Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #42

[Obsessor]

I believe that about 90% of cases that have a committal hearing are committed for trial. The magistrate just has to decide if a properly instructed jury MAY find the accused guilty. So with all the circumstancial evidence I believe it is almost 100% certain GBC will be committed for trial.

The REAL cross-examination (rather than establishing the evidence) will happen at the trial. Depending on the veracity of the evidence that is established after cross examination, I would not at the moment venture the chances of GBC found guilty at trial. At the moment we know of very strong circumstancial evidence but there seems, from what has been revealed so far, to be no evidence that places GBC actually at Kholo bridge. I am sure that is a point the Defence will cling to. I will be very interested whether at committal if DNA evidence of Allison's blood in the Captiva will be established. It is important to remember that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove his guilt, not the reverse for GBC to prove his innocence. There is a difference and he is not obliged to take the witness stand. It will be interesting, when it goes to trial whether he will elect to take the witness stand. If he does that will leave him wide open to difficult questions on cross examination.

I fully agree about the odds.

Also, your mention of the blood in the Captiva- I've been really worried about this too.
If the prosecution do not have this definitively, IMO, the case becomes quite poor. So much hinges on this evidence, even though it wont be proven that the blood resulted from that nights events conclusively.
The hair will be interesting too.

and, thanks for going tomorrow. Wish I could go also.

 

[Obsessor]

Doc, could I ask you why you think the testing on the hair wasn't completed by the time the second bail hearing was on? With DNA tests nowadays I didn't expect that it would be that long.


Addit: just an after thought to my question - maybe it was but we didn't hear about the result??

 

[DrWatson]

Doc, could I ask you why you think the testing on the hair wasn't completed by the time the second bail hearing was on? With DNA tests nowadays I didn't expect that it would be that long.


Addit: just an after thought to my question - maybe it was but we didn't hear about the result??

Morning Obby Please excuse the delay - I'm on intermittent Internet here in the Tassie Highlands having a break

I thought I read/heard that the hair was not suitable for DNA testing as it had no root? You need the root of the hair to test for DNA - one that's been pulled out. However, I'm not sure they couldn't have tested for things like colouring (having just been to the hairdresser) etc. And of course there is the possibility that both the blood and the hair were not brand spanking new - the car was only about 8 weeks old, but the blood stain and the hair could have happened at any time during that period. I'm sure the defence will use that too.

If DNA testing on the hair WAS possible, then you can bet your boots that the prosecution will have it - and so will the defence.

 

[Obsessor]

Morning Obby Please excuse the delay - I'm on intermittent Internet here in the Tassie Highlands having a break

I thought I read/heard that the hair was not suitable for DNA testing as it had no root? You need the root of the hair to test for DNA - one that's been pulled out. However, I'm not sure they couldn't have tested for things like colouring (having just been to the hairdresser) etc. And of course there is the possibility that both the blood and the hair were not brand spanking new - the car was only about 8 weeks old, but the blood stain and the hair could have happened at any time during that period. I'm sure the defence will use that too.

If DNA testing on the hair WAS possible, then you can bet your boots that the prosecution will have it - and so will the defence.

Thanks so much for that answer. I hadn't heard about the unsuitability.
Appreciate your time too, especially knowing you're on holidays. You're a wonderful member of this forum.

 

[Aunty]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193609&highlight=jennifer+ramsaran

I was just reading about Jennifer Ramsaran - terribly sad and so many details of the case remind me of Allison. Worth a read if you have time. There has been no arrest at this stage, and COD has not been made public.

Thanks this case is very very similar. Husband also last to see her alive.
I have read most of it and I think the husband took her life. :furious:
His statement to the media is very telling. Especially when he refers to the children missing their old Mum but not their new Mum. ( she had lost weight, feeling slim and getting new hair do and clothes etc.) it will be interesting to see how long it will be till he is charged with her murder.

 

[LillyPilly]

I think this came up a few threads ago, but I cant remember a lot about it, but isn't this right going to be looked into, as it hinders police investigations so badly? There was something to do with police trying to solve bikie crimes, and coming up against the wall of silence.

It does seem so wrong that you can choose to remain silent during a police investigation. MOO

I recall something similar (right to silence being looked into), Obby, but I haven't been able to locate the story I read. By googling, I have found some stories relating to a possible law change in NSW, but I thought there was news about this in Qld, too? In any case, this is the most recent update for Qld (December, 2012):

http://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/being-arrested-and-police-custody/being-questioned/

I think many of us would agree that, if GBC and his family were completely innocent of this crime against Allison, they would have had no hesitation in talking openly with the police, in order to provide as much information to aid the case as possible. Silence, on their part, seems to indicate that they are withholding incriminating information. Also, with GBC's litany of lies, there was possibly fear that the family's 'stories' would conflict with each other.

MOO.

 

[Amee]

Morning Obby Please excuse the delay - I'm on intermittent Internet here in the Tassie Highlands having a break

I thought I read/heard that the hair was not suitable for DNA testing as it had no root? You need the root of the hair to test for DNA - one that's been pulled out. However, I'm not sure they couldn't have tested for things like colouring (having just been to the hairdresser) etc. And of course there is the possibility that both the blood and the hair were not brand spanking new - the car was only about 8 weeks old, but the blood stain and the hair could have happened at any time during that period. I'm sure the defence will use that too.

If DNA testing on the hair WAS possible, then you can bet your boots that the prosecution will have it - and so will the defence.

I understand if there is no root on the hair they use mitochondrial DNA testing. Which does take a lot longer than the nuclear dna testing.

 

[LillyPilly]

I really need to say this, on the eve of GBC's committal hearing:

THANK YOU, to all the wonderful people here on WS, who have remained dedicated to justice for Allison and the Dickies. :tyou:

I have never, before, had such admiration for a group of people I have never met! From the career professionals on here, to the every day members, you've all provided valuable discussion, information, thoughts and theories and, in doing so, displayed such commitment to maintaining the beautiful memory of an innocent Mum, Daughter, Sister and Friend.

No matter what results from tomorrow's committal, I believe that Allison would be so humbled by the love, care and kindness that has been demonstrated on these threads for almost a year.

My biggest wish is that GBC is committed to stand trial and that the prosecution have all the evidence they require to deliver karma to this lying murderer.

Although I will be working tomorrow, I'll take advantage of every little break I have, to keep updated on the progress of the commital. While doing this, I'll not only be thinking about Allison and the Dickies, I'll also be thinking about all of you lovely WS-ers. Virtual hugs for you all. :heartbeat: :heartbeat: :heartbeat: :heartbeat:


MOO.

 

[Strangeworld]

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...lian-communities/story-fncynjr2-1226589926795

For each life stolen, more than a dozen people need immediate and ongoing support.

Homicide's tentacles stretch into every area of its victims' lives and beyond into the wider community.

This was witnessed last year as residents rallied to find Brisbane mum Allison Baden-Clay after the mother-of-three was reported missing.

 

[CaseClosed]

..... 1 ......

 

[CaseClosed]

I believe that about 90% of cases that have a committal hearing are committed for trial. The magistrate just has to decide if a properly instructed jury MAY find the accused guilty. So with all the circumstancial evidence I believe it is almost 100% certain GBC will be committed for trial.

The REAL cross-examination (rather than establishing the evidence) will happen at the trial. Depending on the veracity of the evidence that is established after cross examination, I would not at the moment venture the chances of GBC found guilty at trial. At the moment we know of very strong circumstancial evidence but there seems, from what has been revealed so far, to be no evidence that places GBC actually at Kholo bridge. I am sure that is a point the Defence will cling to. I will be very interested whether at committal if DNA evidence of Allison's blood in the Captiva will be established. It is important to remember that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove his guilt, not the reverse for GBC to prove his innocence. There is a difference and he is not obliged to take the witness stand. It will be interesting, when it goes to trial whether he will elect to take the witness stand. If he does that will leave him wide open to difficult questions on cross examination.

Yes, to our knowledge, there is no evidence placing him at the bridge area, however people have been convicted of murder even without a body. Let's hope the Prosecution have all their ducks in a row and ready to pulverise his story!

 

[DrWatson]

I understand if there is no root on the hair they use mitochondrial DNA testing. Which does take a lot longer than the nuclear dna testing.

You're quite right Amee. And as well as taking much longer time, it is also not as specific in terms of identifying individuals - eg differentiating between Allison or the girls, as the mtDNA is passed down the female side of the family. See the following - bolded bits by me:

==== START QUOTE ====
from:

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about3931-12.html

Alternatively, when a hair is naturally shed, it does not usually contain the hair root. It is just the shaft of the hair. This means that there are NO living cells present, thus, nuclear DNA CANNOT be extracted and analyzed. However, every cell contains mitochondria which provide energy. Mitochondrial cells contain their own type of DNA called mtDNA. Contrasting from nuclear DNA that is a double-helix, mtDNA is circular. It is very compact and has a coding region and a non-coding region.
Everything is performed the same for DNA extraction, purification, and PCR amplification, but analysis is completely different. Instead of mapping the alleles present at certain loci, the non-coding region of mtDNA contains two hypervariable regions (HV1 and HV2) that are prone to polymorphisms or variation. It is the sequencing of these two regions compared to what is termed as the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence that yields mtDNA analysis. mtDNA, however, CANNOT differentiate between two individuals like nuclear DNA can. mtDNA is passed down genetically through maternal lineage, so relatives who share a common female individual will have identical mtDNA. This presents a problem since male to male comparisons CANNOT be made through mtDNA analysis. For example, if you have a son and you want to test 2 individuals for paternity, mtDNA analysis will NOT help you in ANY way.

==== END QUOTE ====

 

[Radster]

Re: speculation about GBC's capacity to convince himself of his innocence. If Allison's death was an accident at his hands (too much force during a heated argument - oh my god, what have I done?), then I think it is possible he could convince himself that a prison sentence for murder is too blunt an instrument for a man who accidentally went too far. I think he could convince himself that the children's need for a father outweighs the needs of a justice system; that he is not a threat to anyone, just someone who made a terrible mistake. Maybe he has even convinced himself that she was on the road to suicide anyway - maybe she had said that many times. These are all possibilities I have entertained in trying to work out where GBC's mind would be right now if he is in fact guilty. I think that the human brain can convince itself of pretty much anything, especially if it is validated by others (eg his parents, his girls etc). It will be interesting to see/read his facial expressions in court. As that infamous driveway interview clearly showed, he doesn't have the best poker face in the world. MOO.

 

[Strangeworld]

There's also the possibility that he isn't deluding himself at all about the fact that he may have taken Allison's life, rather he simply doesn't feel remorseful. She was in the way of his dreams, desires, and financial freedom i.e. why should he have to pay for her been an obstacle to him? If he continues to plead not guilty, I don't believe it is because he believes he didn't do it, instead it may just be part of a strategy to avoid punishment.

 

[Amee]

You're quite right Amee. And as well as taking much longer time, it is also not as specific in terms of identifying individuals - eg differentiating between Allison or the girls, as the mtDNA is passed down the female side of the family. See the following - bolded bits by me:

==== START QUOTE ====
from:

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about3931-12.html

Alternatively, when a hair is naturally shed, it does not usually contain the hair root. It is just the shaft of the hair. This means that there are NO living cells present, thus, nuclear DNA CANNOT be extracted and analyzed. However, every cell contains mitochondria which provide energy. Mitochondrial cells contain their own type of DNA called mtDNA. Contrasting from nuclear DNA that is a double-helix, mtDNA is circular. It is very compact and has a coding region and a non-coding region.
Everything is performed the same for DNA extraction, purification, and PCR amplification, but analysis is completely different. Instead of mapping the alleles present at certain loci, the non-coding region of mtDNA contains two hypervariable regions (HV1 and HV2) that are prone to polymorphisms or variation. It is the sequencing of these two regions compared to what is termed as the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence that yields mtDNA analysis. mtDNA, however, CANNOT differentiate between two individuals like nuclear DNA can. mtDNA is passed down genetically through maternal lineage, so relatives who share a common female individual will have identical mtDNA. This presents a problem since male to male comparisons CANNOT be made through mtDNA analysis. For example, if you have a son and you want to test 2 individuals for paternity, mtDNA analysis will NOT help you in ANY way.

==== END QUOTE ====

Exactly! This is why the hair has always bothered me.

 

[linette]

You're quite right Amee. And as well as taking much longer time, it is also not as specific in terms of identifying individuals - eg differentiating between Allison or the girls, as the mtDNA is passed down the female side of the family. See the following - bolded bits by me:

==== START QUOTE ====
from:

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about3931-12.html

Alternatively, when a hair is naturally shed, it does not usually contain the hair root. It is just the shaft of the hair. This means that there are NO living cells present, thus, nuclear DNA CANNOT be extracted and analyzed. However, every cell contains mitochondria which provide energy. Mitochondrial cells contain their own type of DNA called mtDNA. Contrasting from nuclear DNA that is a double-helix, mtDNA is circular. It is very compact and has a coding region and a non-coding region.
Everything is performed the same for DNA extraction, purification, and PCR amplification, but analysis is completely different. Instead of mapping the alleles present at certain loci, the non-coding region of mtDNA contains two hypervariable regions (HV1 and HV2) that are prone to polymorphisms or variation. It is the sequencing of these two regions compared to what is termed as the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence that yields mtDNA analysis. mtDNA, however, CANNOT differentiate between two individuals like nuclear DNA can. mtDNA is passed down genetically through maternal lineage, so relatives who share a common female individual will have identical mtDNA. This presents a problem since male to male comparisons CANNOT be made through mtDNA analysis. For example, if you have a son and you want to test 2 individuals for paternity, mtDNA analysis will NOT help you in ANY way.

==== END QUOTE ====

This is probably a silly question, but since they can at least say it is from a particular family, be it Allison or her daughters, would they then be able to say "Well, ok, this hair has dye on it etc, so it couldn't have belonged to the girls." ?

 

[marlywings]

I believe that about 90% of cases that have a committal hearing are committed for trial. The magistrate just has to decide if a properly instructed jury MAY find the accused guilty. So with all the circumstancial evidence I believe it is almost 100% certain GBC will be committed for trial.

The REAL cross-examination (rather than establishing the evidence) will happen at the trial. Depending on the veracity of the evidence that is established after cross examination, I would not at the moment venture the chances of GBC found guilty at trial. At the moment we know of very strong circumstancial evidence but there seems, from what has been revealed so far, to be no evidence that places GBC actually at Kholo bridge. I am sure that is a point the Defence will cling to. I will be very interested whether at committal if DNA evidence of Allison's blood in the Captiva will be established. It is important to remember that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove his guilt, not the reverse for GBC to prove his innocence. There is a difference and he is not obliged to take the witness stand. It will be interesting, when it goes to trial whether he will elect to take the witness stand. If he does that will leave him wide open to difficult questions on cross examination.

BBM

March 09, 2013

I'm thinking there may very well be evidence of GBC being at Kholo Bridge. In the report I posted a couple nights back it mentions those who might be cross examined....

Police might be cross-examined, along with medical experts and residents from around the couple's home and the area where Allison's body was found.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/more-than-40-witnesses-expected-for-committal-hearing-for-accused-wife-killer-gerard-baden-clay/story-e6freoof-1226593512565[/url][/QUOTE]


IF he has been sighted at Kholo by a resident during the times he told police he was asleep then he's gonski!!

 

[DrWatson]

This is probably a silly question, but since they can at least say it is from a particular family, be it Allison or her daughters, would they then be able to say "Well, ok, this hair has dye on it etc, so it couldn't have belonged to the girls." ?

Not a silly question at all Linette. Good thinking. And yes, they would be able to test for things like artificial hair colouring. But two problems remain:

1. That is still non-specific, and only provides probabilities

2. The LACK of hair colouring - i.e a negative - would be non-meaningful.

The hair could still have come from Allison or any one of the three girls in theory.

But if there WAS a hair root present - in other words the hair had been forcibly pulled out - then DNA testing on that would be specific to a person.

 

[BigApple]

I don't think the passengers can see much of the outside except the sky, from inside one of those multi-celled prison vans. I've never been in one (thank goodness) but I've seen plenty of them on the Western Freeway heading inbound from Wacol. I don't think their primary concern is the view....

:jail:

Don't be silly DR W, nothing but the best for GBC, he won't be in a prison van, he will be traveling by private prison sedan.....

 

[alioop]

I thought the same thing Marly. Any credible sighting of him at Kholo or for that matter at any time after 10 pm anywhere is going to be significant evidence that he was lying. And if he was lying then the inference is that he had something to do with the murder of his wife.