Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #37

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well we don't know, and until we know the facts I am comfortable considering all scenarios based on what we can sleuth. Unless you have inside info Wakeskate that you can share I will keep an open mind.

I think as soon as you move a body {with bad intentions} from the place of death, it's automatically interfering with a corpse isn't it?
There was some murder show I saw a while back where a man had killed someone, then moved her somewhere, went back a few days later and moved her again. He was charged with interfering with a corpse twice.
 
Hi Minni :) Given that we can only surmise as to exactly WHAT they saw when the body was discovered, we can only go on the rumours. So basically, I can only guess along with the rest of you as to how they deduced it was murder - eg clingfilm or plastic bag over the head, etc. Or else, the whole thing about the only injury being a chipped tooth may be a furphy.

The difference between ante-mortem and post-mortem injuries is not usually obvious on initial examination of a body that has been moved. It can be quite obvious under the microscope, of course, but the reason I mention the movement of the body is that any bleeding or blood spatter analysis would not be possible, which is one way of telling ante- from post-mortem injuries. The amount of bleeding, and the distance of any arterial spray, for example, can give good indications - but not in this case. Also, one would have to take into account any damage caused by creatures such as bush animals if she were place in the bush prior to being washed into the creek, and then water creatures after that.

So I was quite surprised that the police seemed to come out with those statements so quickly. But don't forget that the autopsy was done with very little delay after the body was found, and the body released for burial. So - much of that information may well have been known within the first day or two anyway.
Thanks Doc..it is really a mystery at the end of the day isnt it? Can you hazard a guess on why they said it was homicide, do you think a bag or cling wrap is considered injury? its not is it? but it is proof of homicide? it is so confusing!!! and you can not look at angles and such on any blood spatter, when we dont know that there is any....

sorry doc, dont respond, I am just full of questions that no one can answer right now
 
One would assume if his story was that she went out for a walk, he would have at least driven a lap of her normal walking path.
Again we don't know for sure.

However making an assumption of something (police noticing cars warm) on another assumption (that he hadn't been out in them) is getting pretty out there.

Next thing people will be telling us theories based on dreams they have had :floorlaugh:

Or maybe the cars' engines were stone cold, despite that he may have told the police he did go looking for her! We don't know, so until we do anything is possible.
 
Apparently in Qld the maximum penalty for improper interference with a corpse is 2 years?

Is their a difference between IMPROPER interference and just interference. Although I imagine GBC's charge would be improper... or is it just the one charge? I'm guessing so.
 
One would assume if his story was that she went out for a walk, he would have at least driven a lap of her normal walking path.
Again we don't know for sure.

However making an assumption of something (police noticing cars warm) on another assumption (that he hadn't been out in them) is getting pretty out there.

Next thing people will be telling us theories based on dreams they have had :floorlaugh:

Thanks Wakeskate, I have never heard that he attempted to drive around and look for her, although that is what a normal person would do if you ask me!

Can I ask, what do you mean when you say, 'making assumptions about what might have happened is getting pretty out there?' I think that is what we all do on here, toss around ideas and theories, based on what little info we are given, we have to do it this way, as we have no other avenue to investigate

As for the theories, IMO all theories are based on very little.. they are just proposed explanations that are only conjectural and subject to experimentation. We can only speculate here. Talking about peoples dreams is not allowed, so not sure what thats about!

Im not sure what alerted the QPS so quickly that morning, but I heard a few stories, and one of them was that he specifically brought up his scratches, before being asked.
 
I am pretty sure that interfering with the corpse is going to simply come down to the fact that the body was moved from it's place of death.

I am pretty sure that the charge will be only related to moving the body from the brookfield house, to the creek. MOO. I have not seen any evidence to imply that she was interfered with in any way. The removal of hands is only rumour, as is the chain story. So, most likely, the interference only relates to moving her
 
Thanks Wakeskate, I have never heard that he attempted to drive around and look for her, although that is what a normal person would do if you ask me!

Can I ask, what do you mean when you say, 'making assumptions about what might have happened is getting pretty out there?' I think that is what we all do on here, toss around ideas and theories, based on what little info we are given, we have to do it this way, as we have no other avenue to investigate

As for the theories, IMO all theories are based on very little.. they are just proposed explanations that are only conjectural and subject to experimentation. We can only speculate here. Talking about peoples dreams is not allowed, so not sure what thats about!

Im not sure what alerted the QPS so quickly that morning, but I heard a few stories, and one of them was that he specifically brought up his scratches, before being asked.

Yes, making assumptions is what we're about on here. I think when the cars being warm/cold came up it was actually pretty good sleuthing, as we were trying to figure out what could possibly have alerted police to foul play that morning. To be honest, this makes a lot of sense. Not out there at all. It was also mentioned that if the cars had been out til a couple of hours before police turned up, then the grass under would have had more dew than you'd expect if he had been home all night. It was all very interesting stuff. To be honest, it is the kind of thing police notice.
 
However making an assumption of something (police noticing cars warm) on another assumption (that he hadn't been out in them) is getting pretty out there.
:

I don't understand your thinking on this one - seeing if the bonnet is warm makes perfect sense to me and is the first time anyone on here has suggested it. <modsnip>
 
Yes, making assumptions is what we're about on here. I think when the cars being warm/cold came up it was actually pretty good sleuthing, as we were trying to figure out what could possibly have alerted police to foul play that morning. To be honest, this makes a lot of sense. Not out there at all. It was also mentioned that if the cars had been out til a couple of hours before police turned up, then the grass under would have had more dew than you'd expect if he had been home all night. It was all very interesting stuff. To be honest, it is the kind of thing police notice.

thanks Linni, I agree with you, I thought it was a smart and clever thought to have...and to NOT have it, wouldnt get you a gold star at police school!!!
I was told at my first tutorial at uni..."no question is too stupid" and in that first year, you always feel like you are asking stupid questions.

Do you know how many cases are solved on a hair, a tomato skin, a carpet fibre? a hot bonnet? or a cold one? I love it when someone asks a small seemingly inconsequential question, cos these are the ones that solve MURDERS....moo moo moo moo
 
Yes, making assumptions is what we're about on here. I think when the cars being warm/cold came up it was actually pretty good sleuthing, as we were trying to figure out what could possibly have alerted police to foul play that morning. To be honest, this makes a lot of sense. Not out there at all. It was also mentioned that if the cars had been out til a couple of hours before police turned up, then the grass under would have had more dew than you'd expect if he had been home all night. It was all very interesting stuff. To be honest, it is the kind of thing police notice.

Well it would give the police an idea if he had been out that morning - in fact the warmth from a car bonnet is a sure giveaway. MOO
 
thanks Linni, I agree with you, I thought it was a smart and clever thought to have...and to NOT have it, wouldnt get you a gold star at police school!!!
I was told at my first tutorial at uni..."no question is too stupid" and in that first year, you always feel like you are asking stupid questions.

Do you know how many cases are solved on a hair, a tomato skin, a carpet fibre? a hot bonnet? or a cold one? I love it when someone asks a small seemingly inconsequential question, cos these are the ones that solve MURDERS....moo moo moo moo

Yep, and sometimes the most insignificant thing can be what ties it all together in the end. And I think police would also have to make assumptions or they'd never get anywhere. If they were to rely solely on what GBC told them then he would still be a free man today.
Assumptions can be proven right or wrong, but still good to have them.
 
Well it would give the police an idea if he had been out that morning - in fact the warmth from a car bonnet is a sure giveaway. MOO

That reminds me, a few years ago my son did a burnout a few streets away on his way home. A few minutes later the police turned up at our house, the very first thing they did was to feel his bonnet... incase he said he hadn't been out most likely. I saw them do it before they even knocked on our door. {Luckilly my son changed his tune after that episode, scared the life out of him.}
 
Wakeskate your photos were so appreciated and timely. We all bring different things to the table and thank you for your contribution. Hope your holiday is a good wind down for you.
 
I would like to give a big Shout Out and thank you to Indromum for standing today on the left hand side of the Kholo and filling all the gaps with flowers to balance out the right hand side.
That side of the bridge is treacherous as cars are flying past and there is nowhere to stand on the other side of the armco once the terrain starts to go down the slope. IMO
Thanks to the locals for slowing down too.
 
Wakeskate it was refreshing to have your contribution. I understand where you're comin from. Agree also.

Yes I would like more facts and it is frustrating when they are thin on the ground. MOO
 
Yes, making assumptions is what we're about on here. I think when the cars being warm/cold came up it was actually pretty good sleuthing, as we were trying to figure out what could possibly have alerted police to foul play that morning. To be honest, this makes a lot of sense. Not out there at all. It was also mentioned that if the cars had been out til a couple of hours before police turned up, then the grass under would have had more dew than you'd expect if he had been home all night. It was all very interesting stuff. To be honest, it is the kind of thing police notice.

Both the cars were parked on bitumen. (unless they were moved)
This doesn't mean the windows wouldn't have due in them or the bonnets etc.
One car covered in it and the other not could have alerted them.
 
Doc that still doesn't answer the question. Minni asked what are the differences, post, peri ante mortem re injuries. Surely this would loosely tie into any circulation of blood around the body and if sustained injuries happened whilst the heart was still pumping etc. in other words close to your area of expertise. Would like to see your thoughts.

Given that we don't know the facts of what was found, then we CAN'T answer the question. Anything any of us says is pure conjecture.

As to the pathological changes that occur pre and post mortem, I'm sure you don't really want me to go into a long dissertation on the microscopic changes that occur, from the influx of macrophages into injured tissues (pre-mortem), or the very early signs of intra-tissue haemostasis that can occur (pre-mortem). And of course, the lack of those things that would indicate post-mortem injury. It's not all about circulation although pre-mortem injuries that transect blood vessels (even very small ones called arterioles) can result in retraction of the ends of those vessels, so that would be one circulatory change that may give a clue.

But most of the changes are about what the body normally does to repair an injury during life, and some of those changes happen almost instantaneously. Examples are the influx of platelets in the blood and the aggregation of these to form platelet plugs to attempt to seal off the injury (even microscopic injuries). Then this is followed very quickly by cells called macrophages and various other cell types associated with an acute inflammatory response, with these ranging from minutes to hours in the timing of their appearance. Again, this may give a clue as to the timescale between injury and death. In other words - at what stage the normal body responses to injury stopped after the injury.

Most post-mortem injuries are defined mainly by the LACK of changes that would normally occur pre-mortem. And of course, you can have injuries on top of injuries. So a laceration cause pre-mortem would be likely to show the usual changes, but a superimposed laceration caused post-mortem (eg by a wild ride down a rock-strewn flooded creek) would show none of those changes.

The list of changes that occur as a normal bodily response to injury is long, with, as I said, the LACK of those changes suggesting post-mortem injury.

Another factor taken into account is the invasion of the injury by bacteria and other organisms, which again would normally cause a bodily response. And once again, infection of an injury and the response pattern seen can give clues not only to whether the injury and infection are pre- or post-mortem, but also to the length of time between injury/infection and death.

As you know, I'm not a pathologist, who would know down to the minutest detail the different cell types and when they appear on the scene of an injury. But I do know in these general terms how injuries can be classified without knowing the fine detail.
 
Poor old wakeskate lol. Oh dear. Anyway thankyou from me also for photographs. I think we all need some new info. Have a nice holiday. Xxxx
 
Given that we don't know the facts of what was found, then we CAN'T answer the question. Anything any of us says is pure conjecture.

As to the pathological changes that occur pre and post mortem, I'm sure you don't really want me to go into a long dissertation on the microscopic changes that occur, from the influx of macrophages into injured tissues (pre-mortem), or the very early signs of intra-tissue haemostasis that can occur (pre-mortem). And of course, the lack of those things that would indicate post-mortem injury. It's not all about circulation although pre-mortem injuries that transect blood vessels (even very small ones called arterioles) can result in retraction of the ends of those vessels, so that would be one circulatory change that may give a clue.

But most of the changes are about what the body normally does to repair an injury during life, and some of those changes happen almost instantaneously. Examples are the influx of platelets in the blood and the aggregation of these to form platelet plugs to attempt to seal off the injury (even microscopic injuries). Then this is followed very quickly by cells called macrophages and various other cell types associated with an acute inflammatory response, with these ranging from minutes to hours in the timing of their appearance. Again, this may give a clue as to the timescale between injury and death. In other words - at what stage the normal body responses to injury stopped after the injury.

Most post-mortem injuries are defined mainly by the LACK of changes that would normally occur pre-mortem. And of course, you can have injuries on top of injuries. So a laceration cause pre-mortem would be likely to show the usual changes, but a superimposed laceration caused post-mortem (eg by a wild ride down a rock-strewn flooded creek) would show none of those changes.

The list of changes that occur as a normal bodily response to injury is long, with, as I said, the LACK of those changes suggesting post-mortem injury.

Another factor taken into account is the invasion of the injury by bacteria and other organisms, which again would normally cause a bodily response. And once again, infection of an injury and the response pattern seen can give clues not only to whether the injury and infection are pre- or post-mortem, but also to the length of time between injury/infection and death.

As you know, I'm not a pathologist, who would know down to the minutest detail the different cell types and when they appear on the scene of an injury. But I do know in these general terms how injuries can be classified without knowing the fine detail.

Thank you, most informative, so in other words, any injuries that occurred post mortem (including lacerations) would miss the pathological identifiers normally associated with wounds or injuries that occurred whilst the vascular system was still functioning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
869
Total visitors
1,009

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,818
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top