Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #4

[Kimster]

A toxicology test checks blood or urine for the presence of drugs or chemicals. In rare cases, stomach contents, sweat, or saliva may also be checked.

Will this information be released to the public? I know zip about Australian laws. It's a pity I know so little when my two nieces live near Sydney.

 

[angel1]

Not sure if anyone's seen this photo...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gallery-e6frer9f-1226336989408?page=10

Photo number 6 is a confusing one. It says under the photo Tyamolum Scout camp entry, near where Allison Baden-Clay's body was found. The thing is if you look at the gate there is a chain and lock on it. I doubt anyone would have been able to get in through there (if they thought anything happened there) i mean

 

[itsthevibe]

A refresher on the locations - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/pictures/gallery-e6frf94x-1226340478293?page=2
Additionally the screams were heard from a home located between Winrock Street and Moggil road - some distance from the house and the "hot spot". This info was determined after searching near maps and matching the house to the one that the witness was standing out the front of - http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/scream-in-the-night-alarms-residents/story-fn6ck2c6-1226341635374

...and the mobile phone was triangluated to a similar area before the batteries ran out I thought.

 

[JK673]

very true....I think a sleepover indicates a special event with friends....having family right up the road, I would imagine sleeping at Nana and Poppies a more regular event, and I would say something similar like 'the kids are staying at mum and dads, or sleeping at grandmas'
HOWEVER, I would say that if it were my own parents...if it was husbands parents and if I wasn't close to them, I think I might say 'having a sleepover' its a little less personal and easier than saying 'sleeping at my husbands parents' (because if I really didint get on with them, I wouldn't call them grandma and poppy) thats a personal preference though again just guessing

I think this is a classic example of people "overthinking" things.

:notgood:

way overthinking things.....

 

[coolcat]

He would be a fool to look for the phone himself (police is probably watching him very closely). Not much has been said lately about her phone so maybe police have found it.

I was always a little miffed at why he went to the shopping centre and then later it was reported that hecrashed his car there. It could be plausible that he dumped the phone at the shopping centre or ny other evidence to make it look like someone else had done it...After all they did specify that there was a search team searching through shopping centre industrial bins after he was spotted there? They must of suspected something?

His actions have been very questionable..Not the actions of a grieving man....And before you all start on me about people grieving differently...IMO it is very odd behaviour and I would really be relieved for his daughters if he was indeed innocent.

But the actions of the man are not really the actions of a caring Father or husband IMO....Most people would be home with there children 24/7 regardless of Solicitor Appointments or Business...Didn't he say that his 3 daughters were his priority and yet he has been away from them for menial things....Lawyers do make house calls especially in high paying cases as this one will be...I know this from experience.

 

[marlywings]

Will this information be released to the public? I know zip about Australian laws. It's a pity I know so little when my two nieces live near Sydney.

Someone else may know more but I don't think we'll get to hear too much, not to the extent it does in US. Maybe if this case ever gets to trial we'll get to hear further details.

 

[itsthevibe]

Will this information be released to the public? I know zip about Australian laws. It's a pity I know so little when my two nieces live near Sydney.

They do usually release some information on Cause of Death and some details - however in this case it will depend on whether they have enough evidence to charge someone I would think. If they are still gathering evidence, they might hold certain things back for reasons of strategy. But from memory in other cases, Cause of Death and basic info about what forensics have revelaed to show cause of death are released.

 

[Zorro]

Presumtion of innocence is fundamental to criminal law in Australia. You are innocent until poven guilty of a crime. The job of police is to gather facts until they believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A woman disappears and is found dead a long way from her home 11 days later. Police treat it as an unlawful homicide quite shortly after she disappears because of some information unknown to the public.

The husband of the woman engages legal advice to manage his dealings with police and media. I imagine this is to control any possible trial by media and ensure the police operate professionally within the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.

What worries me about this forum is the potential impact on the children of the woman. They need to go to school with a lot of interney savvy children who undoubtedly read this forum.

Unsubstantiated speculation seems to become fact and I have great difficulty backtracking in the forum to see where information comes from only to be disappointed that it is baseless.

Just sayin.

 

[JK673]

Will this information be released to the public? I know zip about Australian laws. It's a pity I know so little when my two nieces live near Sydney.

I would say that the cops will only release details that may lead to witness accounts........otherwise the defence counsel will celebrate knowing exactly what hadn they are going to be dealt.

I also think that we will only know details as they come to light in a trial (and then a book or telemovie :what as we have found in the Max Sica trial. That particular trial is happening at the moment and only now during the trial do the public find out that (as an example) when he rang to say he had found bodies he told the cops who investigated that there were three bodies in the tub when the cops could only see two bodies - that flagged their suspicions but that was never released to public that I know of until now at the trial.

If I was investigating the crime I would be holding my cards very close to my chest......only releasing when need be.

 

[Neuromancer]

was it actually stated as "THE CRIME SCENE" because all my research into this does not actually say that they know where the crime scene is only where the body was located?

Do you have a link for this, because it would be interesting if it was actually reported as a crime scene??

It was definitely declared a crime scene and taped up for a week (the usual 7 day max i think):

_______
Police regional crime co-ordinator metro north Mark Ainsworth told the Sunday Mail that Mrs Baden-Clay was, at this stage, considered a missing person.

But the home of the Baden-Clay's at 593 Brookfield Road, Brookfield, has been locked down as a crime scene by Police.

"We have the house locked down as a crime scene and we are doing a full examination of the area and there is a crime scene warrant," he said.

http://m.news.com.au/QLD/pg/0/fi1171444.htm
___________

Edit - I need to get the reference (I have so many pages open atm) but in the police act it does say that a crime scene can be established at a location that is thought to have a lot of evidence re a crime, even if the crime itself occurred elsewhere.

Actually here's the NSW one - it's going to be pretty much the same

see 1(c)
_______________
(1) A crime scene may be established on premises by a police officer if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an offence committed in connection with a traffic accident that has resulted in the death of or serious injury to a person is being, or was, or may have been, committed on the premises and that it is reasonably necessary to establish a crime scene in or on the premises to preserve, or search for and gather, evidence of the commission of that offence, or

(b) a serious indictable offence is being, or was, or may have been, committed on the premises and it is reasonably necessary to establish a crime scene in or on the premises to preserve, or search for and gather, evidence of the commission of that offence, or

(c) there may be in or on the premises evidence of the commission of a serious indictable offence that may have been committed elsewhere and it is reasonably necessary to establish a crime scene in or on the premises to preserve, or search for and gather, evidence of the commission of that offence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/leara2002451/s90.html

 

[marlywings]

Crime scenes and crime scene warrants

A police officer lawfully on premises may establish a crime scene and exercise certain crime scene powers without a warrant for up to three hours commencing from the establishment of the crime scene.

Powers to search, seize and detain require that the police suspect on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to preserve, discover or gather evidence of the commission of the offence in connection with which the crime scene was established.

A crime scene warrant may extend the period for which crime scene powers can be exercised.

Crime scene powers include that the police may perform any necessary investigation to obtain evidence of the commission of an offence. This includes searching the premises and persons found on them.


Police certainly suspected 'something criminal' going on straight away to get the extended time needed by a crime scene warrant.

They could see the marks on body that way too.

Yes it's all kind of adding up in a very weird way I think. Police must have had a damn good reason for their visit, with "unspecified observations" to end up requiring a warrant.

Then GBC is off to hire a criminal lawyer, later hires a barrister. I really can't see the perpertrator being anyone else but him.

 

[Humdinger]

I think this is a classic example of people "overthinking" things.

:notgood:

way overthinking things.....

Ummm no, not at all. I was just trying to point out that we all word things differently. There has been a LOT of talk about where the kids were and when the 'sleepover' was.
We all get different things from what we read based on our personal experiences, 5 people can read the same thing and get 5 different pieces of info out of it, this is all I was trying to point out.

Same can be said for so much of the info we've all read.

 

[possumheart]

I can see that Mr & Mrs Bwana have an insurance business called Nigelaine but my pc is too slow to look into it more deeply

 

[Kimster]

There appears to be frustration about posts sometimes. Let me try to explain what is the perfect scenario from a WS point of view.

If someone states something is a fact, there needs to be a link to a mainstream media outlet. For example, if I am to state that the mannequin showed Allison to be wearing a blue shirt, then I need to stick a link on the post: http://www.news.com.au/national/hus...den-clay-goes-on/story-e6frfkvr-1226339293043

This doesn't mean we need a link to every fact every time. But definitely initially and if someone asks for a link because they are unable to locate the fact, then please provide it.

Then there is speculation, which is encouraged to help with clues to solve the case. If someone were to say that the husband looked suspicious because he was looking down when being asked questions during an interview and you feel that means someone is hiding something, then add IMO or MOO to say it is your opinion only.

Then there is wild speculation and rumor. This is when nothing ties in with the case whatsoever. Things like "I don't know if this is Gerard or not, but someone with his name was involved in blah blah back in 2003". In other words, we don't start rumors here.

What do you do if someone is starting wild and crazy rumors or stating something is a fact when it isn't? Use the alert button. That's the little red triangle in the upper right hand corner of each post. It goes to the moderators and then we can help you.

:grouphug:

 

[minni]

I think this is a classic example of people "overthinking" things.

:notgood:

way overthinking things.....

well yeah, I am the first to admit I'm doing too much of that...fact is, everyone is different

 

[Berry]

Ockham's razor is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

there is a reason why this is an age old principle....if we can go back to the theory that doesn't carry a million assumptions....we are probably looking at the most likely scenario. Would think that the 'argument gone wrong' fits this bill better than any other. Also the single perp fits this...when we assume he had help, we are WILDLY assuming........

Yes Occams Razor from a very old first philosopher William Occam, SHAVES AWAY the innuendos, allusions and gossip and takes the simplest scenario that is going to be the easiest to prove.....

:rocker: WELL QUOTED minni thanks....

Perhaps some viewers are now doing this more as UnfoldingTruth keeps adding to the "I know but I can't tell you" crapola.

 

[HN man]

I wouldn't be expecting an arrest in this case soon. The QPS will almost certainly have enough circumstantial evidence to charge someone with a manslaughter by now, and probably a growing body of direct evidence. But there is no real point in an arrest until they have determined whether there is enough evidence of intention to ground a murder charge. Given that a manslaughter conviction without any strong evidence of the exact circumstances of the killing would probably only result in a few years in prison (perhaps 3-5), compared to a minimum of 15 years for a murder conviction, it's important to exhaust the investigative process beofre moving. The manslaughter evidence isn't going anywhere and once charges are laid the accused person will be either put in a remand centre or very carefully managed by their lawyers. In either case, the accused will not be then out and about to make some potentially incriminating statements or actions and will not suffer anywhere like the amount of mental stess that they would be under if there was still uncertainty about whether they were even going to be charged. The actual killer's mind will be racing at the moment and that's the sort of mind detectives like to interrogate. They can use that stress to their advantage. Unless a suspect is a significant threat to other people, arresting or charging them isn't a priority. It's getting the best prosecution outcome that matters. And if that means letting suspects stay in the community for months, or even years, then that's what is done.

Hawkins ..... Thoughtful and knowledgable insights mate .... My vote for best contributor

 

[spratsmum]

As far as I am aware, no mentioned has been made of the girls being at home when the police arrived on the 20th of April. Too early to have gone to a school up the road. So they either didn't sleep at home on the Thursday night, or they wee quickly bundled out of the house on the Friday morning

 

[willough]

As far as I am aware, no mentioned has been made of the girls being at home when the police arrived on the 20th of April. Too early to have gone to a school up the road. So they either didn't sleep at home on the Thursday night, or they wee quickly bundled out of the house on the Friday morning

They may have been booked in to before school care.......Ive done that a couple of times. Put them into morning care at school......Opens at 7:30 at the local school my kids go too.

 

[Berry]

I agree ... I call it the KISS principle.

Good old KISS love it cause it is a real term coined by a real engineer at Lockheed to develop planes for the 2nd world war.

This engineer, Johnson, made it up whilst handing a team of design engineers a handful of tools, with the challenge that the jet aircraft they were designing must be repairable by an average mechanic in the field under combat conditions with only these tools. Hence keep it simple stupid, so if it breaks a simple hands on tool set would fix it, not in a sophisticated intricate manner.

Gave us the Lockheed U-2 bomber and a Blackbird spy plane.

Same rule as Occams Razor and in a crime like this one, the bumbling stupid ones COULD NOT FIX IT. Poor Allison died.