Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #3

Couldbe said:

This has nothing to do with this particular post, but quite a lot of posts back you included a link in one of your posts which was entitled something like "Tasmanian blogger". Would you be able to provide this link again please? It related to GBC and Century21 activity. Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

oh, I'm too lazy to go looking ;-)

oops, here it is, in my browser history :
http://tasmanianrealestatetrouble.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/yes-we-are-open.html

Cccclllaareb said:

I agree. In fact I would be more surprised if they WEREN'T with him. People are entitled to a presumption of innocence! Im sure his daughters would be most upset by any further destabilization too. Like others have said, I think we should all keep in mind that we should try to stick to known facts without being prejudicial. I'm sure no one here wants to jeopardise the chance of a fair trial and wild speculations based on nothing but imagination is only fueling the rumour mill, not helping anything.

Click to expand...

He's entitled to presumption of innocence in court, not in public opinion. And not when it comes to the kids welfare if we had enough bloody guts. This is where our society fails again and again, protecting the rights of one while the rights of the more vulnerable for safety are forsaken. I would hope to think that as the innocent spouse of the murdered parent of my children, I would have zero issue with someone supervising my time with them at least in the early weeks of the investigation. Even from a cover your own bum point of view, having someone else constantly there would ensure there could not be speculation that you have brainwashed the kids into one story or out of another if they are interviewed in a timely manner.

The reality is, even as a very prime suspect, the chances are our courts will let him be alone with them. Let's hope he's innocent hey? It's a pretty big gamble in my book.

Strangeworld said:

Possible, but also highly likely they are not going to release this info to the public. My main reason for commenting on using the quote from the papers to indicate that she was not thrown from the bridge is that we are not privy to this sort of detail. And I am pretty certain that even if they might detect a broken arm or similar, they would need to do the autopsy to identify all broken bones/fractures. They wouldn't do this from observation.

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't release this information to the public even after the autopsy. The only fact that may be released is the actual cause of death. Although they would have been able to establish broken bones at the site the autopsy would have identified how they were caused (ie as a result of falling from a height/impact caused from being hit by an object etc).

The forensic investigators on site would have done a lot of other investigations, calculations etc to establish if the body was thrown from the bridge, not just by the fact of any broken bones. If she was deceased at the time of being thrown from the bridge (if she was actually thrown but seems unlikely due to other investigations that seem to be underway) there may not have been any broken bones anyway as a deceased body would react to such an event in a different manner to what a living body would.

Regardless of being romantically involved or NOT, was the lady interviewed by police three times the same lady that now works at Remax that used to work with GBC as business partner or one that works with him NOW???

Police refer to this lady as ex-collegue. Maybe she was able to cast a light on the family and the situation, as opposed to being involved as such.

i read somewhere, here or news story, that police are saying allisons body may have been dumped as early as 8pm on the thursday night. if this was from a police statement then they are publicly discrediting gbcs version of when he last saw her watching tv around 10pm, so basicly saying he lied.
also didnt they say they believe she was killed at home, and the house was cordoned off as a crime scene.
her friend says allison texted her that night so it must have been before 8pm.
i wonder how/why gbc came up with the time of 10pm?

spratsmum said:

I feel sure there is a third person involved. The office of the woman he allegedly was or had been in a relationship with is located near to that roundabout.

I think you make some valid points Inanna. Is the hairdresser that Allison supposedly attended also at this shopping centre?

Perhaps the argument heard was between the mistress and GBC. Perhaps something had happened at the shop after the hairdressing appointment. The hairdressers is a time to think and perhaps decided to pay a visit to the young woman in question.
Perhaps something happened at the Kenmore Village Shopping Centre, after all anybody can answer a text message on a phone. As we are questioning GBC behaviour after 10pm why do we believe the 10pm story.

Click to expand...

There is no official confirmation that she went to the hairdresser. Also, one poster has said in the past that this R/E office you are indicating is not the one the alleged "friend" works for now.

bearbear said:

i read somewhere, here or news story, that police are saying allisons body may have been dumped as early as 8pm on the thursday night. if this was from a police statement then they are publicly discrediting gbcs version of when he last saw her watching tv around 10pm, so basicly saying he lied.
also didnt they say they believe she was killed at home, and the house was cordoned off as a crime scene.
her friend says allison texted her that night so it must have been before 8pm.
i wonder how/why gbc came up with the time of 10pm?

Click to expand...

I think it also has to do with the phone coverage signal that they have narrowed down to a specific time and location - maybe before 10. also if Allison was meant to drop of some belongings to a friend and didn't? Unlikely she was going to drop off at 10pm. why didn't she drop off earlier?

What if..........and a lot of this is hearsay!!!

There was an argument at home (heard by neighbours) Some people have suggested out here that there was an affair. It supposedly finished hence the counselling. However there was a suggestion it had started again which ABC discovered in the days before she disappeared.

If during the argument ABC said that's it I'm done, I'm out of here and taking you to the cleaners. She then storms out of the house in a huff to calm down (I've done that) She takes her phone with her. There were conflicting reports initially that she didn't have her phone with her but now it's missing. She marches up Boscombe Rd? past the school - quite dark and not a lot of houses. The other end of that Rd is Rafting Ground Rd. What if GBC followed her in the car. He could have grabbed her - the screams came from that vicinity and he put his hand over her mouth to silence her. Perhaps he even was so mad he accidentally went to far? Then in a panic to get out of there he loads her into the car and speeds in the opposite direction towards the roundabout trying to work out what to do. In the struggle her phone drops out of her pocket but he doesn't realise she had it - that's directly in the hot zone? I don't know maybe grasping at straws and in fact it could have been someone else who came across her and did that???

It would be helpful to know the $60 million question about whether she was dumped off the bridge or somewhere closer up to Rafting Ground and drifted down.

Then there's also the computer that was seized - did it have incriminating emails? From ABC to GBC? From the mistress? I don't think the Police were looking for *advertiser censored* or anything like that. They were looking for evidence. The fact that they are still holding on to it suggests they found something.

Then to be really scary - what if this was planned - could he have researched what to do on the Internet? Could he be that stupid?

Then again all this could be protocol - if our spouse went missing we might have to go through all this too. It makes us look bad and guilty when in fact it is simply to eliminate us. The Police really can't say anything until well when they can......

dansw said:

I think it also has to do with the phone coverage signal that they have narrowed down to a specific time and location - maybe before 10. also if Allison was meant to drop of some belongings to a friend and didn't? Unlikely she was going to drop off at 10pm. why didn't she drop off earlier?

Click to expand...

She was going after the conference I believe??

I believe so dansw. However the information that she is now employed by REMAX was from a local person. There is always room for misinformation.

That information though is not really pivotal to this. I do believe the woman he was or is in a relationship with will prove to be part of this puzzle.

I do not believe he acted alone (GBC). He doesn't appear to have the mettle for that. He also is showing facial and body language signs of someone who has information they are concealing.

The police of course know far more than is being let on and are clearly working with journos to only release information in a measured way.

Protecting "the family name" is of high importance to this family I believe.

Mrs Baden-Clay's best friend, Kerry-Anne Walker, has helped the Dickies in their ordeal and was at the search site every day. She was one of the last to have contact with Mrs Baden-Clay, texting her on the night she disappeared about her plans for the following day.
"That Friday was a busy day for her. She had a full-day conference in town and the kids were having a sleepover that night, so she would have got all her stuff ready," Mrs Walker said.
"I had texted her that day, the Thursday, and she texted me back that night saying she'd drop around on her way home from this conference .
"She arranged to drop some stuff off for me on the way home. So it was all a bit of a shock."


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/grief-for-lost-daughter/story-e6frfkvr-1226346331460#ixzz1u3Z1Zcze

spratsmum said:

I feel sure there is a third person involved. The office of the woman he allegedly was or had been in a relationship with is located near to that roundabout.

I think you make some valid points Inanna. Is the hairdresser that Allison supposedly attended also at this shopping centre?

Perhaps the argument heard was between the mistress and GBC. Perhaps something had happened at the shop after the hairdressing appointment. The hairdressers is a time to think and perhaps decided to pay a visit to the young woman in question.
Perhaps something happened at the Kenmore Village Shopping Centre, after all anybody can answer a text message on a phone. As we are questioning GBC behaviour after 10pm why do we believe the 10pm story.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point, that it could well have been GBC arguing with someone else and not ABC.
There were reports that the body could have been there from as early as 8pm, which always confused me as there were reports of that argument at 10pm.
Who knows who he was arguing with? There's no reason to assume that it was ABC, maybe the argument was with ABC's killer?

I wonder why the police said that the body could have been there from as early as 8pm? This is one of the things that could have been released to trigger a reaction in someone?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...d-at-kholo-creek/story-e6frf7l6-1226343535002

I really think that, IF (and this is only speculation) the husband eventually finds himself sitting in a courtroom, the prosecuting Counsel is going to have a field day with the whole 10pm story and the clothing question - I get confused every time I think about it.

Presuming he is innocent, GBC said he last saw ABC at 10pm on the couch. She was wearing her running gear (because this is what he said he last saw her wearing, right? Correct me if this is wrong).

He wakes in the morning and she isn't there, he presumes she has gone for her usual walk (in her running gear, the same gear she was wearing when he saw her at 10pm). She is found in her running gear.

So, he is saying that he thinks she went for a walk at 6am in her running gear, then he called the police at 7:30am when she didn't return. So we are to think that she was wearing her running gear at 10pm when he said good night, but also then according to him, she gets back into the same running gear and goes for a walk at 6am (this is what he is saying he thought happened).

Sorry, I am so confused....can anyone make sense of this? Is he going to trip himself up as it is hard to make sense of this...

Unless of course the reports have been a bit inaccurate - perhaps he actually last saw her on the couch in her PJ's, then when he got up in the morning and she was gone, he presumed she was in her usual running gear, which he was able to describe to police?

Do I need to just let this go? I think I've overthought it....can anyone make sense of what he has said, presuming that he is innocent?

I dont recall anything about him saying what she was wearing at 10pm. I asked my husband about this and he said perhaps she sleeps in her walking clothes. I know this can happen and I have done this in the past because I am not a morning person and found it easier to do this... But at the same time I find this hard to believe she would do this.

A resident on a neighbouring property said her dog was disturbed on the night Ms Baden-Clay disappeared.
"It is unusual for Scraps as she is never yapping, but she went crazy on Thursday night ... she went out like a bullet down the yard and kept barking," she said.

Mr Baden-Clay, who was not with a large group of family and friends gathered at the Showgrounds yesterday, is well known in Brisbane real estate circles. Friends described the couple as inseparable.

"He always called her angel, never Allison but angel," one said. "They are just the nicest, decent, upstanding people. One of those families that you don't think it would happen to."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...lison-baden-clay/story-e6frea8c-1226336871882

bearbear said:

i read somewhere, here or news story, that police are saying allisons body may have been dumped as early as 8pm on the thursday night. if this was from a police statement then they are publicly discrediting gbcs version of when he last saw her watching tv around 10pm, so basicly saying he lied.
also didnt they say they believe she was killed at home, and the house was cordoned off as a crime scene.
her friend says allison texted her that night so it must have been before 8pm.
i wonder how/why gbc came up with the time of 10pm?

Click to expand...

Oh snap, we're on the same wave length here

Thinking said:

I really think that, IF (and this is only speculation) the husband eventually finds himself sitting in a courtroom, the prosecuting Counsel is going to have a field day with the whole 10pm story and the clothing question - I get confused every time I think about it.

Presuming he is innocent, GBC said he last saw ABC at 10pm on the couch. She was wearing her running gear (because this is what he said he last saw her wearing, right? Correct me if this is wrong).

He wakes in the morning and she isn't there, he presumes she has gone for her usual walk (in her running gear, the same gear she was wearing when he saw her at 10pm). She is found in her running gear.

So, he is saying that he thinks she went for a walk at 6am in her running gear, then he called the police at 7:30am when she didn't return. So we are to think that she was wearing her running gear at 10pm when he said good night, but also then according to him, she gets back into the same running gear and goes for a walk at 6am (this is what he is saying he thought happened).

Sorry, I am so confused....can anyone make sense of this? Is he going to trip himself up as it is hard to make sense of this...

Unless of course the reports have been a bit inaccurate - perhaps he actually last saw her on the couch in her PJ's, then when he got up in the morning and she was gone, he presumed she was in her usual running gear, which he was able to describe to police?

Do I need to just let this go? I think I've overthought it....can anyone make sense of what he has said, presuming that he is innocent?

Click to expand...

maybe he told police he saw her at 10pm watching tv before he went to bed not saying what she was wearing, and then next morning assumed she had her running gear on which he described to police and which she was found in. but it still doesnt make sense he called police when she was supposedly only 1/2 hour late home. and police obviously are discrediting his story as they are saying her body could have been dumped as early as 8pm

Does anyone know if the water around where ABC was found has been searched by divers for her phone? (Sorry if already answered, can't keep up)

Straitfan said:

Does anyone know if the water around where ABC was found has been searched by divers for her phone? (Sorry if already answered, can't keep up)

Click to expand...

I believe there were divers, but I though they narrowed the phone down to being within a 150m radius that was near the home?
I guess the divers would still have been on the lookout for a phone or anything else that might be relevant.

Keep in mind that police were treating this as a homicide before her body was found.

"Supt Ainsworth yesterday said officers who first attended made unspecified observations they reported to detectives"

Hmmm...what did they see when they first arrived athe BC's?