Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #34

Another thing rattling around in my head that I cannot resolve in my mind:

Help me out here WS'ers. Perhaps I'm just confused.

Why purposely put Allison's body in a creek, body of water, when there is the distinct possibility the body would not be found? This seems to be in direct conflict with the speculation of motive with regard to the insurance money, needed in a hurry.

IF Allison was in the water at any point, I think it was unplanned and happened by virtue of nature herself! (Flood waters, etc.) My opinion.

Where is that autopsy report???

In the US, unless there is compelling evidence and most generally speaking, one cannot have a (missing) person declared deceased for (up to) seven years, as I understand it. These are cases of "no body".

In these cases, you must petition a judge for such a ruling.

GEANIE said:

Be prepared there are more awful details to summount....It is a shocker...:jail:

Click to expand...

Hi Geanie,

Do you know the above for fact?? Not asking for link or anything,just wondering if you have knowledge that you can't share here or if you are assuming.


Woohoo. I only had 4 pages to catch up on. Looks like I will get housework done today : )
See you all tonight : )

P.S Summer Breeze you rock :rocker:

i think people underestimate the power of creeks running with that amount of rain. Alive people get caught in them and drown because they cannot get snagged on something to save themselves. The places it has been speculated were the original sites she was disposed of are less than a kilometre away as the crow flies. Many have commented that it seems unlikely she'd end up randomly near the bridge, the spot looks too "picked out" to be a force of nature. I think it's human nature to read meaning into meaningless things - or rather results from forces outside human reasoning. It is likely very lucky that Allison's remains did not travel further and she was recovered, versus it being too far to be plausible.

summer_breeze said:

Another thing rattling around in my head that I cannot resolve in my mind:

Help me out here WS'ers. Perhaps I'm just confused.

Why purposely put Allison's body in a creek, body of water, when there is the distinct possibility the body would not be found? This seems to be in direct conflict with the speculation of motive with regard to the insurance money, needed in a hurry.

IF Allison was in the water at any point, I think it was unplanned and happened by virtue of nature herself! (Flood waters, etc.) My opinion.

Where is that autopsy report???

In the US, unless there is compelling evidence and most generally speaking, one cannot have a (missing) person declared deceased for (up to) seven years, as I understand it. These are cases of "no body".

In these cases, you must petition a judge for such a ruling.

Click to expand...

I don't think this was a well planned crime. My guess is he had daydreamed about this but not planned it to the nitty gritty, just focused on all his problems, financial and relationship, resolving with Allison's death. The last minute googling of self-incrimination makes me think he hadn't set it all out in advance.

Just thinking about the whole "ínterfering with a corpse" at a creek etc... no matter where she was left, put etc, IF she was killed at or close to home, hasn't he ''interfered with a corpse" regardless. I don't understand why it's being said that if he gets that charge it means she was left at the bridge and not washed down... or whichever way.
The fact that he has moved her to anywhere FROM anywhere, it would be the same charge, would it not?

Hope this made sense, I'm tired, not much sleep... but I've often wondered why this charge implies anything other than he moved her after he death?

Hi everyone. I'm new to this so please forgive me if I completely stuff it up. For some time now I have been thinking to myself about the little things that have happened with this case. The first ,"little thing," and as far as I'm concerned, the best ,"little thing," to have happened is when the police first arrived at the house. How easy would it have been to take all the relevant details and walk away saying , " if she's not found within 24 hours we will investigate," Thank God this didn't happen. Thank God that policeman was on the ball. He noticed immediately that something wasn't right and went ahead and notified detectives. This policeman is worth his weight in gold - imagine the evidence that could have been removed in that first 24 hours. I'm sure GBC wasn't expecting such a fast reaction. So that's my first post and that's the first, "little thing," i wanted to say.
I do have a theory and it comes from another, "little thing," that has been bugging me but I'll wait and see if I have submitted this post correctly before I put it forward.
Cheers and thanks for having me.

DrWatson said:

Yes indeed - very good thinking there, Justamum. However, it depends on the car - and he drove a Prado. Now I have a 4WD as well (not a Prado), and I have my phone charger plugged into a lighter socket that is on all the time, regardless of the car ignition. Many 4WDs have these, for powering items such as car fridges, and other off-road stuff. But yes, you're quite right - if it was plugged into a socket that did go on and off with the car ignition, then that would show as the phone going on and off charge.

As far as I know, the phone records wouldn't show what type of charger the phone was plugged into - just that the required voltage was present. I doubt the phone would "know" what the other end of the lead was plugged into. The only exception would be, as I suggested, if it were plugged into a computer, and it did an iTunes sync when it was plugged in. And even then, if it were a laptop, that could also be somewhere other than the home desk - I know mine is! It goes where I go.

OK - back to real world obligations! Will check in later

Click to expand...

I have been reading up on Smartphone Forensics and have found so much information and found it riveting reading (even though can't understand lots of the technical jargon) Jonathan Zdziarski has a good blog, link posted below, just a bit about him below. He does amazing work for LE. Have also watched a you tube webcast he gave which was very interesting.

About Jonathan Zdziarski
Respected in his community as an iOS forensics expert, Jonathan is a noted security researcher and author of many books ranging from machine learning to iPhone hacking and software development. Jonathan frequently trains many federal and state law enforcement agencies in digital forensic techniques and assists in high profile cases. Jonathan is also inventor on several US patent applications, father of DSPAM and other language classification technology, an App Store developer and is currently employed as Sr. Forensic Scientist at viaForensics. All opinions expressed on this website are the author's own. Follow Jonathan on Twitter: @JZdziarski

http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?cat=8
http://www.iosresearch.org/workshop.html

Re: Geo Event Positioning (Oxygen Forensic Suite 2012)
http://www.oxygen-forensic.com/en/screenshots/

People would have to know to "erase" part of the phone which has free space so get everything off, not just hit the delete button as it does not delete. The phone also takes automatic screenshots of what you are doing, eg. web browsing, emails, etc every time you hit the home button on the phone, and keeps all the screenshots. I asked my friend yesterday if he knew that and he said no! he he.
Did GBC's Prado have built in GPS? I think this was mentioned in earlier posts but I can't remember.
BTW in all my reading I have not been able to find any info on whether you can tell whether phone is charged on AC (in the home) or Car Charger. I read that iphone in the home would mainly be charged through usb cable connected to laptop and that everything would go onto the computer as well automatically. Frustrating.

linette said:

Just thinking about the whole "ínterfering with a corpse" at a creek etc... no matter where she was left, put etc, IF she was killed at or close to home, hasn't he ''interfered with a corpse" regardless. I don't understand why it's being said that if he gets that charge it means she was left at the bridge and not washed down... or whichever way.
The fact that he has moved her to anywhere FROM anywhere, it would be the same charge, would it not?

Hope this made sense, I'm tired, not much sleep... but I've often wondered why this charge implies anything other than he moved her after he death?

Click to expand...

Can someone tell me where in this photo Allison's body was found?
Hopefully Manis photo link worked. Thanks Mani, these photos are amazing.
Re the charge of "interfering with a corpse" the police may have identified foot impressions in the mud around Allison's body, if in fact she was found in or around the mud in this photo.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24528&d=1342322753
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24528&d=1342322753

linette said:

Just thinking about the whole "ínterfering with a corpse" at a creek etc... no matter where she was left, put etc, IF she was killed at or close to home, hasn't he ''interfered with a corpse" regardless. I don't understand why it's being said that if he gets that charge it means she was left at the bridge and not washed down... or whichever way.
The fact that he has moved her to anywhere FROM anywhere, it would be the same charge, would it not?

Hope this made sense, I'm tired, not much sleep... but I've often wondered why this charge implies anything other than he moved her after he death?

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Early on someone posted the legal definition which includes anything that causes indignity to the body, and I think it is safe to say disposing of her remains improperly is not dignified.

linette said:

Just thinking about the whole "ínterfering with a corpse" at a creek etc... no matter where she was left, put etc, IF she was killed at or close to home, hasn't he ''interfered with a corpse" regardless. I don't understand why it's being said that if he gets that charge it means she was left at the bridge and not washed down... or whichever way.
The fact that he has moved her to anywhere FROM anywhere, it would be the same charge, would it not?

Hope this made sense, I'm tired, not much sleep... but I've often wondered why this charge implies anything other than he moved her after he death?

Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing, I think you would catch that charge for illegally moving a body after death.

littlethings said:

Hi everyone. I'm new to this so please forgive me if I completely stuff it up. For some time now I have been thinking to myself about the little things that have happened with this case. The first ,"little thing," and as far as I'm concerned, the best ,"little thing," to have happened is when the police first arrived at the house. How easy would it have been to take all the relevant details and walk away saying , " if she's not found within 24 hours we will investigate," Thank God this didn't happen. Thank God that policeman was on the ball. He noticed immediately that something wasn't right and went ahead and notified detectives. This policeman is worth his weight in gold - imagine the evidence that could have been removed in that first 24 hours. I'm sure GBC wasn't expecting such a fast reaction. So that's my first post and that's the first, "little thing," i wanted to say.
I do have a theory and it comes from another, "little thing," that has been bugging me but I'll wait and see if I have submitted this post correctly before I put it forward.
Cheers and thanks for having me.

Click to expand...

:welcome4: little things :fence:

littlethings said:

Hi everyone. I'm new to this so please forgive me if I completely stuff it up. For some time now I have been thinking to myself about the little things that have happened with this case. The first ,"little thing," and as far as I'm concerned, the best ,"little thing," to have happened is when the police first arrived at the house. How easy would it have been to take all the relevant details and walk away saying , " if she's not found within 24 hours we will investigate," Thank God this didn't happen. Thank God that policeman was on the ball. He noticed immediately that something wasn't right and went ahead and notified detectives. This policeman is worth his weight in gold - imagine the evidence that could have been removed in that first 24 hours. I'm sure GBC wasn't expecting such a fast reaction. So that's my first post and that's the first, "little thing," i wanted to say.
I do have a theory and it comes from another, "little thing," that has been bugging me but I'll wait and see if I have submitted this post correctly before I put it forward.
Cheers and thanks for having me.

Click to expand...

His behaviour. IMO Possibly environmental damage that can't be hidden (may e bin was checked or garage or whatever for broken furniture). But I am guessing that it was his behaviour. A torrid night, no sleep, alibi all a jumble, the scratches....his behaviour. Experienced police have common sense and a sixth sense. They've seen it all. IMO

summer_breeze said:

Another thing rattling around in my head that I cannot resolve in my mind:

Help me out here WS'ers. Perhaps I'm just confused.

Why purposely put Allison's body in a creek, body of water, when there is the distinct possibility the body would not be found? This seems to be in direct conflict with the speculation of motive with regard to the insurance money, needed in a hurry.

IF Allison was in the water at any point, I think it was unplanned and happened by virtue of nature herself! (Flood waters, etc.) My opinion.

Where is that autopsy report???

In the US, unless there is compelling evidence and most generally speaking, one cannot have a (missing) person declared deceased for (up to) seven years, as I understand it. These are cases of "no body".

In these cases, you must petition a judge for such a ruling.

Click to expand...

As I understand (from what I have read elsewhere), at the time of the bail hearing...

• A post-mortem examination had been conducted

• Final results still pending

• Cause of death "Not yet determined"

MOO/IMO etc

Aussie_expat.sg said:

Totally agree Doc....i thought the same as I was driving home last night. However, it DOES establish that he was NOT ASLEEP at the time

Oops...it seems Cyansea already posted this thought!

Click to expand...

Hey Aussie_expat, that's cool, the more times we say that the better. The phone is the smoking gun. I am so frustrated and want to know more like everyone here :banghead:
I wonder if they can bring the case forward instead of having to wait three years? Anyone know? :maddening:
All MHO

summer_breeze said:

Thank you Marly! Very interesting stuff. Do we know if Allison drove the Captiva the day of her hairdressing appointment?

Click to expand...

I query this also. Did Allison drive the Captiva to/from the hairdressers that evening? Did she go from the hairdressers to the the B C Seniors afterwards? Did she travel along Rafting Ground road area for some reason? Was the Captiva intercepted there by her alleged murderer? [May account for the screams heard in the vicinity which is closer in proximity to the B C Seniors home, than it is to the B C home]. Who else knew her movements that evening? Interesting that fresh blood (i.e. drips and a contact smear, blood on the handles in the back etc) was found in the rear of the Captiva. Just further questions. MOO

It seems that there is a gap in our knowledge about Allison's movements after the hairdressers. We still don't know.

Good Morning everyone and a big welcome to Littlethings :welcome4:

Ive kind of caught up, but did a lot of skimming and I want to comment on the 'visible injuries'. It looks like what I was thinking was addressed later on but Ill post it here too.

I think it may be possible that a chipped tooth was the only injury that Allison sustained, during the course of her murder.

I think that when she was found, her body would have suffered extreme injuries, due to the elements, and other injuries which may have occurred post mortem. (this includes any possible injury to her hands.)

And whilst I am one of the few that believe she was 'dumped' at the bridge, rather than LIttle Ugly, or upstream nearer the scout camp, I wont discount the idea that, if she did wash down from little ugly, she would definitely have sustained severe scratches, and possible broken bones (dont know if a body can sustain bruises after death, but think not?) So I do not think that the affidavit statement from the defense about the chipped tooth excludes how much damage her body took AFTER death. The wording seems misleading, but I think it shows that we dont know too much (being severely hassled by family...football, footy photos, breakfast blah blha gotta go, hope my post made sense!!!!

Rational said:

As Marly correctly pointed out it does not matter where the charger was as the phone itself would have showed the location, so even if he used the charger in the car the pings would show where he was making it possibly even more incriminating. The QPS stating he placed the phone on the charger means that they know where the phone and hence the charger was located.

Click to expand...

Thank you Rational, absolutely spot on! Hadn't read your post before I started looking up phone forensics but found it very interesting to read up. I don't have a smartphone so was all new to me really, but yep they can find out pretty much everything.

summer_breeze said:

A post mortem examination is not an autopsy. If I am not mistaken (Doc Watson?) the post mortem examination is what one can "see" and discern with the bare eyes.

Click to expand...

Morning troops

Summer - we tend to use the terms "autopsy" and "post mortem examination" - or just "post mortem" interchangeably here Down Under. Similar usage to that in the UK.

Strictly speaking, you are right - the term "post mortem examination" can be somewhat ambiguous. But in general it is the same as an autopsy.

However, the use of the word "injury" is the one which I think was a calculated use. Davis was trying to make the point that there was no apparent source for any bleeding, re the blood found in the back of Allison's car. I think he also claimed that no cause of death had been determined at that stage either (still don't know if it has, even now). There are causes of death that are not covered by the word "injury" - eg drowning, smothering, poisoning, etc etc etc.

The last I heard was that the police were still waiting for results back from some forensic tests in Perth, which they expected to help with determining the cause of death.

Things like drowning, smothering, strangulation, etc etc would have been pretty obvious, especially to experienced forensic pathologists - which we have here in Brisbane. So I'm not quite sure what tests they would need to send over to Perth, apart from some highly specialized tests, eg on the hair.

And on that point, my London contact has not heard of hair banding being used in the courts over there, but has put out "feelers" for any further information. If - and I'm not sure whether it can be done - but IF hair banding can be identified as a post mortem change, and IF the hair found in the back of the Captiva had been UNDER the blood stain (i.e. had blood on the hair), then that MAY be the only way they can determine the age of the bloodstain. Of course, if the hair was overlying the bloodstain, with NO blood on the hair, but WITH post mortem banding, it doesn't give any information about the age of the bloodstain. However it may give information as to dead body having been in the back of the car or not.

alioop said:

Whether Allison was placed in Kholo Creek or Little Ugly Creek and if we presume she was washed some distance, I don't believe her only external injury was a chipped tooth. Surely there would be more damage from coming into contact with creek debris even just from whatever else was also washing along. And this is presuming that the water was much higher than than the usual branches and snags seen at normal high tide.

Click to expand...

Considering that Allison's body was identified by dental records, I wonder if that's where the chipped tooth reference came from. IMO that would be what a dental report would identify. It is possible that the chipped tooth could have happened post mortem.

The body would have been in a bad state of damage and decomposition after more than a week out in the elements and I could understand that superficial injury (not internal) would not be obvious until after pm/forensic results. The chipped tooth result would have been the first one in wouldn't it, considering that dental records were the ID.

Mountain Misst said:

Considering that Allison's body was identified by dental records... The chipped tooth result would have been the first one in wouldn't it, considering that dental records were the ID.

Click to expand...

Good point MOUNTAIN MISST.May be that is all the Defence had at the time of the Bail hearing? There is much more to be revealed. My opinion only, not fact.

Wow - great stuff coming through lately. Thanks Summer Breeze and welcome littlethings.

I think definitely the fact the police acted sooooooooo quickly made the case!! But I think after the 4 stories he got about 'his wife's' movements that evening and in the morning would have been suspect to anyone and the scratches - do they have a cat? because I can't see falling over or tripping, and shaving injuries from an old razor satifsying the police's keen eye for details and suspect scenarios.

I also think the Morcombe case weighed heavily on the police's mind when they approached this scenario- they did not want to have anothercold case without a body. The body, and the murder scene are the TWO most important parts of an investigation. The police were determined to find ABC.

As far as the insurance money goes - my thoughts on this I have posted before. I dont think GBC googled 'no body, can I get insurance money anyway' so perhaps he didn't realise that Allisons body had to be found b4 he got the payout. But a sociapath's mind operates to buy time for themselves to think how to create the next lie. (Case in point the bus stop car crash to delay the police questioning) If he stuck Allison out at the creek she was out of the way and he had time to work out his next moves.

He would arrange it so he could get the money he put his poor acting skills to work, playing out that he was deranged from devastation that he couldn't find his 'angel'. All the while he would be thinking of ways to get that money. But time would still allow him to appease his creditors. He could say to the banks and the people involved in his gentlemans agreements that he was a blithering mess from his wife's dissappearance and would be able to pay back as soon as he got the insurance money. No bank or genuine lender is going to knock back that excuse if they know their cash is coming. So he was virtually off the hook with his debts.

I think it would be interesting to note if GBC spoke with these people he was in debt to particularaly with the gentleman's agreements after her death explaining that he would be paying up as soon as he got the insurance money.