Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #9

[543]

So are you saying they need interstate assistance because the banana benders cannot do the job? Should they get VicPol involved say the Purana taskforce to work this job and get the perpetrators behind bars? Harsh calls. What are you saying there 543?

No, the QPS are very political...they have some very clever people who can solve things....but the clever ones are usually way down the rung. Look, just saying....It's been a month & putting a camera or whatever they were doing at only one roundabout is really slack.

 

[rhb]

Sorry, can't work out how to correctly quote but berry said: "I am 'there' too Shelbinator, IMO Jurors would sickened when confronted by proven child access by a male in a 'happy married family' situation. That would be the worst If I Was A Juror.

Thus, when said male is confronted a very bad outcome happens perhaps to the accuser????????

JMO of a nasty confronting matter for a jury."

in reply Fuskier said:

Given this speculation, are these 3 little girls are 'safe' where they reside? MOO

I have to say: all it is SPECULATION and, IMO, ridiculous. We're all trying to work out what Hawkins meant from his cryptic post regarding something that a jury would have trouble dealing with. And, well, who knows what that means exactly but now GBC looking at child ?!?!?! I could think of a gazillion other speculative reasons of things that a jury might find hard to deal with: she had her hand cut off (which was suggested by someone in the last thread). Maybe she was pregnant but it was a girl (suggested by someone in another thread). Maybe...maybe...maybe.

I could go with: results that show she was drugged but not dead when thrown in a creek/river that then ended in her drowning.... Or, well, I'm thinking more along the lines of something that indicates that she suffered before she died. But GBC and child ?????!!!!! How come GBC suddenly became a man who was involved in child ???

Sorry, but this is starting to disturb me. I don't know GBC, I don't know what he did or didn't do in regards to the death of ABC but I think that this is all wild speculation!

 

[mimi2456]

Ok, so I have about 3 pages to catch up on but...

I'd answer for 543 and say that the reason they're coming across like this is because ever since they expressed their differing theories/opinions everyone kinda jumped on them and haven't been really that kind about it.

I don't necessarily subscribe to 543's theories on the matter but I'd like to say that the theory they present is, to a great extent, as likely as any other at the moment given the *facts* that we have on this case. Just because we don't agree with them doesn't mean that they don't have the right to express their theories.

The general tone of all these threads is GBC did it. I certainly sway this way. HOWEVER how do we know that he did it? I've read (in this forum) of theories that suggest a possible involvement--he was an accessory but not the actual one who committed the crime. Sure, we all shrug and go "nah, no way" but why? I know that it's weird he "lawyered up" but perhaps that's because he was involved in a dodgy dealing that would result in his wife being kidnapped and murdered. All right, I think that's probably more prime-time viewing than reality HOWEVER it's a possibility given the facts we have.

The majority here thing GBC is guilty based on analysis of the one "interview" he did (and even I think there's something *very* wrong about how he conducts himself there) and other observations of photos and that BUT the reality is we have very little to work with. The majority of everything written here is pure speculation.

My point: I don't think 543 deserves the treatment he/she receives. It's a theory and so what should be done is shoot it down with *fact* or if that can't be done respectfully disagree.

Occam's razor usually wins out but it doesn't always. Just saying...and expect to receive flack for saying this but it's been bugging me for a couple of days so...yeah...I'm happy to go out on the limb.

Oh, IMO, MOO and all that jazz.

I agree. I got hammered for my differing opinion at the start due to simply reflecting my personal experience with both Allison and Gerard many years ago. All opinions are welcome here and shouldn't disrespect that. Inspector Ainsworth said they were keeping an open mind and so should we.

 

[CaseClosed]

And she stopped talking after the body was found.

Does anyone remember the day after they found Allison that he did a runner from the media and escaped through a neighbours yard? I mean, what the hell...his wife has just been found dead...murdered and instead of pledging to find her killer or a 'he'd better hope the cops find him before I do' he does a runner?

What a :moo:ard!

Yes, because he was on his way to meet his Barrister in George Street!!! More important!!!

 

[Neuromancer]

I would like to discuss Alison's association with Pathways. < That's interesting. People get involved in these associations for a reason.

Care to discuss?

OK - this, like the phone stuff is peripheral info that's a fun distraction but not that helpful.

How about we look at the latest police release, that a white 4wd, with dimmed lights, was seen driving slowly and unusually close to a blue 4wd around the Kholo area on the night in question.

ok why?

Following close
(a) being towed
(b) trying not to be noticed

(b) fails for me (attracts more attention imo), so (a)

why towed?
not lost keys (can't tow cos steering would lock)
not flat battery (lights wouldn't be on)

Thoughts?

 

[Rational]

Thanks for that vid - fills in a few gaps!

Ok here's an exercise - go through the mechanics of falling over and see what you'd have to do to scratch your head...

Dragging something through scrubs would do it.

 

[willough]

Im still trying to get my head around the two things.... a) hand was missing and b) hit and run.

Surely if either of the two were the case, the police wouldnt have come out indicated that Allison's body didnt have visible signs of "foul play"

Too me, these would indicate definite foul play....With both showing serious obvious injury.

 

[Strangeworld]

No, the QPS are very political...they have some very clever people who can solve things....but the clever ones are usually way down the rung. Look, just saying....It's been a month & putting a camera or whatever they were doing at only one roundabout is really slack.

I am really struggling to understand why you are being so harsh re QPS. What info do you have to suggest that they are not working flat out to make an arrest and bring some sort of closure to those affected by Allison's death? If you are going to put them down, at least support your judgement. Do you really think they are sitting round drinking coffee, and chatting about the weather, with just one day spent at the roundabout?

 

[rhb]

At about the 1.15 mark on this video, they discuss the scratch on his face and it also shows his sister pointing to her head and you can see her saying "bumped his head".

And for anyone that is interested at about the 1.05 mark they talk about what GBC told them about being banned from the command post.

Police search husband's office for clues - YouTube

I've never seen that before. Interesting. Thanks!

 

[aussie_mum]

So how do you suggest we decide which information is fact and which isn't? I've checked my Harry Potter spell book and can't find a thing to help make it more obvious.

Well if an article or segment has several things that are inaccurate, why would you believe other things that are said within the piece blindly? You would look for corroborating evidence. Good investigators question everything. I have had some investigations training and that is the main thing I have taken out of it. You look at the evidence from all angles, you don't just accept what is presented to you.

 

[AllyG]

Sorry, can't work out how to correctly quote but berry said: "I am 'there' too Shelbinator, IMO Jurors would sickened when confronted by proven child access by a male in a 'happy married family' situation. That would be the worst If I Was A Juror.

Thus, when said male is confronted a very bad outcome happens perhaps to the accuser????????

JMO of a nasty confronting matter for a jury."

in reply Fuskier said:

I have to say: all it is SPECULATION and, IMO, ridiculous. We're all trying to work out what Hawkins meant from his cryptic post regarding something that a jury would have trouble dealing with. And, well, who knows what that means exactly but now GBC looking at child ?!?!?! I could think of a gazillion other speculative reasons of things that a jury might find hard to deal with: she had her hand cut off (which was suggested by someone in the last thread). Maybe she was pregnant but it was a girl (suggested by someone in another thread). Maybe...maybe...maybe.

I could go with: results that show she was drugged but not dead when thrown in a creek/river that then ended in her drowning.... Or, well, I'm thinking more along the lines of something that indicates that she suffered before she died. But GBC and child ?????!!!!! How come GBC suddenly became a man who was involved in child ???

Sorry, but this is starting to disturb me. I don't know GBC, I don't know what he did or didn't do in regards to the death of ABC but I think that this is all wild speculation!

Yeah any suggestion that child is involved is turning this into something even more than it should be. There has been absolutely nothing stated anywhere else that this is even a possibility. So why do people bring it up? That kind of thing could really and honestly be considered slander. ****** business deals? Possible. Mistresses? Possible. Violent? Possible. Bad actor? Totally possible. Sure it's possible that he could have been involved in child , just in the same way it could be stated as being possible for any of us to be involved in it too. I could say he was born a hermaphrodite. Doesn't mean he was. I could say he cross dressed on Thursdays. Doesn't mean he did.

 

[CaseClosed]

:banghead: Bummer! Now that I was going to ask Truth Morph an intelligent question, he has gone MIA!

 

[AllyG]

Well if an article or segment has several things that are inaccurate, why would you believe other things that are said within the piece blindly? You would look for corroborating evidence. Good investigators question everything. I have had some investigations training and that is the main thing I have taken out of it. You look at the evidence from all angles, you don't just accept what is presented to you.

Awww man now I've forgotten which points you were saying were inaccurate and I'm too tired to go back over it I've noticed a few published anomalies. Basically with regards to her last movements, all that is confirmed is that she was seen at 10pm at home by her husband before he went to bed. I have a feeling that the coverage about the funeral still stood by the claim that he told police she left for a walk, but I could be wrong. Once again, I haven't googled that this time around. I've read so many news articles, watched so many videos, and read so many theories that tonight they're all kinda swimming around in my head.

 

[aussie_mum]

Horatio would have worked it out by now.

 

[CaseClosed]

OK - this, like the phone stuff is peripheral info that's a fun distraction but not that helpful.

How about we look at the latest police release, that a white 4wd, with dimmed lights, was seen driving slowly and unusually close to a blue 4wd around the Kholo area on the night in question.

ok why?

Following close
(a) being towed
(b) trying not to be noticed

(b) fails for me (attracts more attention imo), so (a)

why towed?
not lost keys (can't tow cos steering would lock)
not flat battery (lights wouldn't be on)

Thoughts?

Transporting body in blue car to avoid leaving evidence in white car

 

[Limaes]

OK - this, like the phone stuff is peripheral info that's a fun distraction but not that helpful.

How about we look at the latest police release, that a white 4wd, with dimmed lights, was seen driving slowly and unusually close to a blue 4wd around the Kholo area on the night in question.

ok why?

Following close
(a) being towed
(b) trying not to be noticed

(b) fails for me (attracts more attention imo), so (a)

why towed?
not lost keys (can't tow cos steering would lock)
not flat battery (lights wouldn't be on)

Thoughts?

If this was the killer and accomplice, then they're not criminally sophisticated because they got noticed and their actions stood out. Imo the car was following close behind thinking he wouldn't get noticed. Why?...because he is a dumbarse.

Allison was smarter than both of them in life and in death. For they thought they got rid of her for good. But she came back didn't she? Would love to have seen the look on her killer's face when told "we've got Allison". They must have turned a whiter shade of pale

 

[Greg]

Im still trying to get my head around the two things.... a) hand was missing and b) hit and run.

Surely if either of the two were the case, the police wouldnt have come out indicated that Allison's body didnt have visible signs of "foul play"

Too me, these would indicate definite foul play....With both showing serious obvious injury.

its not even a hit and run theory its a hit, run, go home, tell friend or partner, go back, pick up body drive 15ks out of way while drunk or maybe on way to work and dump body..... but maybe crash tackled on side of road by stalker ......

and fool useless cops who are too stupid and arrogant not to jump out of their chairs and act upon said theory

lol

 

[aussie_mum]

Awww man now I've forgotten which points you were saying were inaccurate and I'm too tired to go back over it I've noticed a few published anomalies. Basically with regards to her last movements, all that is confirmed is that she was seen at 10pm at home by her husband before he went to bed. I have a feeling that the coverage about the funeral still stood by the claim that he told police she left for a walk, but I could be wrong. Once again, I haven't googled that this time around. I've read so many news articles, watched so many videos, and read so many theories that tonight they're all kinda swimming around in my head.

Just the usual ones about when she was last seen and such. It was also said in that vid her phone was tracked to within a 4km area...not the 150m that has been widely reported.

 

[mountainhigh]

Thanks for that...but in that there is inaccuracies from what we know to be true...eg. that he saw her leaving for a walk..so I am not really sold on it. Also if that is what his sister was saying, why not splice it so it shows what she is saying. I am not saying I don't believe he had the scratches exactly, but it has been obvious that the media has stretched the truth or not been accurate in all of their stories.

Actually, I have been quite impressed with the media's accuracy throughout this. There has been very few inaccuracies and to be fair they have been very sympathetic to the families involved, particulary the Dickies. I generally loathe the media but I have to say they have suprised.
Just wish they would start coming out with alot of the inside info they normally get by being so close to the police and other contacts! Dam them !!:banghead:

 

[Strangeworld]

What are your thoughts on how quickly the media will (or will be allowed to) report any arrests in relation to this case? I know someone (can't remember who) mentioned earlier that the jungle drums had indicated an arrest, and someone else reported NBC was at the police station today. Knowing how keen the media are to write about this case, particularly the all important arrest(s) story when it happens, I'm wondering whether they would be kept out of the loop, or if QPS will be happy for word to get out immediately.