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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hawkins said:
Very few details are likely to come out in court if it becomes a murder trial. The accused very rarely gives any oral evidence in such a trial and will therefore not be cross-examined or even speak in court beyond entering a plea. There would only be the assertions of the Crown based on what they can piece together. If the case is largely circumstantial then the prosecution doesn't even really produce a theory as to what actually happened beyond the simple assertion that the accused caused the death of the deceased. If there is a plea of guilty then there is no trial and, since the penalty is mandatory, there is no need for the convicted person to then say anything at the sentence hearing.

If it becomes a manslaughter trial then the Crown simply has to prove that the accused caused the death and very few details are required for that. A guilty plea is very common to mansluaghter because that plea will ordinarily reduce the sentence by 30%. A guilty plea to murder is cery uncommon, because there is no sentence discount for the plea.

The circumstances of this lady's death will likely never be known. Even if an accused person makes some sort of admission these are usually motivated by a desire to mitigate a manslaughter sentence and are therefore self-serving and somewhat unreliable.

But the public apetite for more details is usually inversely proportional to how many are available. This is the sort of case that will spawn books and significant profits for publishers. None of those profits are likely to make their way to the children which is a great pity.
Click to expand...

I doubt we will ever know the full story of what happened, and personally i don't really care about the grizzly details or the sordid details of thier personal lives, but at the moment it is like having a puzzle with very few pieces. It would be satisfying to know what the police know right now.

Or maybe not. Maybe they are just as frustrated as others trying to make sense of this.

I guess what I really want is for the other boot to drop. Everything is so up in air, the suspense is really frustrating.
 
CaseClosed said:
I don't think the kids were going to a sleepover at a friends house because they are all of different ages. If only one chid was going to a sleepover to a little friends house, then it makes sense, but not the 3 together. I therefore believe the kids were at his parents house (which night? am not sure yet). Possibly Thursday, as reported by hairdresser, which I'm inclined to believe.
Click to expand...

It may be strange to you, but not others. My boys have a particular friend (whose 12 ) and he has a brother who is 4. Whenever the 12 year old stays here we always have his brother aswell now, as I dont like to leave him out. In the early days when just the older one stayed, the little one would come when his Mum picked his brother up and really enjoyed playing here, so from then on they are a package deal which I find sweet. They have a sister who is 18 months old and I know that when shes older, she will probably want to stay here aswell! Im happy to have the whole 3 of them.

These are not "family friends" by any means, just a great school friend of my boys who have brothers/sisters who I dont like to see left out. I have known the Mum over a few years, she trusts me, and vice versa but we dont "hang out" or anything. Just saying that its not unsual for someone to have all the kids.
 
minni said:
no the top left corner over laps the divider between two windows, making it look like there is something in front of it
Click to expand...

on second look, it could just be a 'road sign' sign you put in your window, like baby on board, it is diamond shaped
 
minni said:
no the top left corner over laps the divider between two windows, making it look like there is something in front of it
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're seeing,..all I'm seeing is, front driver door open, back passenger door open which has what looks like a sticker on quarter- pane window.
 
Gooooodafternoon sleuthers!
Am I correct in thinking that someone here once posted a link with all the facts as reported by police re Allison? Possibly even a qps link? I could be wrong.
I am just trying to find a clear and concise version of info from the police, rather than the media or the grapevine. Tried to find it myself to no avail.
If anyone happens to have it I'd love to have another look, trying to get back on track in my mind and away from the gossip. Getting confusing!
;-) thanks
 
marlywings said:
Yes, a sticker ;)
Click to expand...

well, its definately not stuck to window...it has a shadow in corner and direct sunlight in same position it shines on NBC. also is placed in forefront of window because it iw well in front of black dividing bar thingy? but, its not relevant in any case...I just couldnt figure it out at first..thanks for your help Marlywings!!
 
Hawkins said:
Very few details are likely to come out in court if it becomes a murder trial.

But the public apetite for more details is usually inversely proportional to how many are available. This is the sort of case that will spawn books and significant profits for publishers. None of those profits are likely to make their way to the children which is a great pity.
Click to expand...

Yes, we haven't quite reached American standards of publishing every minute detail to the public. All to do with their freedom of speech laws but it's astounding the amount of info which does get released in these types of cases.

Plus you can sit & watch the whole trial live on tv/internet if you wish, incredible!!
 
tiff07 said:
According to a direct quote from Allisons best friend, the sleepover was due to occur Friday night.

http://www.news.com.au/national/grief-for-lost-daughter/story-e6frfkvr-1226346331460
Click to expand...

But a 'sleepover' could indicate them being with a friend, whereas staying with grandparents, which could be a regular occurrence, could just be referred to as 'staying with Nanny and Poppy' IYKWIM. We all use different terminology, but to me a 'sleepover' is special and out of the ordinary.
Does that make sense?
 
DunnoZo said:
Was the reported "screaming" (not arguing) near winrock St. within the triangulated area? I still believe if the phone was still out there they'd be looking for it... why do they think its 150 mtrs. from the house?

IMO, If i was in an extreme huff, I could've walked to winrock St. and then had someone drive by and get me...an argument in the car....
Click to expand...

Yes, i think Winrock Street was within the radius of the screaming.
 
Shelbinator said:
But a 'sleepover' could indicate them being with a friend, whereas staying with grandparents, which could be a regular occurrence, could just be referred to as 'staying with Nanny and Poppy' IYKWIM. We all use different terminology, but to me a 'sleepover' is special and out of the ordinary.
Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Sure does thanks
 
Shelbinator said:
But a 'sleepover' could indicate them being with a friend, whereas staying with grandparents, which could be a regular occurrence, could just be referred to as 'staying with Nanny and Poppy' IYKWIM. We all use different terminology, but to me a 'sleepover' is special and out of the ordinary.
Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

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
 
marlywings said:
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://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ee-at-brookfield/story-e6freon6-1226334962242
Click to expand...

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.
 
I just rewatched the police interview when ABC body was found, I think somhow we are missing the obvious. the police or the interviewer states:

"the house is a crime scene" So what is a crime? Would it be a crime scene if there was evidence of a struggle or a fight, e,g upended chairs, tables etc or broken glass, or does a crime scene have to mean that something happened in that area that lead to the outcome of the crime, in this case murder. I believe the crime scene was designated when the investigation was still a missing person case, so there was something in that house that led police to believe some crime had taken place, I suppose it does not necessarily mean it has to be this crime it could be that they found something illegal happening within the house, but I don't hink so. Supt Ainsworth also states that it has a murder investigation for some time - I wonder when the status changed.

The other thinkg he says, is they have conducted on both the cars, so there is obviously something unusual in or about both of the cars, or they know that they were involved in the crime. given that early on it was stated Allison was missing and was last seen at her home it would seem the police have very early in the investigation known that Allison used one or both of the cars on the night she went missing. Considering they were concentrating the search around close to her home in the early days that also is strange.

Something here is not adding up, and I really don't think we will be able to come to an answers, as I feel there is a vital clue regarding the cars, the house and the movement of Allison the police have not released for any number of reasons and without that clue we are floundering.
 
Neuromancer said:
I just went over this video from after Allison's body was found - ALLISON BADEN-CLAY UPDATE 010512 - YouTube (ALLISON BADEN-CLAY UPDATE 010512 )

The police quote is "We've had several pieces of information come forward with respect to the movement of both vehicles."

Hmm "both" vehicles.

This is interesting because none of the stories attributed to GBC (ABC last seen watching tv @10pm or going for walk either at night or in the morning - all are still being mentioned in press) involve admission of any driving.

And obviously police doing test runs to roundabout are trying to establish something about the BC cars being driven that night, which would, if nothing else, disprove any of the stories previously given.

If both cars were driven at some point, it could point to a second person involved. Even if Allison drove off originally, someone else would have been needed to help bring both cars home if they had travelled any significant distance. Catching a taxi would have been traceable, too late and too obvious for public transport and too far to walk.

Or else they didn't go that far (maybe only the 2km to where the 3 screams were heard and dogs were going nuts) then one person could drive home with car 1 then walk back for car 2.

If Allison didn't drive anywhere, I can't see why 2 cars would have been out at all. Unless they're just talking about when ABC and GCB arrived home in the afternoon/evening (but that seems normal and unremarkable and not what they're talking about).
Click to expand...

could the movement of both vehicles mean 1. Allison driving home after hair appointment and 2. murderer driving through on way to or from body disposal. Additonally could be 3. 2nd trip for murderer to dispose of items in house and mobile phone, after cleaning up at house and getting thinking straight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 3,706 (members: 138, guests: 3,568)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
3,568
Total visitors
3,706
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,684
Messages
17,957,448
Members
228,586
Latest member
chingona361
Back
Top