GBC Trial General Discussion Thread #3

[DrWatson]

The feeling I got from Mr Byrne yesterday was they will be suggesting she floated down the creek and came to land in the spot she was found. The time lapse video was to show the amount of debris washed up and down that particular section of the creek hence how the plant matter could have been entwined in her hair.

Because we don't actually know where her body started from ( assuming it floated to its final resting place ) we don't know whether all those plants were available in the creek area to become entwined - does that make sense ?

The autopsy findings showed that she hadn't been moved like that. The body was found in the position it was in from shortly after death. Things like lividity, etc, can indicate if a body has been moved.

Also, those creeks (Ugly Creek and Kholo Creek itself) are full of obstacles - rocks and boulders, tree branches, etc. I know - I've walked them. So if the body had been floated downstream on the flood, then it would have suffered multiple injuries with signs of those at the autopsy - none were found.

Also, to reiterate something from the hydrologist's report, the flooding after that heavy rain coincided with LOW tide, and the level didn't get up as far as where Allison's body was found. Normal high tide JUST reached it so that it would have been partially wet but not submerged - hence the difference in decomposition, with putrefaction on the "down" side, and mummification on the "up" side, if you see what I mean.

I really doubt the defence would be suggesting that Allison floated down to where she was found on the flood tide - we discussed that at length here ages ago, but once we had the hydrologist's report, that idea was scotched. And what would be the point of that, from a defence point of view, anyway? That doesn't make it any more or less likely that GBC put Allison's body there.

 

[JK673]

Yeah that was one of the major creep-outs of the day for me.

My major creep out is that photo the media are splashing around. THE EYES......*shiver*

 

[JK673]

Oh Marly I couldn't believe they had literally only just taken the footage either ! It was taken after the trial had started. Why hadn't either side thought of doing this before now ?!

If the tidal flow was taken after trial had started it would not be indicative of the crime scene..... tidal flows are different at different times of the year so in order to be accurate they would have had to use data and graphical information from the exact dates the event occurred...not a video from now

 

[Neuromancer]

They seem to have missed the evidence given by the forensic pathologist that he was of the view (I believe also accepted by the coroner) that Allison was in that particular position very soon after her death. Dr Watson may be able to throw more light on this, as I understand he has access to the full report, but I believe it had something to do with blood being pooled in certain parts of the body. <snip>

Yes, it's called lividity. When the heart stops beating, gravity causes blood to sink down to the lowest part of the body at the time, and shows as a bluish-purple discolouration (like severe bruising) on that area. So if you died lying flat on your back, for example and stayed there for a couple of hours, your whole back would be purple.

 

[FigTree]

Gotta love the shameless name dropping....

"Mr Baden-Clay is the great-grandson of scout movement founder Lord Robert Baden-Powell."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...sed-killer-gives-evidence-20140626-zsnaf.html

Every time that is mentioned I just keep thinking of the scout motto: "Be prepared...(to dispose of the evidence...?)"

Yeah, I just wish someone would dyb dyb dob dob him in.

 

[wewillgetyou]

The autopsy findings showed that she hadn't been moved like that. The body was found in the position it was in from shortly after death. Things like lividity, etc, can indicate if a body has been moved.

Also, those creeks (Ugly Creek and Kholo Creek itself) are full of obstacles - rocks and boulders, tree branches, etc. I know - I've walked them. So if the body had been floated downstream on the flood, then it would have suffered multiple injuries with signs of those at the autopsy - none were found.

Also, to reiterate something from the hydrologist's report, the flooding after that heavy rain coincided with LOW tide, and the level didn't get up as far as where Allison's body was found. Normal high tide JUST reached it so that it would have been partially wet but not submerged - hence the difference in decomposition, with putrefaction on the "down" side, and mummification on the "up" side, if you see what I mean.

I really doubt the defence would be suggesting that Allison floated down to where she was found on the flood tide - we discussed that at length here ages ago, but once we had the hydrologist's report, that idea was scotched. And what would be the point of that, from a defence point of view, anyway? That doesn't make it any more or less likely that GBC put Allison's body there.

Doc I agree totally ! Don't for a minute think I'm suggesting that's what happened.

How though do you explain why they felt the need to show the jury 2 videos of that area over the period of a week and asked them specifically to take note of the area where the body was found. To watch the tide rise and fall and to look at the amount of debris that moves with it ?

Unless the defence has forgotten that it has already been proven the body didn't move .... ( somehow I doubt it )
Just what do they hope to achieve by showing these videos - reasonable doubt ?

My worry is GBC doesn't have to prove he didn't do it, just cause enough reasonable doubt that he did it ........

 

[wewillgetyou]

If the tidal flow was taken after trial had started it would not be indicative of the crime scene..... tidal flows are different at different times of the year so in order to be accurate they would have had to use data and graphical information from the exact dates the event occurred...not a video from now

EXACTLY !

That's what I said to Liaden when it started. What point do they hope to make with this ?

 

[Total]

It's worth adding that in sociolinguistics, it's recognised that people slip into the passive voice when lying or trying to conceal something.

eg "I broke it" (active - the agent "I" is identified)
vs
"it got broken" (passive - no agent)

I.M.O. only : The major flaw in GBC's "alibi" for the night of 19th, is his phone being put on the charger. I hope the prosecution goes really hard on this in cross examination.

He has now come up with the revelation that he gave his phone to Alison each evening and took it back each morning. I do not believe that for one minute. For heaven's sake - he was in REAL ESTATE ! Having worked in the industry myself, I can assure you it is not a 9 to 5 job. A lot of offers, negotiations etc. occur after hours. You need your phone 24/7. I do not think he would have agreed to that EVER !

So now he is expecting everyone to believe that he went to bed at 10 pm without his phone and PRESTO! he awakes the next morning at 6 to find HIS phone on the charger, but Alison and HER phone have vanished. Believable? I think not. I.M.O. only

Well he cannot really have it both ways can he now?
Either he handed in his phone to Allison on the evening of the 19th, and thereby must have deleted the call records to TM, or he did not delete the records and never gave Allison the phone.

If he did not give her the phone, he must have put it back on the charger, noticing in the process if Allison was in bed or not.

Either way he is deceiving someone here, the court or Allison. I believe in true Gerred style he is deceiving everyone, he never gave her his phone, he did put it on the charger, he did delete those calls, and as we all know from around lunchtime the next day was happily calling TM from that very phone because he knew Allison wasn't missing but had been thrown under the bridge at Kholo.

When asked about the phone he can only have it one way on the stand, not a number of ways. Because by saying that it is not unusual for Allison to have gone for a walk when he gets up (and has his 3S routine which includes checking his emails on the toilet) he has gone against his own statement that he hands the phone to Allison and gets it handed back in the morning. When she gets back from a walk? Before his email checking? Sorry Gerred it doesn't add up.

 

[BJsleuth]

I do that with socks , so I always have a pair

Same here Squizzey. Hubby's and the kid's too. The one lost sock isn't such an issue then either.

 

[McCoy]

Dr George said Baden-Clay had considered ending the marriage but felt guilty about that.


http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/qu...ing-wife-allison/story-fnihsrf2-1226959211797

I agree there is a major contradiction. Gerald was saying one minute that in 2009 they were getting on well, committed to his marriage, doing well financially, business booming, designer clothes holidays, cars (yawn, yawn) etc and yet the interview with the psychiatrist says "Dr George said there were also financial pressures in Baden-Clay’s business. He said buying his wife an expensive treadmill had further exacerbated their financial difficulties.
Dr George said Baden-Clay had considered ending the marriage but felt guilty about that".

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...959211797?nk=0f9b41c67e1014a445865145dbbd8829

 

[alioop]

There's something at the back of my mind as I read this...someone correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I seem to recall very early on in the forums reading about how the 12 or 13 month waiting period for suicide on this particular policy had not long expired when this whole tragic incident took place? Can't remember if it could be backed up by facts or if it was only rumour. Anyone remember?

These policies were years old so any suicide exclusion had expired years earlier.

 

[DrWatson]

Doc I agree totally ! Don't for a minute think I'm suggesting that's what happened.

How though do you explain why they felt the need to show the jury 2 videos of that area over the period of a week and asked them specifically to take note of the area where the body was found. To watch the tide rise and fall and to look at the amount of debris that moves with it ?

Unless the defence has forgotten that it has already been proven the body didn't move .... ( somehow I doubt it )
Just what do they hope to achieve by showing these videos - reasonable doubt ?

My worry is GBC doesn't have to prove he didn't do it, just cause enough reasonable doubt that he did it ........

Perhaps they're going to use that video to imply that the leaves etc got to her by tidal flow? Although didn't the botanist say that he'd searched all the way up Kholo and Little Ugly Creeks and only found those 2 species - the Chinese elm and the eucalypts, but NONE of the other 4?

What really puzzles me is just WHY did Byrne QC show that video when he did? Why show that - then launch into an opening address that bored the socks off so many? I really can't fathom his strategy in showing the video WHEN he did, let alone WHY he showed it...

 

[alioop]

Doc I agree totally ! Don't for a minute think I'm suggesting that's what happened.

How though do you explain why they felt the need to show the jury 2 videos of that area over the period of a week and asked them specifically to take note of the area where the body was found. To watch the tide rise and fall and to look at the amount of debris that moves with it ?

Unless the defence has forgotten that it has already been proven the body didn't move .... ( somehow I doubt it )
Just what do they hope to achieve by showing these videos - reasonable doubt ?

My worry is GBC doesn't have to prove he didn't do it, just cause enough reasonable doubt that he did it ........

I think the defence were just showing the amount of debris including leaves that flowed down the creek with the tide. This is to suggest the plants found in her hair could have come from the creek flow.

 

[louisepiglet]

Back in the previous thread ( sorry I worked last night and had a lot of catching up to do )
JK673 made a comment that Kholo Creek would be very quiet between 10pm and 2am. I am wondering why those particular times were mentioned.

 

[alioop]

Snap Doc!

 

[Mumma Bear]

While we wait for the next instalment in the Life & Times Of Gerard The Incredible, let’s play a game. I call it The Blame Game. List all the people/things blamed by GBC so far. Here we go…

Razors

Caterpillars

Anxiety

Depression
Not that it exists, mind you.

Larium

Zoloft

Allison

Toni

Find My Friends App
For not working when he totally used it, honest.

Allison’s Parents
For making Allison anxious with ballet lessons. So much so that her dream was to open a ballet school. Yeah, no.

His Male Heir
For not existing.

His New Nephew
For being born.

His Man *advertiser censored*
For not producing milk.

The Police
For fussing about his teensy shaving oopsie instead of looking for his just a bit lost and totally not dead wife.

His Sister
For telling him to call the police too early.

His Dad
For telling him to get a lawyer.

The Pillar at Indooroopilly
For jumping into the middle of the road before he could brake.

The Mustard Jacket
For being so irresistible to women

The Infidelity Virus
For being so contagious.

The Floods

Business
For not being as usual

Please feel welcome to improve/add to the above.

 

[Neuromancer]

For anyone who may not have read it...quite a good lengthy summary of yesterdays "session"...

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.a...lay-tell-jury-i-did-not-kill-my-wife/2300999/

Thanks Marly

First time I've seen this: "They got married at St Mary's at Kangaroo Point with the bridal party arriving on a ferry on his parents' wedding anniversary."

Does anyone else find that a little strange - "let's get married on the same day as my parents"?

I may be reading a bit much into it, but that strikes me as a sign of their marriage being overshadowed by the elder BCs from the start...

esp since it does seem that the Dickie parents were pushed onto the outer early in the piece.

 

[Anonthemouse]

Hmm funny how the time where I'm really interested has been glossed over - when they come back from overseas which is supposedly end of 1999 - 2000 - fro Christmas and a wedding (OBW +IW?). Which is when Allison gets a job back at Flight Centre. Gerry begs and begs for a job and then five months and some days later loses it (in August 2000 Gerry is made redundant and by December he is suing them (Flight Centre).
All this around when Allison supposedly gets depressed again - no wonder you big modsnip, you just cost her a job in a company where she'd excelled.
When was the oldest child born though - because Gerry maintains that it was because he was such a big earner that she stopped work and was able to start the family. All of these things happen around the same time and would love some help with the time line. I've seen the Flight Centre docs and know the dates of the redundancy and the suing, but the others I'm not sure on.

 

[squizzey1]

Same here Squizzey. Hubby's and the kid's too. The one lost sock isn't such an issue then either.

ha ha where does that damn one sock disappear to ????????????

 

[wewillgetyou]

Thanks Marly

First time I've seen this: "They got married at St Mary's at Kangaroo Point with the bridal party arriving on a ferry on his parents' wedding anniversary."

Does anyone else find that a little strange - "let's get married on the same day as my parents"?

I may be reading a bit much into it, but that strikes me as a sign of their marriage being overshadowed by the elder BCs from the start...

esp since it does seem that the Dickie parents were pushed onto the outer early in the piece.

I was already drifting off when he started discussing this part but I recall he said when they were trying to find a date for the wedding Allisons birthday was July his was September (?) so his father suggested their wedding date in August as being between the two. Gerard said they thought it was a nice idea to get married on the same day as his parents.