Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #13

[dork_whisperer]

Yes, that's true. Something that always confuses me is this: Just say GBC IS guilty ... and there's all this evidence against him.. Can he tell his lawyer that he is guilty and together they try and get him off ... or does it have to be one of those 'unspoken' things where they both KNOW he's guilty but pretend otherwise... I mean when it just the 2 of them in the room, alone? In alot of other cases it is so clear that the defendant is guilty, and the lawyer would be a dumb butt if he didn't know it. So, what happenes in these cases?

I'm under the impression if a person admits something to the lawyer, they can't then plead not guilty to it to try and get off. Imagine if a person was charged with murder, a murder trial was organised, and on the day of the trial the lawyer says... "my client wants to be tried for manslaughter not murder". The trial judge is going to be mighty p*ssed off. I'm not even sure they could plead guilty to manslaughter on the day of the trial if it wasn't even on the charge sheet. ??

I could be wrong there - where is the knowledgeable HAWKINS!!!??

 

[linette]

I'm under the impression if a person admits something to the lawyer, they can't then plead not guilty to it to try and get off. Imagine if a person was charged with murder, a murder trial was organised, and on the day of the trial the lawyer says... "my client wants to be tried for manslaughter not murder". The trial judge is going to be mighty p*ssed off. I'm not even sure they could plead guilty to manslaughter on the day of the trial if it wasn't even on the charge sheet. ??

I could be wrong there - where is the knowledgeable HAWKINS!!!??

So I guess if the lawyer thinks they may be guilty they could suggest that the defendant pleads guilty to a manslaughter charge? From what I've heard over the years, when the evidence is stacked against them, the lawyer will then set about trying to prove they were either provoked or it was self defence or accidental. Therefore, saying yes he did it, but not 1st degree murder??

Now I'm worrying that will happen in this case... could be alot of lies going on and Allison isn't here to defend it. Sad thing is, people will believe what they want to believe.

 

[linette]

I'm under the impression if a person admits something to the lawyer, they can't then plead not guilty to it to try and get off. Imagine if a person was charged with murder, a murder trial was organised, and on the day of the trial the lawyer says... "my client wants to be tried for manslaughter not murder". The trial judge is going to be mighty p*ssed off. I'm not even sure they could plead guilty to manslaughter on the day of the trial if it wasn't even on the charge sheet. ??

I could be wrong there - where is the knowledgeable HAWKINS!!!??

Did you see the link Zorro posted, just a few posts up from this one? It's a very informative post by Hawkins explaining how it works.

 

[marlywings]

Just wondering about where Allison's body could have been originally dumped if not in the creek itself. IF she had been dumped higher up, partially buried, not in the creek itself..eg..creek banks or even higher up... & the "raging torrent" as described by locals has uncovered the body/washed into creek.

Anyone know how much water was in that creek around the time Allison was first reported missing??...was the water very low/fairly dry??

IF the body wasn't in water prior to that deluge of rain weekend 28th/29th ....this would give easier access to prey..eg..crows..animals.

 

[minni]

I thought the same thing.
The statement about "no visible signs of foul play" suggested to me the obvious, that being knife, gunshot, hit by a car etc.
After 11 days, where I am guessing it wasn't submerged, it wouldn't be pretty and I am not sure if they can identify bruising at that time.
What I found interesting is the same day police were (rumoured) asking people in the hair salon if they remember any marks on Allisons neck, chest, arms and hands. Maybe it is routine questioning, but if it is why didn't they ask that the first day they interviewed them as it would have been fresher in their memories.
My guess is there were some visible signs in those areas and they were trying to rule out if they were related. Maybe they were trying to link scratches (if still visible) to a possible incident that related to scratches on another person close to Allison.

yeah that was interesting wasn't it? I thought originally that she must have had bruising, and I do think (but only guessing) that bruises stay as they were at the time of death. they do not disappear. you can tell how old they are or if fresh also. ( you can even identify the shape ie a boot heel or something, IMO)
if it was scratches, that would be quite hard IMO to identify whether they were caused from branches etc UNLESS they had begun to heal, which would have to be very very quick wouldn't it? blot starts to clot almost immediately after a scratch? again, there would be a specific timeline for healing and forensics would be able to determine it too. IMO

Do you remember what day they were asking that? I thought it was right after her body was found, but cant remember. I also wonder whether If she had received scratches from an attacker, whether they could glean any DNA embedded in her skin from the attacker...I don't know about that but I think there could be some kind of transference IMO
so there you go.......a whole lot of opinion with bugger all fact!!!

 

[marlywings]

I thought the same thing.
The statement about "no visible signs of foul play" suggested to me the obvious, that being knife, gunshot, hit by a car etc.

Would a broken neck be evident??

Just going on a theory of her perhaps having been thrown or pushed down the stairs of the house.

 

[sheldor]

Yes, that's true. Something that always confuses me is this: Just say GBC IS guilty ... and there's all this evidence against him.. Can he tell his lawyer that he is guilty and together they try and get him off ... or does it have to be one of those 'unspoken' things where they both KNOW he's guilty but pretend otherwise... I mean when it just the 2 of them in the room, alone? In alot of other cases it is so clear that the defendant is guilty, and the lawyer would be a dumb butt if he didn't know it. So, what happenes in these cases?

A lawyer's overriding duty is to the Court. So if s/he has been told by their client that the client is guilty then they are in breach of the code of ethics if the lawyer represents to the court that the client is innocent. But: a client may tell their lawyer that they caused a person's death, but claim it was accidental, in which case the lawyer can defend the client on that basis.

The real issue here is the presumption of innocence. Everyone is presumed innocent until they have been proven (by the prosecution, to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt). So while a lawyer may suspect his or her client is guilty, unless he or she has been told by the client that s/he is guilty, the lawyer is bound to defend the client.

 

[minni]

Would a broken neck be evident??

Just going on a theory of her perhaps having been thrown or pushed down the stairs of the house.

I dont know, but I've heard that broken bones are identifiable fairly easily. Also xrays would be one of the first things that would be done prior to autopsy I would think, so even a tiny fracture would be discovered almost right away IMO

 

[linette]

A lawyer's overriding duty is to the Court. So if s/he has been told by their client that the client is guilty then they are in breach of the code of ethics if the lawyer represents to the court that the client is innocent. But: a client may tell their lawyer that they caused a person's death, but claim it was accidental, in which case the lawyer can defend the client on that basis.

The real issue here is the presumption of innocence. Everyone is presumed innocent until they have been proven (by the prosecution, to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt). So while a lawyer may suspect his or her client is guilty, unless he or she has been told by the client that s/he is guilty, the lawyer is bound to defend the client.

Thankyou. So I wonder ... how the lawyer always has to present during questioning, is this just to make sure they don't say anything that can be used against them? What would happen is the defendant claims he did not do it, then the lawyer finds out half way through that he is indeed guilty.
I suppose this would explain why alot of lawyers say "Why didn't you tell me this?" But if you're pretending you're innocent {to the lawyer}, why would you have told them?

It confuses my little brain. I would never have made it as a career criminal, that's for sure!!

 

[wakeskate]

Do you remember what day they were asking that?

Found the link.

They had two interviews with police.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7949560&postcount=1133"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #11[/ame]

All the staff were questioned the following morning. They were asked what Allison's demeanor was, what she said, what was she wearing, what time did she leave.

The staff were also questioned the Tuesday after Allison's body was found, they were asked more specifically about any marks, bruises or scratches she had on her neck, chest, arms and hands.

To me that level of details is very specific and without knowing coolcat I have to believe they have some accurate information here. (far more than chains going missing, fights in restaurants, white vans with 5'11" males wearing gardening gloves standing near bridges)

 

[possumheart]

This is really interesting about defending guilty/unpopular people
www.mulr.law.unimelb.edu.au/go/30_2_7

 

[wakeskate]

Would a broken neck be evident??

Just going on a theory of her perhaps having been thrown or pushed down the stairs of the house.

I have no idea on a broken neck sorry.
I vaguely remember seeing TV shows where people have broken their necks and it's not that obvious (eg their neck isn't snapped in half)

When the "love tap" rumour came out I thought a struggle and an accidental blow to the back of the head could have lead to the "no visible signs of foul play" comment from police.
If that were the case however you would just call the ambulance and say they tripped and fell backwards onto the bench etc. Same with falling down the stairs, it could easily be covered up as a simple accident.
I think there is more direct than an accident/struggle gone too far.

 

[minni]

Found the link.

They had two interviews with police.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, 43, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #11





To me that level of details is very specific and without knowing coolcat I have to believe they have some accurate information here. (far more than chains going missing, fights in restaurants, white vans with 5'11" males wearing gardening gloves standing near bridges)

you are a legendary sleuther!! yep, I agree with the level of accuracy and believe it to be what happened IMO

so, After viewing Allison's body, the medical examiner has informed police of some marks evident on her body. IMO. They then have spoken to possibly the last people to have seen her alive, to find out
1. If she had any visible injuries
2. were they fresh ( i tend to think they would be and the medical examiner is not positive if they are ante or post mortem which would mean they happened very close to the time of death)

IMO

 

[Elspeth]

I find trials very similar to a debating team...the outcome depends on who puts the best case forward to convince the jury...hence the winner...

 

[sheldor]

Thankyou. So I wonder ... how the lawyer always has to present during questioning, is this just to make sure they don't say anything that can be used against them? What would happen is the defendant claims he did not do it, then the lawyer finds out half way through that he is indeed guilty.
I suppose this would explain why alot of lawyers say "Why didn't you tell me this?" But if you're pretending you're innocent {to the lawyer}, why would you have told them?

It confuses my little brain. I would never have made it as a career criminal, that's for sure!!

Lawyers are usually present during questioning to make sure that the client's rights are upheld (the right to silence etc) and yes, to make sure the client does not say anything that can be used against him/her. This doesn't necessarily always include things that mean the client is guilty -- just things that might look bad if they came out in court.

If a lawyer finds out halfway through a trial that the client is guilty then they must discharge themselves from the case. Remember, though, that unless the client tells the lawyer s/he is guilty, the lawyer operates under the presumption of innocence. Simply suspecting your client is being dishonest is not enough.

On another matter, not all cases are clear cut in terms of who did what and what they were thinking when they did it. For murder the prosecution have to prove both that the accused caused the death and either intended to cause the death or were reckless -- which has a particular legal meaning in this context. These things have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and to do that the prosecution need evidence. So the police may have quite a good idea of who physically caused the death but they might be waiting for more evidence about the mental element so that they can prove it was murder and not manslaughter. Similarly, a lawyer might know that his or her client caused the death, but will argue that there is no evidence that he or she intended it etc.

 

[linette]

This is really interesting about defending guilty/unpopular people
www.mulr.law.unimelb.edu.au/go/30_2_7

Thanks!! I've read some of it and it is so interesting. Apparently in America it is different, the lawyers first duty is to their client, and NOT the court. {So it says in this article} Over here, their first duty is to the court. That's where I've got mixed up, I watch way to many American criminal shows. lol Thanks again... I've saved in so I can read more later.

 

[marlywings]

I have no idea on a broken neck sorry.
I vaguely remember seeing TV shows where people have broken their necks and it's not that obvious (eg their neck isn't snapped in half)

When the "love tap" rumour came out I thought a struggle and an accidental blow to the back of the head could have lead to the "no visible signs of foul play" comment from police.
If that were the case however you would just call the ambulance and say they tripped and fell backwards onto the bench etc. Same with falling down the stairs, it could easily be covered up as a simple accident.
I think there is more direct than an accident/struggle gone too far.

Either way though..if it were a "love tap" or thrown/pushed down stairs...if she'd survived one would think she'd tell police about it...especially if there'd been any history of DV or even none in the past....he'd be in the lock-up for an extended stay.

But if he'd found he'd killed her...called ambulance or cops....he's classed as a murderer & is off to prison.

My guess is he went into panic mode & dumped the body...then tells the police ..."I know nothing except she's missing....she was watching tv & I went to bed"...

 

[spratsmum]

I dont know, but I've heard that broken bones are identifiable fairly easily. Also xrays would be one of the first things that would be done prior to autopsy I would think, so even a tiny fracture would be discovered almost right away IMO

Yes I think in a case where somebody was found soon after death a broken neck would be evident by the wobble of the head, after 12 days in the elements though I don't know?

 

[spratsmum]

From what I understand of the judiciary system, a solicitor or barrister is to advise his client on what is in his best interest. In some cases that may be to plead gulity I think you would be a fool to engage someone for this purpose and not take their advice, How does the saying go :"the person who represents himself in court, has a fool for a client"

Slightly "off topic" I was on jury service once and the young man was accused of drug trafficing, he was determined to represent himself and a lot of time was spent i=on the first day trying to convince him to change his mind, the potential jurors were sent from the court room during this discussion. He ended up representing himself, but my feeling was that the court felt justice would be better served by having trained legal represntation.

 

[marlywings]

Yes I think in a case where somebody was found soon after death a broken neck would be evident by the wobble of the head, after 12 days in the elements though I don't know?

Yes those 12 days in the elements......more so with the two days of that deluge just prior to her body being found... raging torrent with logs etc in the creek or even a hit on one of those bridge pylons.

Then forensics would have to prove whether a broken neck was caused by...logs...pylon or if it was prior to her being dumped.