GBC Trial General Discussion Thread #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justice Peter Applegarth at one of the bail applications also commented on this. And it has left me wondering just WHY the prosecution haven't even introduced items such as this one???

Can they introduce it in cross-examination? Were they in fact gambling on GBC getting up in his own defence so that they could cross-examine him, and maybe holding some of that stuff back until then, such as the use of the app, the calls made when Allison was supposed to have the phone overnight, etc? If in fact they WERE gambling on GBC getting up on the stand, that was a heck of a gamble, and if he HADN'T got up, then all those little gems of inconsistencies would have been useless and never mentioned.

I wonder if they can introduce things, like the alleged use of the app that wasn't used, in the prosecution's summing up speech? Everything in their opening speech has now been anticipated by the defence, and answers woven into their spiel (such as the possibility that it was Allison plugging his phone onto the charger). But holding some stuff back until the closing speech may thwart the defence having answers at the ready.

It may have been a big gamble - but let's hope it pays off!

Assuming, of course, that GBC is in fact guilty - which he may not be.. :blushing:
I think that forensic report is probably in the evidence for the jury to consider it just hasn't been disputed by the defence so the expert was not called to the box.
 
With all this talk about what might come out after the trial intrigues me.

I've just gone through Jocelyn Frosts and Phil Brooms statements and have an inkling the financial stuff which The prosecution didn't really go into might have something to do with a potential CMC investigation (thus different jurisdiction)

Sweet Alioop able to say if its possible?
 
I am so pleased it is school holidays. I hope Allison's girls have some nice activities planned that keep their minds full of happy thoughts.
:gathering:
 
Oh Yes Deadly serious Timmy!- I am not given to comedic anecdotes as far as Allison is concerned. I quote GBC on Thurs,- 'I bought a big flag and took it to the next town to support the local soccer game, I was waving it around madly in support of the team'.

Apparently GBC was waving this flag to support the town that he and Allison were staying in. Ain't he just the consummate diplomat!
Why on earth would that be relevant, honestly that guy has serious issues
 
Boscombe Road is literally really one short small hill. My grandma could walk it. The walk to Kholo would have to be 100 x more difficult, not to mention distance. No comparison imo

Thanks Dunnozo! Hmm. So many contradictions.
 
I feel like there's so much the prosecution could say they haven't yet so I'm hoping it'll come. There's so many things they can tie together or figure out don't sound right as we are doing. I hope they do this for the jury so they don't have to, because they haven't had as long to mull it over as we have. There's also bits of facts I don't know if they have said.

Did they mention his googling self incrimination just before calling the police (or is that report untrue?) something like that says so much.

Dr Watsons post re the find app having not been installed and used until after the text referring to having used it, if that's true there's no mention of that yet? That shows a lie and a "oh crap I don't have that installed" moment

Didn't he call insurance just before her death or is that report untrue?

I think the prosecution could run through a scenario of what happened to explain it and run through the defenses scenario pointing out the flaws with it and why it is even less plausible.
 
I'm just waiting on the first time the prosecutor says "I put it to you Mr Baden-Clay that you....!'

And I'm waiting on the first time, a green bucket is required for the sensitive GBC .....
 
I feel like there's so much the prosecution could say they haven't yet so I'm hoping it'll come. There's so many things they can tie together or figure out don't sound right as we are doing. I hope they do this for the jury so they don't have to, because they haven't had as long to mull it over as we have. There's also bits of facts I don't know if they have said.

Did they mention his googling self incrimination just before calling the police (or is that report untrue?) something like that says so much.

Dr Watsons post re the find app having not been installed and used until after the text referring to having used it, if that's true there's no mention of that yet? That shows a lie and a "oh crap I don't have that installed" moment

Didn't he call insurance just before her death or is that report untrue?

I think the prosecution could run through a scenario of what happened to explain it and run through the defenses scenario pointing out the flaws with it and why it is even less plausible.

The taking the fifth was searched for his Mother on the Wednesday night. The Self incriminationm that search was a bookmark from that search which opened automatically when he went to look up the number for the police assistance line on the Friday morning when he went to report Alison missing.
 
Why on earth would that be relevant, honestly that guy has serious issues
........ thought that last Thursday I noticed a little bit of creative facial hair appearing too. Be interesting to see if it is more advanced tomorrow.
 
Perhaps it was unbearable at times. I have been on both sides of mental illness. It is extremely difficult to be someone's main care giver. I'm not sure what you mean by functioning as a man.

Oddsocks - Absolutely agree with you -it is so true severe, mental Illness, be it periodic or on going can be a death knell on relationships. I know as it almost happened to me.

In hindsight it is so very obvious Allison was in the grips of a some serious mental illness. She was not able to get out of bed at times, yet the next day she was firing on all cylinders.

This is similar to my experiences, during the time I was fighting my depression - I did not want to admit that I had any issue, that a few days a week -I was struggling to make the daily routine, but my husband understood that was part of my fight, seamlessly - he picked up the slack.

He had to assure me that I was strong and could cope with my sickness. BUT, AT NO POINT did he feel that he needed to show the world what he was doing in response to my inadequacies,- that he was the one providing and doing the menial task involved in providing for the family. Quite frankly today - as 10 years have past since I hit this low - I doubt he would remember that it was him that pulled us through my depression. For that I am extremely grateful. He would NEVER tell the world he was responsible for the family that this point - he has more humility than that.

I feel that GBC felt that he was owed.... that anything that Allison was not able to do in her responsibility of looking after the family was an added extra that GBC needed huge praise and added notoriety for anything above and beyond in providing funds for his family. This is not something a male in a give and take relationship today will need to show off.

So odd socks not sure I have answered your question, but a male in todays world should recognize and love his wife so much more than the mental illness she is suffering. Women are educated, successful in businessa and capable of raising children and earning income. Yet I feel GBC was not prepared to look beyond this simple construct and felt that Allisons failures to the family were another way to show the world how little she did and how useless she was? utterly heartbreaking!
Its a sad indictment that today we even need second guess what GBC could have done without the wonderful guidance and support of his totally supportive and indeed the unwavering support Allison had for GBC!
 
Also, I do not remember the Chamberlains lawyering up immediately!

The Chamberlain thing was an absolute debacle!!! It was a crime but not by Lindy!! I never ever thought she was guilty. The whole thing was crazy....a tragedy compounded by injustice!! I was horrified at the time at what they did to that mother. My daughter was only a couple of weeks older than Azaria. We loved to camp too and would not hesitate to take a small baby camping.
Back then we didn't have the internet. You guys would have had a field day with that one!!!
 
Toni drove a blue Lexus?? Interesting. Did we ever see TMH's 5th statement? I'm guessing it wasn't relevant. Forgive me if this has been answered, but was the blonde hair found in the dried blood in the Captiva ever confirmed as post ABC's hairdressing appointment?

Possum I am loving your new picture! Makes me smile everytime I see it.

I questioned Kate Kyriacou (Courier mail reporter/best tweeter for the trial) about the hair last Wednesday evening. I explained why it crucially dated the time the blood dripped in the car.

She replied (surprisingly promptly, what a lovely lady!) saying she thinks perhaps the hair was not DNA-matched and she vaguely recalled Amanda Reeves (forensics expert) mentioning how difficult it was to get DNA from hair (although no tweets with #badenclay record such testimony from anyone). I replied with the link to her (with others) article stating that it was:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...his-wife-allison/story-fnihsrf2-1226948779375

Attributed to Todd Fuller in his opening address:

"He said a hair attached to the blood stain was later confirmed with DNA as belonging to Ms Baden-Clay."

She said she would check if they have reported incorrectly. As of now the article still states the hair DNA did match and I never heard back - so no idea what happened there.

This article about hair DNA testing is very interesting:

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...na-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples

Especially this bit:
"Peroxides, one of the main constituent chemicals in hair dyes, heavily contribute to the degradation of DNA in hair. Peroxides act by specifically breaking the phosphodiester bonds in DNA. Once the hair is exposed to water on washing, the DNA is easily washed out of the hair fibers. The higher the number of washes, the more DNA is lost from the hairs. This loss of DNA is not only due to the degradation and breaking down of the phosphodiester bonds in DNA but also to the damage caused to the hair by simply washing it."

So the one thing (bleaching) that could have dated the blood in the car (hence making the case a slam-dunk) also probably destroyed the DNA to prove it (if the CM article is wrong). Ironic and very devastating to the case.

Even so, IMHO the prosecution has not emphasised the hair (and the blood) enough. We would still have evidence of very very recent bleaching. The bleaching can be confirmed by microscope – it creates significant changes to the surface and thickness of the hair - and they would have other hair of Allison's to compare with - from her (I hate typing this) corpse. Prosecution could have brought in a forensics person to compare the hair with her known hair on parameters other than DNA (IDK, structure, appearance, colour shade shown to be the exact same with a colour spectrometer etc).

They've had 2 years to send a bit of the hair to America or wherever the extra clever science people are for super-dooper advanced DNA testing. They might have been able to make a mitochondrial DNA match and then exclude Allison's brother and sister by visuals. They might have been able to chemically match product (hairspray or serum) used by the hairdresser. They could have brought in a blood spatter expert (like Australia's answer to Dexter perhaps) to talk more about the blood pattern and what scenarios it did and did not indicate.

All 'what ifs' that we may find out if they really tried hard on this after the trial, or never. :banghead:
 
I keep thinking of legal shows on TV and the other side jumping up shouting "Objection! Relevance! "

Guess it doesn't really happen :)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not when you are trying to give him enough rope.........
 
I questioned Kate Kyriacou (Courier mail reporter/best tweeter for the trial) about the hair last Wednesday evening. I explained why it crucially dated the time the blood dripped in the car.

She replied (surprisingly promptly, what a lovely lady!) saying she thinks perhaps the hair was not DNA-matched and she vaguely recalled Amanda Reeves (forensics expert) mentioning how difficult it was to get DNA from hair (although no tweets with #badenclay record such testimony from anyone). I replied with the link to her (with others) article stating that it was:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...his-wife-allison/story-fnihsrf2-1226948779375

Attributed to Todd Fuller in his opening address:

"He said a hair attached to the blood stain was later confirmed with DNA as belonging to Ms Baden-Clay."

She said she would check if they have reported incorrectly. As of now the article still states the hair DNA did match and I never heard back - so no idea what happened there.

This article about hair DNA testing is very interesting:

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...na-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples

Especially this bit:
"Peroxides, one of the main constituent chemicals in hair dyes, heavily contribute to the degradation of DNA in hair. Peroxides act by specifically breaking the phosphodiester bonds in DNA. Once the hair is exposed to water on washing, the DNA is easily washed out of the hair fibers. The higher the number of washes, the more DNA is lost from the hairs. This loss of DNA is not only due to the degradation and breaking down of the phosphodiester bonds in DNA but also to the damage caused to the hair by simply washing it."

So the one thing (bleaching) that could have dated the blood in the car (hence making the case a slam-dunk) also probably destroyed the DNA to prove it (if the CM article is wrong). Ironic and very devastating to the case.

Even so, IMHO the prosecution has not emphasised the hair (and the blood) enough. We would still have evidence of very very recent bleaching. The bleaching can be confirmed by microscope – it creates significant changes to the surface and thickness of the hair - and they would have other hair of Allison's to compare with - from her (I hate typing this) corpse. Prosecution could have brought in a forensics person to compare the hair with her known hair on parameters other than DNA (IDK, structure, appearance, colour shade shown to be the exact same with a colour spectrometer etc).

They've had 2 years to send a bit of the hair to America or wherever the extra clever science people are for super-dooper advanced DNA testing. They might have been able to make a mitochondrial DNA match and then exclude Allison's brother and sister by visuals. They might have been able to chemically match product (hairspray or serum) used by the hairdresser. They could have brought in a blood spatter expert (like Australia's answer to Dexter perhaps) to talk more about the blood pattern and what scenarios it did and did not indicate.

All 'what ifs' that we may find out if they really tried hard on this after the trial, or never. :banghead:

Thanks for this MB, very interesting. I've been wrong all the time as I always thought that to easily get a DNA result from hair you needed the follicle. I've learnt something here, although I think it's pretty telling that the hair was stuck in the blood. Unless it was flying around in the car and happened by coincidence to land in the wet blood to stick, how else would it get there? I wish more attention was given to this in court.
 
Two observations which I don't recall being mentioned so far - and maybe just because they are so obvious...


GBC's testimony about Allison's supposed episodes of incapacitating depression is not just to try to establish the possibility of suicide - he talks about it emphasising the impact on her mothering. This IMHO is to counter the case against suicide being 'she never would have left her children' by also trying to make her look like a bad mother.

There is a massive disconnect between GBC's testimony of how he treated Allison (like a princess) and how he treated Toni (worse than an unpaid prostitute). A man who respects women does not do this. Hopefully the jury will pick up on this - if it's true then all it shows is a man with a madonna/*advertiser censored* complex. And the jury has Toni's testimony and Allison's diary to show he's lying anyway.
 
I questioned Kate Kyriacou (Courier mail reporter/best tweeter for the trial) about the hair last Wednesday evening. I explained why it crucially dated the time the blood dripped in the car.

She replied (surprisingly promptly, what a lovely lady!) saying she thinks perhaps the hair was not DNA-matched and she vaguely recalled Amanda Reeves (forensics expert) mentioning how difficult it was to get DNA from hair (although no tweets with #badenclay record such testimony from anyone). I replied with the link to her (with others) article stating that it was:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...his-wife-allison/story-fnihsrf2-1226948779375

Attributed to Todd Fuller in his opening address:

"He said a hair attached to the blood stain was later confirmed with DNA as belonging to Ms Baden-Clay."

She said she would check if they have reported incorrectly. As of now the article still states the hair DNA did match and I never heard back - so no idea what happened there.

This article about hair DNA testing is very interesting:

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...na-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples

Especially this bit:
"Peroxides, one of the main constituent chemicals in hair dyes, heavily contribute to the degradation of DNA in hair. Peroxides act by specifically breaking the phosphodiester bonds in DNA. Once the hair is exposed to water on washing, the DNA is easily washed out of the hair fibers. The higher the number of washes, the more DNA is lost from the hairs. This loss of DNA is not only due to the degradation and breaking down of the phosphodiester bonds in DNA but also to the damage caused to the hair by simply washing it."

So the one thing (bleaching) that could have dated the blood in the car (hence making the case a slam-dunk) also probably destroyed the DNA to prove it (if the CM article is wrong). Ironic and very devastating to the case.

Even so, IMHO the prosecution has not emphasised the hair (and the blood) enough. We would still have evidence of very very recent bleaching. The bleaching can be confirmed by microscope – it creates significant changes to the surface and thickness of the hair - and they would have other hair of Allison's to compare with - from her (I hate typing this) corpse. Prosecution could have brought in a forensics person to compare the hair with her known hair on parameters other than DNA (IDK, structure, appearance, colour shade shown to be the exact same with a colour spectrometer etc).

They've had 2 years to send a bit of the hair to America or wherever the extra clever science people are for super-dooper advanced DNA testing. They might have been able to make a mitochondrial DNA match and then exclude Allison's brother and sister by visuals. They might have been able to chemically match product (hairspray or serum) used by the hairdresser. They could have brought in a blood spatter expert (like Australia's answer to Dexter perhaps) to talk more about the blood pattern and what scenarios it did and did not indicate.

All 'what ifs' that we may find out if they really tried hard on this after the trial, or never. :banghead:

Thank you so much for your detailed response Mumma Bear! I guess the fact that it's confirmed as ABC's hair and blood in a VERY new car in a VERY unusual place for a driver to bleed (eg boot cargo) should be a good piece of compelling evidence for the jury. :praying:
 
Officer, “Thank you for being so helpful.* We are trying to formulate a plan to search for her.* It is difficult, we don’t really have a defined starting time.* What was Allison wearing?”

GBC, “Grey pants, it has been cool in the mornings.”

She was in her pj's watching the footy show last time he saw her. If your wife was gone when you woke up out walking would be only one possible reason surely: gone to get milk : dash to the chemist : friend in crisis : watering a friend's plants : feeding a horse : ducked over to the office : photographing the sunrise.
No. Out walking in Katie's XXL tracky-dacks because it's cool in the morning.
I think officer hooked him on a throw-away question.
 
Thanks for this MB, very interesting. I've been wrong all the time as I always thought that to easily get a DNA result from hair you needed the follicle. I've learnt something here, although I think it's pretty telling that the hair was stuck in the blood. Unless it was flying around in the car and happened by coincidence to land in the wet blood to stick, how else would it get there? I wish more attention was given to this in court.

Even it it was flying around the car (e.g. from when Allison drove home from the hairdresser that night) and then stuck in the blood, it still dates the blood to that night as it would not stick into dry blood.
 
Thank you so much for your detailed response Mumma Bear! I guess the fact that it's confirmed as ABC's hair and blood in a VERY new car in a VERY unusual place for a driver to bleed (eg boot cargo) should be a good piece of compelling evidence for the jury. :praying:

NB While the courier mail article states the hair was DNA-matched to Allison, the author of that article thinks it may have been a mistake in the article - but not confirmed either way yet.
 
Thanks for this MB, very interesting. I've been wrong all the time as I always thought that to easily get a DNA result from hair you needed the follicle. I've learnt something here, although I think it's pretty telling that the hair was stuck in the blood. Unless it was flying around in the car and happened by coincidence to land in the wet blood to stick, how else would it get there? I wish more attention was given to this in court.


To be devils advocate, even if you proved that hair was hers and had just been coloured, she could have shed it in the car on the way home from the hairdresser.

Then even if the blood came from her body in the boot, when the boot was shut a gust of air moved through the car and the hair shed on the way home blew there.

It may not have been shed at the same time as the bleeding is my point.

To be devils advocate again, when you arrange that extra row of seats in the back, is there anything you could possibly catch your finger on and rip the nail slightly leading to a little flow of blood down the side? Then shut the boot and the hair blows there and sticks.

Not saying this happened, just one reason I am concerned that not enough forensics tie back to GBC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
2,461
Total visitors
2,650

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,662
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top