Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #43

[DrWatson]

I also saw the story on 60 Minutes. The similarities also struck me.

However, there is one HUGE difference - a body!

Also, we have motive, opportunity, injuries to GBC, statements from multiple witnesses re screams, yells, etc.

Susan Neill-Fraser had NONE of those. And the whole theory about the wrench was just that - a theory. Yet she was convicted, and apparently has so far lost two appeals.

I can't quite fathom exactly on what basis she was convicted, apart from the lies she told, and the perception of lack of emotion etc. But that's not hard evidence... it's not even circumstantial evidence.

No body, no weapon, no motive that we know of, not even any clue as to how she supposedly got out to the yacht and back, or how she wrestled the supposed body up the gangways and over the edge.

With Allison (to bring it back on track), we have a completely different, and IMHO more convincing set of circumstantial evidence, plus a body.

Awkward....

 

[just desserts]

I just had a quick look at her supporters page which had lots of media reports on the progress of the trial and it seems that the conviction was based on the evidence of many lies that she told and changes to her story. The police case was that if she was innocent why did she tell so many lies.

Hi Alioop
I looked at the supporters Page as well. I also just had a look at other news articles about it and I think there is a lot more to it. She told a friend that she wanted to kill her partner, throw him overboard and weight his body down at sea! The 60 mins story wasn't very thorough!

 

[DrWatson]

Hi Alioop
I looked at the supporters Page as well. I also just had a look at other news articles about it and I think there is a lot more to it. She told a friend that she wanted to kill her partner, throw him overboard and weight his body down at sea! The 60 mins story wasn't very thorough!

You may well be right, JD. Although I thought 60 Minutes DID present both sides of the arguments - which they have been guilty of NOT doing in the past.

Obviously, they haven't had the benefit of the combined sleuthing power of everyone on here yet... :rocker:

 

[just desserts]

I also saw the story on 60 Minutes. The similarities also struck me.

However, there is one HUGE difference - a body!

Also, we have motive, opportunity, injuries to GBC, statements from multiple witnesses re screams, yells, etc.

Susan Neill-Fraser had NONE of those. And the whole theory about the wrench was just that - a theory. Yet she was convicted, and apparently has so far lost two appeals.

I can't quite fathom exactly on what basis she was convicted, apart from the lies she told, and the perception of lack of emotion etc. But that's not hard evidence... it's not even circumstantial evidence

No body, no weapon, no motive that we know of, not even any clue as to how she supposedly got out to the yacht and back, or how she wrestled the supposed body up the gangways and over the edge.

With Allison (to bring it back on track), we have a completely different, and IMHO more convincing set of circumstantial evidence, plus a body.

Awkward....

Hi Doc, I wasn't trying to compare the cases at all. I was just watching 60 mins and was intrigued by the case, that's all. I thought other sleuths would be interested in watching it

 

[Tishy]

I don't know if this comment by Allison means that she knew the affair had resumed or she was just letting him know that she was keeping tabs on him so that he wouldn't even think about seeing TM again. Either way I think it shows she was not afraid to voice her concerns to him.

I think that comment also shows the depth of her hurt and vulnerability.

 

[SoapOnARope]

This is what I've thought all along with GBC...that his endless lies, to so many people, will be his downfall.

Couldn't agree more. But GBC is stuck now... Imagine he were to come clean on the obvious circumstantial.."yes we had a fight... It got physical... I hit her....she scratched me....she stormed out....AND.... WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED TO HER AFTER THAT... NO REALLY..."

I'd reckon the noose would readied quicker than quick!

If (and it's a huge IF in MOO) he really is innocent, he has made a huge mistake in not being helpful and straight from the get go.

 

[Strangeworld]

Who's looking forward to tomorrow? :gavel:

ME!!!

 

[SoapOnARope]

Who's looking forward to tomorrow? :gavel:

ME!!!

Any ideas on the witnesses up tomorrow?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Wasn't it her brother that she was supposed to have said she wanted to get rid of that way.

Just googled and didn't see before that she was supposed to have plotted to kill her husband 10 years previously.

I think I'd forgotten that she was supposed to have plotted against her husband but I have read quite a bit about the case, followed the trial and read every news article I could find online and I'm not convinced of her guilt.

Hi Alioop
I looked at the supporters Page as well. I also just had a look at other news articles about it and I think there is a lot more to it. She told a friend that she wanted to kill her partner, throw him overboard and weight his body down at sea! The 60 mins story wasn't very thorough!

 

[Couldbe]

If it were all upfront and GBC made a call that early to them to come and watch the kids surely they would've said "Come on, Gerard, you can't really think she's missing, she's only a little bit late!" You wouldn't jump in to alert mode.
It seems to be accepted now that the girls were at their own home.

........... and all the frantic phoning that went on with NBC phoning GBC at 7.45am, 8.01am, 8.02am, 8.03am, 8.50am 8.51am (while connected to Telstra Brookfield tower)
..... this was following NBC's initial call to GBC at 6.56am (when connected to the Telstra Kenmore tower)

- the half-hour gap following this first call needs an explanation, as the drive from NBC's house to GBC's house would only take 5 mins.

- the succession of calls by NBC to GBC 7.45am, 8.01am, 8.02am presumably are when NBC is at the home looking after the children while GBC is out driving the streets' - following his 7.15am 000 call to report Allison missing. What were these calls about? e.g. have you found her?/have you found her?/have you found her?
More likely getting some 'facts' sorted......even though at this point, Allison WAS ONLY MISSING!

BUT:
- at 7.19am GBC phoned OW
- at 7.35am GBC phoned Allison
- at 7.39am GBC phoned OW
(don't know where OW was (don't know if she was with NBC at GBC's home).

..... no more GBC calls until 9.51 when he phoned a Gold Coast number (probably his Solicitor).

 

[Strangeworld]

No idea on witnesses for tomorrow. I wonder about the following:

-TM
-BC family members?
-any more friends/family of Allison's
-hairdresser
-police officers/investigators
-Century 21 staff
-the head of C21 (can't remember his name - the one who loaned money to GBC/the business)

 

[jojo85]

Has anyone noticed that when Const Ash arrived, he observed a blue sedan which it seems OW used to take the girls to school. When the senior detectives arrived later, Senior Sgt Curtis observed a beige 4WD and by this time OW was back and no mention of a blue sedan. Have I got that correct and is it significant?

 

[just desserts]

Wasn't it her brother that she was supposed to have said she wanted to get rid of that way.

.
She wanted to kill her brother because of an inheritance issue but then
told her friend a few yrs later that she wanted to kill her partner because he was mean with money. I haven't had a lot of time to delve into it any further, not yet anyway

 

[ActusReus]

I just had a quick look at her supporters page which had lots of media reports on the progress of the trial and it seems that the conviction was based on the evidence of many lies that she told and changes to her story. The police case was that if she was innocent why did she tell so many lies.

The successful prosecution of Neill-Fraser, and subsequent appeal dismissals have given the DPP greater confidence to launch prosecutions in cases where the evidence is all circumstantial. Several arrests in cold cases followed just weeks after her appeal dismissal.

I suspect there are now a few nervous people who thought they had got away with the perfect crime......

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I want to hear more about, guess what.....

The goings on at the roundabout :fence:

 

[Fuskier]

Has anyone noticed that when Const Ash arrived, he observed a blue sedan which it seems OW used to take the girls to school. When the senior detectives arrived later, Senior Sgt Curtis observed a beige 4WD and by this time OW was back and no mention of a blue sedan. Have I got that correct and is it significant?

Jojo85 - if this is so, then this could be significant. Good sleuthing there. She may have gone somewhere else and changed cars? She knew the Police were at GBC's house from earlier that morning. Did she want the blue sedan out of the way? Interesting.

 

[marlywings]

Who's looking forward to tomorrow? :gavel:

ME!!!

I'm certainly looking forward to it, however I'd be looking forward to it a heck of a lot more if it was live streamed online

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Wish I could be a fly on the wall.
I'd be very quiet (to avoid a spray can or rolled up newspaper) and would take a tiny fly sized ipad which has an amazing ability to see through my little fly eyes and would have a live stream to WS

 

[marlywings]

Thought I'd share, what I think is a great quote, that I read in Jennifer Ramsaran thread earlier.

"Forensics helps develop the facts of the case. But interviews and witnesses give you the conclusions of who did the crime." ~ Gary Hompland

 

[Fascinatedsleuth]

Still catching up and thank you for supplying the info!!!!

Referring to Dr Bevan's statement:

What person, whose spouse has been declared a missing person for 24 hours, declines/silences calls on their mobile? Doctor appointment or not, I know I would be willing that phone to ring day and night with news.