Obsessor]

This pic, too, helped me work out the pylons.

Clearly to be below any pylons you had to be subjected to tides!!! YAY. Cheers all round. She's got it!!!

 

[Makara]

LOL You don't have to peep... :great:

Unless I'm badly mistaken (always a possibility, of course), the set of pylons in the middle of the big picture further up this page (EDIT - on the previous page now) is the first set as you go over the bridge. Further to the right - out of the picture but where the road is only a metre or so above the bank, there are no pylons - it is a retaining wall. You can see it on Makara's cleaning-crew shot towards the bottom of page 3 in this thread.

The other point to note is that those pylons where Allison was found DON'T have a crossbeam joining them. The next set - the ones that are actually based in the water most of the time, and are much higher, DO have a cross beam joining them.

Have I confuzzled you even more? lease:

No you're not mistaken Doc. The attached photo was taken in the same spot where Allison was found. You can see the edge of the concrete ledge on the right of the picture and the two pylons with the crossbeam you mentioned on the left of the picture. This photo and many others was taken by Mani in July of last year. I think Mani was a bit of an obsessor also but thankfully she got some great photos.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8172306&postcount=10"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - PICTURES from our locals *NO DISCUSSION*[/ame]


A lot more photos can be found here.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178134"]PICTURES from our locals *NO DISCUSSION* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


Click image to enlarge.

 

[Obsessor]

I think Mani was a bit of an obsessor also but thankfully she got some great photos.

:floorlaugh: Like me hey!!!
Thanks for your post and the pics. I was VERY confused. What I had thought all along was wrong. Dang!!!!

 

[Obsessor]

I am now completely shocked that she was still there, and not washed into the river.

 

[Obsessor]

High tide for Brisbane, April 19th 2012, 9.10pm.

Low tide 6 hours later.

 

[Makara]

High tide for Brisbane, April 19th 2012, 9.10pm.

Low tide 6 hours later.

Attached are the tide charts for the Brisbane River at Kholo Creek on 19 April and 30 April 2012. The second high tide on 19 April 2012 was at 11:32pm.

Tide chart 19 April 2012


Tide chart 30 April 2012

 

[Obsessor]

Attached are the tide charts for the Brisbane River at Kholo Creek on 19 April and 30 April 2012. The second high tide on 19 April 2012 was at 11:32pm.

Tide chart 19 April 2012
View attachment 30106

Tide chart 30 April 2012
View attachment 30107

Makara, I got mine from here. http://www.tides4fishing.com/au/queensland/brisbane
"On Thursday, 19th of April of 2012, the sun rose in Brisbane at 6:07 am and sunset was at 5:27 pm. The moon rose in the east (85º) at 4:05 am and set in the west (278º) at 4:01 pm.

In the high tide and low tide chart, we can see that the first low tide was at 2:45 am and the next low tide at 3:00 pm. The first high tide was at 8:45 am and the next high tide at 9:10 pm."


I definitely changed the dates to april 19th 2012


How could they be so different I wonder? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Makara]

Makara, I got mine from here. http://www.tides4fishing.com/au/queensland/brisbane
I definitely changed the dates to april 19th 2012


How could they be so different I wonder? That doesn't make sense.

You have the tidal times for Brisbane. It probably takes that extra two hours for the tide to peak further up river at Kholo Creek.

I found the tidal charts here last year when we were trying to work out if Allison had been washed down from further upstream.

http://tides.willyweather.com.au/qld/brisbane/brisbane-river--kholo-creek.html

 

[Obsessor]

You have the tidal times for Brisbane. It probably takes that extra two hours for the tide to peak further up river at Kholo Creek.

I found the tidal charts here last year when we were trying to work out if Allison had been washed down from further upstream.

http://tides.willyweather.com.au/qld/brisbane/brisbane-river--kholo-creek.html

Apologies for my error. I'm glad though in a way, as yours show so much better that at the time he was likely dumping Allison, it was full high tide or close to it. (if he dumped after 11pm and before 1am)

 

[Mountain Misst]

Just thinking logically here - if she were wrapped in something eg shower curtain, then she may not have actually had ANY plant material from Kholo Creek area on her - at all..!

If you think about it, it is one of those exercises in logic. She had 6 species of plant material on her, ALL of which could be found near the back patio of the house. And only two of those coincided with the plant material to be found at Kholo Creek.

Therefore, she could have collected ALL of those bits of plant at the house (eg being carried or dragged out of the back door). There is absolutely no need to assume that she collected ANY from Kholo at all. The two species that coincided could have been already on her - she brought them with her from Brookfield.

The whole point of the plant comparison was that it was consistent with contamination at Brookfield near the back patio, but it was NOT consistent with contamination at Kholo Creek, as only 2 out of 6 species matched. It was NOT a case of 4 from Brookfield AND 2 from Kholo - it was all 6 from Brookfield, but only 2 of those were ALSO at Kholo.

So that report doesn't actually imply ANY contamination at Kholo - we may well have been barking up the wrong tree - er, bush with that thought. So it could be consistent with being wrapped up and getting NO contamination at Kholo, OR with being dropped, taken, or placed under the bridge with contamination by only two of the local species. If you see what I mean.....

:bow:

 

[DrWatson]

:bow:

Why thankee, Ma'am :blushing:

 

[Mountain Misst]

I absolutely see now. My most humble apologies.

I agree the hydrologists report was a bit interpretive. I think this threw me off as well as my incorrect perspective of the pylons.

Thanks so much for your patience. :blushing:

Didn't the hydrologists report have an x marks the spot where the body was? They usually do in my experience. Look for an x with a circle around it Obby.

 

[Obsessor]

Didn't the hydrologists report have an x marks the spot where the body was? They usually do in my experience. Look for an x with a circle around it.

I haven't seen anything like that, I was just referring to the wording of the report from msm, that the body was above the water level. I took this to mean, above the high water mark, but this was not right.

 

[LadyBird1]

:bow:

Prize for shortest post?!