Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 #20

Nads said:

Ve have vays of making you talk! lease:

How do you make people tell the truth?

Click to expand...

Berry said:

http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/about-us/our-powers/#hearings

Coercive hearings power(Star Chamber-Nickname)
We are the only law enforcement agency in Queensland with the power to conduct coercive hearings, which enable us to compel people to attend and give evidence. This greatly increases our ability to break through the ‘wall of silence’ that frequently characterises major crime and corruption, and get to the truth of matters under investigation.

Coercive hearings enable investigators to:
•open, advance or eliminate lines of inquiry
•tie the witness down to a story
•test the reliability of a witness
•test the strength of a witness’s version of an event
•fill in evidentiary or forensic gaps
•override the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination
•secure otherwise unobtainable evidence.

This power enables us to respond to the growing sophistication of organised crime, and to the impact on society of sexual offending against children and other serious crimes that can at times defy ordinary investigative methods. We use our hearings power, not only in our own investigations, but also when police request our assistance with theirs as they do not have the same range of coercive powers.

As well as the power to compel people to attend and give evidence, we have the power to require the production of documents and other items. This is a vital tool for conducting financial investigations into organised crime and money laundering, and we use it extensively to help in confiscating the proceeds of crime.

Click to expand...

Springbok said:

General Van den Berg - past head of the South African Security Police once said "when I have interrogated a man - then that man can consider himself well and truly interrogated"

Now I dont say that extreme methods should be used but I do hope the Police are not simply having a tea party with these POI's - I see nothing wrong with using some subtle (and some not so subtle) methods of making things difficult in order to get to the truth ... in most cases people cannot handle the guilt etc and eventually come clean..

This is only my second post - so please forgive me if I am not doing this right..

I read somewhere else on these posts that the suspects are more suspicious because they do not seem to be "behaving" as people normally would under the circumstances - there is a lot to this - and I think that is why the case has generated so much interest -

however its an interesting observation - there are 2 other cases that I have read about where persons came under suspicion because they did not act the way they ought to under the circumstances ;
1) Joanne Lees ( Peter Falconio Murder)
2) Lindy Chamberlain

As we are sleuths does anyone knw more about this tendency?

Click to expand...

Nads said:

As long as we don't have to eat sunflower seeds..........

Click to expand...

Liadan said:

peer pressure testing testing.....

do you think its too much 'mustard' like the C21 jacket tho?

Click to expand...

Nads said:

As long as we don't have to eat sunflower seeds..........

Click to expand...

Makara said:

Nads, they're good for you. :floorlaugh:

Click to expand...

CaseClosed said:

I meant intimate homicide. I had read that the percentage of these intimate homicides (not all homicides against women) committed by the partner was around 85%. Will see if I find the link.

Click to expand...

Nads said:

Actually, Colonel Mustard is Mr Mustard's dad I think.

Click to expand...

Toowong(s) said:

Thanks CC, I don't really doubt the "intimate homicide" stat i.e. for 9 out of 10 intimate homicides, the offender is the partner of the victim. Or call it 85%. I've had a quick look for a link but can't see one. I'm happy to accept that stat.

I just don't think it is relevant.

All QPS have stated is that ABC was murdered by someone "known" to her, they have not said it was someone "intimate" to her.

If it is confirmed by QPS as "intimate homicide" then yes I agree with your opinion that there is a 9 out of 10 (or thereabouts) chance it was the victims partner.

But all we know as fact is that this was a "homicide", and according to the Aust Gov link I posted earlier, for female homicide victims, offenders fall into the following categories:

- 53% of offenders are intimates
- 21% of offenders are family
- 16% of offenders are friends/acquaintances
- 6% of offenders are strangers
- 4 % of offenders are "other" which is defined in the fine print of the webpage as "work colleagues, employee/employer, former employee/employer, gang members, and former gang members"

So I am sorry to harp on it CC, but I work with numbers and stats in my day job so I am pedantic about these things! Apples with apples and all that...

If posters are quoting statistics about the likelihood the offender was an intimate partner of ABC, then IMO, 53% is the correct statistic. And there is a 41% chance it was someone else "known" to ABC, and a 6% chance it was a stranger.

The link again for anyone who missed it: http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide/victim-offender.aspx

Click to expand...

Seeking said:

Mouse Detective........what does your official title of "Sleuth in Training" mean?

Click to expand...