The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 1st July - Trial Day 13, Week 3

[LauraT]

I have one of those singlets with built in bras...no support whatsoever. I think she probably changed into this when she got home to lounge around in but really doubt that it would provide enough support for exercising in....

 

[Her Honour]

Proving myself also to be reasonably unreliable with a FOURTH post...my thoughts on today:

1. Getting Nicked For Dummies: One should never, ever, smile, much less LAUGH while being cross-examined in one's murder trial. He (apparently) did so a couple of times today, at important junctures. V. bad effect.

2. Poor Alioop's off making dinner (like I just was: Dinner? You want dinner? Again?) but she nailed it when she commented that the real danger looming in GBC's 'mind' might have been Allison 2.0 confronting Toni the following day rather than (as seemed to be the focus previously) the other way around. I think it's important that GBC added, almost as a throwaway, to 'I had no concern', that 'Allison had probably anticipated that Toni would be at that conference anyway'. So too the unnecessary admission that he suggested Allison treat herself to 'a coffee' after her hair appointment. It's well established now that he did little without an underlying, self-serving purpose. Why does he need, that particular night, Allison out any longer than she'd already been? He had gone to great pains to keep the two women at arms length. Of COURSE they would, at the very least, have clocked each other at that conference. It's not Vegas (despite the nickname). I think he was panicking alright. His real fear of the rekindled affair being discovered the very next day is starting to make a lot of sense as a very compelling and critically, time sensitive motive.

3. In that regard, my spidey senses start to tingle each time GBC protesteth too much. I think a pattern can now be identified whereby whenever he adds an adjective to a denial ('absolutely not', 'completely untrue', 'not at all' etc), he is particularly defensive about the preceding question. Try it out next time.

4. Life insurance. I think there was a fairly blatant attempt to fox the jury in this regard. Yes, insurers require NOTIFICATION of an event relevant to any policy, but barring any unusual clause in the particular policy, generally notification must occur within a 'reasonable' time. Allison was the insured. So the 'obligation' to which NBC allegedly referred to NOTIFY the insurer of an event relevant to the policy was hers. Upon her death, that obligation would have transferred to her estate/executor (then GBC, I am supposing). So far, NBC and GBC correct. However, I believe the event (death) was notified uncommonly quickly. And, there is CERTAINLY no 'OBLIGATION', at law, to make a CLAIM on the policy, which is what was being done. The alacrity of the making of the claim suggests, of course, the moolah was required urgently, but to me also suggests there MIGHT have been a concern as to the future standing of GBC to make the claim at all.

Apologies for the ramble. At least you can't hear me from the 'sidelines'. I really was in two minds prior to today, but I found GBC's evidence today fatally flawed. I should think the prosecution, while not yet knocking off early to go to the pub, would be pretty pleased with the way it all came out today.

P.S. DrWatson, if you indeed look like Jonathan LaPaglia in blue scrubs, please don same and head to your nearest McDonalds forthwith. I will be the redhead in librarian glasses avoiding the coffee.

 

[Thinking]

I think I'm too heavily invested in this case.

I suspect like a few others at this time I feel like vomiting with the excitement ( that seems like such the wrong word to use )

We have been waiting for this day for so long. For it to happen on Alison's birthday is a miracle.

I know what you mean wwgy. It is like FINALLY he is having to answer the hard questions after two long years, finally!

 

[Neuromancer]

Trooper? Where are you? I've missed your thoughts and input?

Yeah where's Trooper? They missed their golden hour! >.<

 

[Lu-Lu]

Right! I mean right hand!

Thank you. :tyou:

 

[Her Honour]

OH and about those pyjamas, don't be surprised if Mr Fuller does not revisit them (he may), but I think as important as their whereabouts is GBC's evidence as to whether he even looked for them THAT DAY. His repeated 'can't see them in the picture' was terrible. Just terrible. Eventually said he didn't know where they were but they've got him on that: he didn't look and it is one of the first things anyone in his position would do.

 

[Snails]

Kate Kyriacou @KateKyriacou · 33s
Fuller asks whether Gerard saw Allison's pyjamas anywhere when he woke up. Gerard says they're not in the photo. #badenclay

I wonder where they are???

 

[Neuromancer]

-----
My bold...



The socks Allison had on were not the socks she was wearing when found.

Autopsy Report: Clothing -
They were described as short white socks with a darker band at the top.

So where are the blue hiking socks?
Are they in the picture?

There is a details description that GBC gave to Police (I think) when describing what ABC might have been wearing - it may be around the time of the mannequin when the search for Allison was active. (I don't know where to find that - if someone can help)

But what gets me is that he said ABC was wearing a singlet (and I think the colour was mentioned by GBC prior).
Allison was wearing a purple singlet with incorporated bra. It had thin straps. It was under her BONDs jumper - not a singlet top that could be seen.

How did he know this?

.

yes and in the first police interview he says "she has a singlet top.. um..." like he nearly says "she has a singlet top ON" and stops himself

 

[Neuromancer]

And given that (from my memory) it was unusually cold in April that year, Allison was allegedly wearing Gerard's' socks, why would she change them to normal socks? I'm only bringing up this point because I'm sitting here wearing thick socks and it's bloody cold in the western suburbs tonight and when I needed to drive to the shops I kept my thick socks on and squeezed my feet into my runners. And both are still on as I type this.

Yes i remember it was cold too

maybe too hard to squeeze those thick socks into runners, and he thought leaving his socks on her might incriminate him.

also just thought - if she was just wearing socks when stuff went down, that would have increased her risk of slipping on the floor and falling over in a scuffle.

 

[Neuromancer]

Gerard says he went to bed at 10pm and woke at 6am. He got 8 hrs sleep!
So why did he sound sleep deprived when he was speaking to the police?
He did a lot of mumbling and umming that morning.

very true

 

[Mumma Bear]

I hope Fuller is saving up two gems from Allison's journal - these will be harder for GBC to put his little spin on:
- the won't hug me one.
- the won't make love to me one.

 

[AAAA]

Proving myself also to be reasonably unreliable with a FOURTH post...my thoughts on today:

1. Getting Nicked For Dummies: One should never, ever, smile, much less LAUGH while being cross-examined in one's murder trial. He (apparently) did so a couple of times today, at important junctures. V. bad effect.

2. Poor Alioop's off making dinner (like I just was: Dinner? You want dinner? Again?) but she nailed it when she commented that the real danger looming in GBC's 'mind' might have been Allison 2.0 confronting Toni the following day rather than (as seemed to be the focus previously) the other way around. I think it's important that GBC added, almost as a throwaway, to 'I had no concern', that 'Allison had probably anticipated that Toni would be at that conference anyway'. So too the unnecessary admission that he suggested Allison treat herself to 'a coffee' after her hair appointment. It's well established now that he did little without an underlying, self-serving purpose. Why does he need, that particular night, Allison out any longer than she'd already been? He had gone to great pains to keep the two women at arms length. Of COURSE they would, at the very least, have clocked each other at that conference. It's not Vegas (despite the nickname). I think he was panicking alright. His real fear of the rekindled affair being discovered the very next day is starting to make a lot of sense as a very compelling and critically, time sensitive motive.

3. In that regard, my spidey senses start to tingle each time GBC protesteth too much. I think a pattern can now be identified whereby whenever he adds an adjective to a denial ('absolutely not', 'completely untrue', 'not at all' etc), he is particularly defensive about the preceding question. Try it out next time.

4. Life insurance. I think there was a fairly blatant attempt to fox the jury in this regard. Yes, insurers require NOTIFICATION of an event relevant to any policy, but barring any unusual clause in the particular policy, generally notification must occur within a 'reasonable' time. Allison was the insured. So the 'obligation' to which NBC allegedly referred to NOTIFY the insurer of an event relevant to the policy was hers. Upon her death, that obligation would have transferred to her estate/executor (then GBC, I am supposing). So far, NBC and GBC correct. However, I believe the event (death) was notified uncommonly quickly. And, there is CERTAINLY no 'OBLIGATION', at law, to make a CLAIM on the policy, which is what was being done. The alacrity of the making of the claim suggests, of course, the moolah was required urgently, but to me also suggests there MIGHT have been a concern as to the future standing of GBC to make the claim at all.

Apologies for the ramble. At least you can't hear me from the 'sidelines'. I really was in two minds prior to today, but I found GBC's evidence today fatally flawed. I should think the prosecution, while not yet knocking off early to go to the pub, would be pretty pleased with the way it all came out today.

P.S. DrWatson, if you indeed look like Jonathan LaPaglia in blue scrubs, please don same and head to your nearest McDonalds forthwith. I will be the redhead in librarian glasses avoiding the coffee.

Thanks so much for your post, very insightfull. I hope you hang around until the end.

 

[sosocurious]

GBC didn't tell the police on the morning of 20 April that he was still in contact with Toni because he anticipated that Allison was going to walk back through the door.
What did he think? --- That the police were going to say good your back did you know Ger is still in contact with Toni.
Why did he tell them about the affair at all at that point?

 

[Susan12]

I believe that the blood in the car was a result of her head hitting the interior of the car when being loaded into it. Unconscious bodies are very limp and very floppy, very hard to control (I know this from moving my euthanized pet). I also think this is where the chipped tooth occurred. The blood came from either the tooth piercing the lip or from a blood nose which would definitely explain a rivulet type flow in situ. I believe that the perp either suffocated or rendered the victim temporarily unconscious using a choke hold at the family home.I reckon that the victim regained consciousness and tried to defend herself at or near the scene of her death at Kholo Creek. I don't think that the perp realised that his victim had bled therefore he overlooked the need to 'clean' the car?

Love your thinking that's excellent about how the blood might have gotten in the car and the chipped tooth. I'm not sure I think she was only unconscious when she was put in the car though.

It may be sadly that he did kill her but that he didn't really plan to and thought because of the affair people would think it was on purpose and hid her, caring more about himself than anything else. My reasons for thinking it had been planned were around hearing he'd tried to call the insurance company the week before but hadn't been allowed to but now I'm not sure if that's true or considered evidence?

 

[Susan12]

I pretty much agree. Particularly about the blood. Back in the day i actually researched effects of smothering and also strangulation and found some good medical sites which outlined clinically what would happen after the death by those means. Bleeding from the mouth can occur a bit later, so he might not have noticed any blood at the time, but it started to happen after she'd been wrapped in something or whatever and loaded into the car. In the dark of night when he was trying not to attract any attention he probably wouldnt have seen it. Alternatively her head could have been scraped on the ground or cement of the carport, and sustained an injury when she was possibly being dragged into the car.

It all fits in with the fact that the children last saw the boxes of toys inside the house and suddenly they appeared in the back of the car - his attempt to quickly cover up when he realised there was blood there and had no time to clean it up.

Ooh ooh, I agree. The bleeding from the mouth could explain the jumper around the head, trying to absorb the bleeding.

So the boxes weren't always in the car, I hope Fuller brings that up tomorrow.

 

[BigT]

"Mr BC, who has helped you in the commission of this murder, it is way too sophisticated for you to complete on your own, isn't it"?

"No one helped me,.... Errr I mean ummmmm......

 

[Neuromancer]

Proving myself also to be reasonably unreliable with a FOURTH post...my thoughts on today:

[...]

3. In that regard, my spidey senses start to tingle each time GBC protesteth too much. I think a pattern can now be identified whereby whenever he adds an adjective to a denial ('absolutely not', 'completely untrue', 'not at all' etc), he is particularly defensive about the preceding question. Try it out next time.

4. Life insurance. I think there was a fairly blatant attempt to fox the jury in this regard. Yes, insurers require NOTIFICATION of an event relevant to any policy, but barring any unusual clause in the particular policy, generally notification must occur within a 'reasonable' time. Allison was the insured. So the 'obligation' to which NBC allegedly referred to NOTIFY the insurer of an event relevant to the policy was hers. Upon her death, that obligation would have transferred to her estate/executor (then GBC, I am supposing). So far, NBC and GBC correct. However, I believe the event (death) was notified uncommonly quickly. And, there is CERTAINLY no 'OBLIGATION', at law, to make a CLAIM on the policy, which is what was being done. The alacrity of the making of the claim suggests, of course, the moolah was required urgently, but to me also suggests there MIGHT have been a concern as to the future standing of GBC to make the claim at all.

Glad you're sticking around HH - enjoying your posts

Yes protestething too much indeed

today I noticed how he's suddenly trying really really hard to deny that he was under any financial stress at all. Like he's suddenly realising that - "omg - they might think I'm not so totally awesome after all and there's a chance I killed her for the insurance!!11!"
Not the fastest boat in the race, our GBC"

 

[Zim]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/18/article-2660905-1EE07E1500000578-802_634x410.jpg

I thought he was right handed ? If this was done with a screw driver it would have damaged his left hand....No ?

 

[kiwijayne]

Do you think the trial will still be going next week? I can't go till then.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Proving myself also to be reasonably unreliable with a FOURTH post...my thoughts on today:
............................................
2. Poor Alioop's off making dinner (like I just was: Dinner? You want dinner? Again?) but she nailed it when she commented that the real danger looming in GBC's 'mind' might have been Allison 2.0 confronting Toni the following day rather than (as seemed to be the focus previously) the other way around. I think it's important that GBC added, almost as a throwaway, to 'I had no concern', that 'Allison had probably anticipated that Toni would be at that conference anyway'. So too the unnecessary admission that he suggested Allison treat herself to 'a coffee' after her hair appointment. It's well established now that he did little without an underlying, self-serving purpose. Why does he need, that particular night, Allison out any longer than she'd already been? He had gone to great pains to keep the two women at arms length. Of COURSE they would, at the very least, have clocked each other at that conference. It's not Vegas (despite the nickname). I think he was panicking alright. His real fear of the rekindled affair being discovered the very next day is starting to make a lot of sense as a very compelling and critically, time sensitive motive. I think, you are right! I would like to learn of his greatest fear: Allison knowing the scam first or TMcH knowing the scam first??? Both versions would have ended badly.

3. In that regard, my spidey senses start to tingle each time GBC protesteth too much. I think a pattern can now be identified whereby whenever he adds an adjective to a denial ('absolutely not', 'completely untrue', 'not at all' etc), he is particularly defensive about the preceding question. Try it out next time. I think, you are right!!
....................................
P.S. DrWatson, if you indeed look like Jonathan LaPaglia in blue scrubs, please don same and head to your nearest McDonalds forthwith. I will be the redhead in librarian glasses avoiding the coffee.

Nice!

rsbm + bbm