GBC Trial General Discussion Thread #4

[JK673]

The first info the police got about what Allison was wearing that night was the first interview with the then 10 year old daughter - I've just searched back through the trial thread for the 11th. GBC was not asked by police in his recorded interview in the morning.

With full access to the house at that point, the police could have looked for the pyjamas straightaway. And yet the pyjamas (lack of) have not been reported in the testimony of any of the relevant police officers - I've checked.

I'm worried the police have dropped the ball on this one by not looking and it's too late now obviously. I wonder if GBC's silly reply to the "where are the pjs?" question was a little bit cocky (rather than evasive) as he knew there was no testimony re the pjs at that point.

Again....like I have stated numerous times before QPS are well known to be very competent criminal investigators.....no pjs means they have been disposed of...which is why the Prosecution asked GBC where they were

 

[Her Honour]

This is why I like websleuths.
:yourock:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, me too. It's great to have a forum in which to discuss this case; it's stranger than fiction, has all the human elements which make your heart just bleed with regret and is really enlightening as to the workings of our justice system. Yet, no-one but you peeps seems to want to discuss it in the minute detail required. Or they are asleep from my banging on about it...

I know I keep coming back to GBC's credibility, but the defence case stands or falls on it. Two other members (so sorry I can't remember who now) said it better: one that the sole purpose of GBC's four (or was it 104?) days in the stand was, seemingly, to convince us of what a successful liar he'd been and the other that his evidence consisted of 'well, you see, that truth was a truth, the other a lie, that lie the truth and the other a lie'. Spot on and not so much what you'd hope to be hearing escape the lips of your star witness, I think.

Can I also just say (again) that y'all are so eloquent and often laughoutloud funny? That might sound flippant, but humour has certainly helped me process the more unpalatable details of the case and it sounds like in her element, the victim was a lot of FUN and full of LIFE. I'm sure her absence is a gaping wound in the lives of her family and friends

May ALL involved be given the strength they'll need to get through the coming days and thanks in advance to our unpaid Court Reporters *advertiser censored*

 

[Snails]

Lols you two! I may or may not be wearing black and I'm also not at all depressed! But I will be wearing a small yellow ribbon. I have lightish coloured short hair and am average height and weight (oops, this might be deleted, sorry mods.) What time are you planning to be there? I'll try to keep seats for you if I get there before you, fingers crossed. It's a really important day so am looking forward to sharing it with you.

I will be on the lookout. Hope to be there by 10 am at the latest. I was going to catch a train to Roma Street but I might cab it now.

 

[JCB]

When I get home from work tomorrow evening we may have a verdict. If the jury go with the general feel of this forum and with the opportunity of seeing GBC first hand, the Kholo bridge, the house, the agreed facts and having a birds eye view of all the witnesses they come to and "undeniable truth" then I respect their decision. My feeling is there will need to be a lot of discussion within the jury to iron out the possible theories and conflicting evidence. I would personally feel better if it did take them a reasonably long time to arrive at a guilty verdict so I know they have carefully considered the evidence. The recent trial of Rolf Harris took several days to reach a verdict. The jury did come back with questions and wanting to review a video. They obviously laboured conscientiously to view and discuss the evidence and come up with a unaminous verdict. I trust the current jury will do the same. As I said earlier today, I am very glad it is not me on the jury struggling with what is reasonable doubt. It would take me a long time to carefully view all the evidence to be sure I was making the right decison. Although I struggle to come to grips with the fact GBC may have smothered Alison in their bed while their children slept and heard nothing, I really struggle to come up with an alternative, logical, hypothesis that may explain the known facts.

I think the earliest you will see a verdict is late Tuesday at the earliest but more than likely Wednesday onwards. Closing arguments and directions to the jury are going to take significant time and as has been said, it's not a simple case of "raise your hands if..." and getting 12 hands straight away. Generally speaking an early return (say within in the first day) generally favours acquittal but the longer deliberations take the better chance you have of a conviction (or a hung jury for that matter). If the jury returns within the first day of deliberations I fear the worst unfortunately.

 

[Cattail]

Have spent a good part of the afternoon reading through the various threads and keeping myself updated on the latest goings on and I have to say if nothing else, these threads are a fascinating microcosm of the human psyche.

<modsnip>.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows exactly what was going through the mind of Allison immediately before her death, and indeed throughout her entire relationship with GBC. This includes medical professionals who have personally treated Allison, while they are in the best position to make assessments I can tell you from personal experience that some people are reluctant to share their most intimate thoughts and feelings, even with health professionals. There are any number of reasons why information may be withheld or less than truthful answered proffered - The patient may believe it is irrelevant, feel ashamed or may even fear involuntary committal. Again, it is my belief that nobody is qualified to answer on Allison's behalf or make suppositions that she would, or would not do a particular act.

Anyway with that aside, I believe that the prosecution is up the proverbial without a paddle and let me preface this by reminding some who may not be aware of my position - I believe that it is likely that Allison has met with foul play and if that is indeed the case, their is a high likelihood that GBC was involved. However on the evidence adduced at trial, I feel it falls well short of the standard required to convict on either charge.

Obviously at the forefront of the case is whether or not Allison was in fact the victim of a homicide. The prosecution hypothesis is that she was asphyxiated but this hypothesis has seemingly been arrived at by eliminating other potential causes of death including but not limited to - drowning, major trauma caused by a fall and poisoning. The prosecution led no evidence to support their assertion besides the elimination of other possibilities, there was no defining physical or pathological evidence of asphyxiation and no "weapon" has been located. Asphyxiation appears likely but on the evidence led could I be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that is the case? In my personal opinion, no.

Early on the prosecution relied on evidence that screams were heard in the vicinity of the BC household but to their credit, they presented a witness at late notice who essentially debunked the relevance to Allison's disappearance. Of course they have a legal duty to present all relevant evidence to the court but it is always nice to see, particularly when it's so potentially injurious to the prosecution case (brickbats to the investigators who totally ignored the initial statement btw). If there was more than 1 scream, Bruce Flegg later cast considerable doubt it's relevance as well as well as it bordering on absurd that Allison's 3 daughters did not hear a thing despite claims that the screams were heard several kilometers away.

Blood in the Captiva - Worthy of investigation? Absolutely but as was stated during the trial, it is impossible to determine the age of the blood transfer and the volume of blood required to make such a transfer. Furthermore there were no physical injuries found on Allison's body that would seemingly be consistent with this scenario and no alternative theory was put forward as to how the blood arrived to be there. Therefore I cannot place any significance on the blood stain.

The plant remnants found on Allison's body and clothing, this is an area where I think the investigators made a huge blunder. All of the plants found, while being present in and around the Baden-Clay property are all extremely common plants. The botanist who visited Kholo Creek to see if all of the plants were present in the area where Allison was found admitted that he searched only for live specimens, not leaf litter or debris and he did so only 50 metres upsteam and 50 metres downstream of the bridge (albeit with the aid of binoculars). Kholo Creek and it's numerous tributaries extend amount to tens of kilometers of waterways upsteam, the vast majority not being visible from the botanist's perspective even with the aid of binoculars. Should any of those plants grow in the vast waterways upstream, it is obvious that debris from the could have found their way downstream (adding to his admission that at least 1 plant variety was commonly spread long distances by the wind alone). Adding to that, as Kholo Creek is tidal, the leaves and branches could have come from literally anywhere along the Brisbane River and it's catchments, and I don't need to tell you how vast that area is. Investigators needed to conduct a much more thorough survey of the area in my opinion.

Tying in to the above, the hydrologist called gave evidence that even disregarding the heavy rain that fell in the area in the days prior to Allison's discovery, the tidal heights at the time were significant enough to cover Allison's body. Early on in the trial local residents gave evidence that the flow of the river was much higher and faster than usual due to the rainfall so it makes sense that this flow would have carried a significant amount of debris from the catchment. It even gives rise to the possibility, although discounted by the hydrologist (who admitted he had no idea of the flow following the rain), that perhaps the flow moved Allison's body to her final resting place. Given that the area is popular amongst canoeists, is it coincidence that her body was discovered immediate after the heavy rain? Presumably canoeists were in the vicinity fairly frequently, could it be that they missed seeing Allison's body because it wasn't actually there until after the heavy rain? Obviously this doesn't in any way discount the possibility of foul play but it's not inconceivable that Allison's body was left in a different area than where it was found.

Under cross examination the prosecution relied heavily on highlighting GBC's infidelities and financial position. Without doubt they painted a picture of a deceptive and manipulative person but I can guarantee that had any one of us been subject to 2 years of intense scrutiny by investigators that a skilled prosecutor would make us look like absolute monsters on the stand. Yes, GBC did some things that most would consider distasteful to say the least but every single one of us has skeletons in the closet that we would prefer the world not to know about.

While statistics on such activities are understandably unreliable, a large percentage of people have either conducted or at least considered extra marital/relationship affairs (in that they admit they would have an affair if there was a guarantee that they would not be caught). One study that I have seen quoted that figure at ~70% for both men and women (lest this become a male bashing exercise). Of the 12 jurors, statistically there will be numerous adulterers among them. This is where I believe Fuller QC may have made a slight error in judgement in hammering GBC on his infidelities, I can easily picture someone on the jury who has had an affair (or has considered one) and said to themselves "hey, I've done/thought of that but I am certainly not capable of killing my spouse". As for alleged misrepresentations of his financial affairs, I'm sure every one of us has been guilty at one point of either under or over stating our financial position. GBC seems to genuinely believe that his business was turning a corner, some may call that deluded (and you may well be right) but my feeling is that GBC genuinely thought that this was the case. The ever so eloquent "bones of my...." comment seems to indicate otherwise but aside from that he seemed to have some confidence, as presumably did his investors.

The seemingly imminent crossing of the paths of Allison and Toni at the conference didn't really strike a chord with me, I understand that others may take a different view of this but I cannot see this as being motive for murder.

Which brings us to the obvious, the facial scratches and other wounds. As a male no, they do not look like any injury I've ever caused myself while shaving but I have seen some friends give themselves surprisingly substantial injuries whilst shaving (much to the amusement of myself and others at the time!). I'm totally willing to concede that they could be fingernail scratches, in fact it seems likely but with so little other supporting evidence? Allison's DNA was extracted from the fingernail swabs conducted, given the extent of the injuries to GBC's face (and to a lesser degree, his neck) it would seem that a significant amount of material of which DNA could be extracted from would have been on Allison's fingernails. The witness who conducted the swab did explain that DNA will degrade upon exposure to the elements which would explain why secondary DNA could not be found, yet Allison's DNA was still present. Without going into gory detail, it's possible that the fingernails contained a larger amount of "testable matter" where they were previously attached to her fingers and therefore was less susceptible to decay by the elements but I don't believe it was sufficiently explored for me to say with confidence that GBC's DNA would almost certainly have either disappeared or decayed to a level where comparison was not possible.

Apologies for the novel and as always, my opinion only but purely on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (which is what matters to the jury), I could not say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I expect that he will be acquitted If I had to put a number on it I'd say something along the lines of 80% acquittal, 10% hung jury and 10% guilty.

Thank you. I know you are not a verified legal person but I find your posts very easy to understand and informative at the same time.

I have to agree with you in the subject of mental health and a lack of understanding. 3 years ago I may have been the same. Having my son fall victim to depression and tell me of suicidal feelings has led me to try and educate myself in this area as best I can.

I have made sure to say I have ruled out suicide in this case based on the physical evidence of the location of the body. Nothing else to me definitively rules out suicide. I can tell you that my son will not tell medical people of the suicidal feelings that he has confessed to me.

People who suicide are not bad people. Not weak people. Not uncaring people. Just people with problems. To say Allison was too strong for that and loved her girls too much - it is in some ways a disservice to the many souls we have lost to suicide.

Having said all that my gut screams guilty to me in this case. I worry about the lack of physical evidence which you have pointed out.


I hope above all else that justice is done here. And in my gut that means I hope for a guilty verdict.

Thanks again for your educated opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cattail]

Lol - I'll be wearing mostly black too and I'm not one bit depressed!

I would like to thank all of you who are giving your time to attend court and report back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anemone]

Hi Kiwi, I was there at 8:15am last Monday and there were about 50/60 people in front of me in the queue. The doors opened at 8:30am and the line moved in fairly quickly. Many must have wanted to be in the main court room, as I and other WS friends ended up first in one of the two overflow rooms on Level 6. However, as tomorrow involves closing statements it might be a bit different.

They used a larger room for 'overflow' at the end of last week, but you're still going to have to be there early. My guess is many more will turn up tomorrow. It's going to be a big day! When you get in, go up to Level 6 to the Overflow Room/s. Level 5 is where the actual case is taking place, but most are respecting this room for family and friends. It's up to you though.

Good luck - you won't regret the experience to be there and see/hear so much more than you do via media

Hi bellgirl, thanks for the tip. When you speak of overflow rooms, is the larger room which apparently seats 250 (normally used for ceremonies?) also on level 6? TIA.

 

[Humdinger]

Supersmartstonecoldfox
I just love that new word. Say it out loud. It makes you feel good.

And, ......Supersmartstonecoldfox Fuller is up against Cunningconnivingcraftycowardboldfacedliar.

No I just like the original; supersmartstonecoldfox. Gives me a big confidence boost, and a wry smile. Reminds me just who is in charge. Supersmartstonecoldfox is calling the shots, thank-you.

We need to get this trending on twitter #supersmartstonecoldfox haha love it!

 

[Her Honour]

Yes, me too.

Oh, never fear, he will. One of our best and brightest. Cuts right to the heart of the matter and has a super dry sense of humour when called for. Firm but fair.

 

[possumheart]

He knew the area, I bought my house from him, just down the road. Pretty sure he had properties in neighbouring mt. Crosby, so he definitely went over kholo bridge. The house he talks about that he attended the siege at, was even closer to kholo bridge. No reasonable doubt, he's a liar

Indeed

 

[marlywings]

Adding in the following for any members who may not have read our rules...

Contacting other members to meet in Real Life:

While members are always free to contact each other to meet in person, via telephone, or in other ways, Websleuths will in no way be responsible for any actions or events arising from such contact. Websleuths staff does not read or otherwise monitor Private Messages and has no way to monitor private emails, telephone calls or other such communications. It is up to each individual member to decide if they desire such contact and the resultant loss of anonymity. Websleuths neither condemns nor condones such meetings and it is up to the individual members to decide if they wish to get together.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iquette-amp-Information&p=8364858#post8364858

 

[Mumma Bear]

Again....like I have stated numerous times before QPS are well known to be very competent criminal investigators.....no pjs means they have been disposed of...which is why the Prosecution asked GBC where they were

Yes, but my point is there was no reported* testimony from the police as to whether they had been looked for, found, or not found. I also checked the agreed facts - not in there.

Just asking GBC isn't nearly enough for the prosecution make the point - and it seems it wouldn't have come up at all if GBC had decided not to testify!

*Operative word there being 'reported' so if anyone who was actually there and recalls mention of pjs by investigators on the stand please post!

 

[Anemone]

Oh, never fear, he will. One of our best and brightest. Cuts right to the heart of the matter and has a super dry sense of humour when called for. Firm but fair.

That is really good to hear, Her Honour. I'm very much looking forward to hearing his comments in court tomorrow, as up until now he has (understandably) been quiet although no doubt playing close attention to the proceedings.

 

[bellgirl]

Hi bellgirl, thanks for the tip. When you speak of overflow rooms, is the larger room which apparently seats 250 (normally used for ceremonies?) also on level 6? TIA.

Hi Anemone, the trial is on Level 5 - don't know the room number. Our Overflow Rooms were 17 and 18 on Level 6. I think that the larger room is also on Level 6, but as soon as you get through the main entrance just ask. I found the admin staff to be lovely - very accommodating and understanding of public interest.

 

[JCB]

<modsnip>

But surely labeling one as a murderer even before the jury has retired is a prime example of what I am trying to say?

As for misrepresenting our financial positions, I do not mean this in a deceptive, fraudulent or even conscious way. How many of you have told the fundraisers who corral you in shopping centres that you don't have any cash on you? How about beggars? What about people who apply for a mortgage in the misguided belief that they have the capacity to meet their repayments should interest rates fluctuate? When you were younger, did you ever tell your mates that you couldn't go out because you were broke simply because you didn't want to go out? These are but a few examples, I could pull out a hundred more and I would be gobsmacked, absolutely astounded, if every adult in this country had not at one point or another lied (or were totally ignorant) about their finances.

 

[Trooper]

When I get home from work tomorrow evening we may have a verdict. If the jury go with the general feel of this forum and with the opportunity of seeing GBC first hand, the Kholo bridge, the house, the agreed facts and having a birds eye view of all the witnesses they come to and "undeniable truth" then I respect their decision. My feeling is there will need to be a lot of discussion within the jury to iron out the possible theories and conflicting evidence. I would personally feel better if it did take them a reasonably long time to arrive at a guilty verdict so I know they have carefully considered the evidence. The recent trial of Rolf Harris took several days to reach a verdict. The jury did come back with questions and wanting to review a video. They obviously laboured conscientiously to view and discuss the evidence and come up with a unaminous verdict. I trust the current jury will do the same. As I said earlier today, I am very glad it is not me on the jury struggling with what is reasonable doubt. It would take me a long time to carefully view all the evidence to be sure I was making the right decison. Although I struggle to come to grips with the fact GBC may have smothered Alison in their bed while their children slept and heard nothing, I really struggle to come up with an alternative, logical, hypothesis that may explain the known facts.

I would be very surprised if the jury went into consultation before Wednesday... I cant imagine that Mr Fuller, or Mr Boyle would take less than a whole day, possibly more to go thru Gerards entire body of the crime.. Gerard himself started his testimony with his childhood, so its reasonable to suppose that the Prosecution wont start too far from that point as well. I cant even guess how long Mr Byrne will take in his closing statement for the defence.. 10 mins , being cynical, but probably a morning, at least..

 

[Happygolucky]

Have spent a good part of the afternoon reading through the various threads and keeping myself updated on the latest goings on and I have to say if nothing else, these threads are a fascinating microcosm of the human psyche.

<modsnip>

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows exactly what was going through the mind of Allison immediately before her death, and indeed throughout her entire relationship with GBC. This includes medical professionals who have personally treated Allison, while they are in the best position to make assessments I can tell you from personal experience that some people are reluctant to share their most intimate thoughts and feelings, even with health professionals. There are any number of reasons why information may be withheld or less than truthful answered proffered - The patient may believe it is irrelevant, feel ashamed or may even fear involuntary committal. Again, it is my belief that nobody is qualified to answer on Allison's behalf or make suppositions that she would, or would not do a particular act.

Anyway with that aside, I believe that the prosecution is up the proverbial without a paddle and let me preface this by reminding some who may not be aware of my position - I believe that it is likely that Allison has met with foul play and if that is indeed the case, their is a high likelihood that GBC was involved. However on the evidence adduced at trial, I feel it falls well short of the standard required to convict on either charge.

Obviously at the forefront of the case is whether or not Allison was in fact the victim of a homicide. The prosecution hypothesis is that she was asphyxiated but this hypothesis has seemingly been arrived at by eliminating other potential causes of death including but not limited to - drowning, major trauma caused by a fall and poisoning. The prosecution led no evidence to support their assertion besides the elimination of other possibilities, there was no defining physical or pathological evidence of asphyxiation and no "weapon" has been located. Asphyxiation appears likely but on the evidence led could I be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that is the case? In my personal opinion, no.

Early on the prosecution relied on evidence that screams were heard in the vicinity of the BC household but to their credit, they presented a witness at late notice who essentially debunked the relevance to Allison's disappearance. Of course they have a legal duty to present all relevant evidence to the court but it is always nice to see, particularly when it's so potentially injurious to the prosecution case (brickbats to the investigators who totally ignored the initial statement btw). If there was more than 1 scream, Bruce Flegg later cast considerable doubt it's relevance as well as well as it bordering on absurd that Allison's 3 daughters did not hear a thing despite claims that the screams were heard several kilometers away.

Blood in the Captiva - Worthy of investigation? Absolutely but as was stated during the trial, it is impossible to determine the age of the blood transfer and the volume of blood required to make such a transfer. Furthermore there were no physical injuries found on Allison's body that would seemingly be consistent with this scenario and no alternative theory was put forward as to how the blood arrived to be there. Therefore I cannot place any significance on the blood stain.

The plant remnants found on Allison's body and clothing, this is an area where I think the investigators made a huge blunder. All of the plants found, while being present in and around the Baden-Clay property are all extremely common plants. The botanist who visited Kholo Creek to see if all of the plants were present in the area where Allison was found admitted that he searched only for live specimens, not leaf litter or debris and he did so only 50 metres upsteam and 50 metres downstream of the bridge (albeit with the aid of binoculars). Kholo Creek and it's numerous tributaries extend amount to tens of kilometers of waterways upsteam, the vast majority not being visible from the botanist's perspective even with the aid of binoculars. Should any of those plants grow in the vast waterways upstream, it is obvious that debris from the could have found their way downstream (adding to his admission that at least 1 plant variety was commonly spread long distances by the wind alone). Adding to that, as Kholo Creek is tidal, the leaves and branches could have come from literally anywhere along the Brisbane River and it's catchments, and I don't need to tell you how vast that area is. Investigators needed to conduct a much more thorough survey of the area in my opinion.

Tying in to the above, the hydrologist called gave evidence that even disregarding the heavy rain that fell in the area in the days prior to Allison's discovery, the tidal heights at the time were significant enough to cover Allison's body. Early on in the trial local residents gave evidence that the flow of the river was much higher and faster than usual due to the rainfall so it makes sense that this flow would have carried a significant amount of debris from the catchment. It even gives rise to the possibility, although discounted by the hydrologist (who admitted he had no idea of the flow following the rain), that perhaps the flow moved Allison's body to her final resting place. Given that the area is popular amongst canoeists, is it coincidence that her body was discovered immediate after the heavy rain? Presumably canoeists were in the vicinity fairly frequently, could it be that they missed seeing Allison's body because it wasn't actually there until after the heavy rain? Obviously this doesn't in any way discount the possibility of foul play but it's not inconceivable that Allison's body was left in a different area than where it was found.

Under cross examination the prosecution relied heavily on highlighting GBC's infidelities and financial position. Without doubt they painted a picture of a deceptive and manipulative person but I can guarantee that had any one of us been subject to 2 years of intense scrutiny by investigators that a skilled prosecutor would make us look like absolute monsters on the stand. Yes, GBC did some things that most would consider distasteful to say the least but every single one of us has skeletons in the closet that we would prefer the world not to know about.

While statistics on such activities are understandably unreliable, a large percentage of people have either conducted or at least considered extra marital/relationship affairs (in that they admit they would have an affair if there was a guarantee that they would not be caught). One study that I have seen quoted that figure at ~70% for both men and women (lest this become a male bashing exercise). Of the 12 jurors, statistically there will be numerous adulterers among them. This is where I believe Fuller QC may have made a slight error in judgement in hammering GBC on his infidelities, I can easily picture someone on the jury who has had an affair (or has considered one) and said to themselves "hey, I've done/thought of that but I am certainly not capable of killing my spouse". As for alleged misrepresentations of his financial affairs, I'm sure every one of us has been guilty at one point of either under or over stating our financial position. GBC seems to genuinely believe that his business was turning a corner, some may call that deluded (and you may well be right) but my feeling is that GBC genuinely thought that this was the case. The ever so eloquent "bones of my...." comment seems to indicate otherwise but aside from that he seemed to have some confidence, as presumably did his investors.

The seemingly imminent crossing of the paths of Allison and Toni at the conference didn't really strike a chord with me, I understand that others may take a different view of this but I cannot see this as being motive for murder.

Which brings us to the obvious, the facial scratches and other wounds. As a male no, they do not look like any injury I've ever caused myself while shaving but I have seen some friends give themselves surprisingly substantial injuries whilst shaving (much to the amusement of myself and others at the time!). I'm totally willing to concede that they could be fingernail scratches, in fact it seems likely but with so little other supporting evidence? Allison's DNA was extracted from the fingernail swabs conducted, given the extent of the injuries to GBC's face (and to a lesser degree, his neck) it would seem that a significant amount of material of which DNA could be extracted from would have been on Allison's fingernails. The witness who conducted the swab did explain that DNA will degrade upon exposure to the elements which would explain why secondary DNA could not be found, yet Allison's DNA was still present. Without going into gory detail, it's possible that the fingernails contained a larger amount of "testable matter" where they were previously attached to her fingers and therefore was less susceptible to decay by the elements but I don't believe it was sufficiently explored for me to say with confidence that GBC's DNA would almost certainly have either disappeared or decayed to a level where comparison was not possible.

Apologies for the novel and as always, my opinion only but purely on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (which is what matters to the jury), I could not say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I expect that he will be acquitted If I had to put a number on it I'd say something along the lines of 80% acquittal, 10% hung jury and 10% guilty.

Edit - There are other matters I have not addressed but I've omitted them to keep the length to a short novel, no doubt I'll explore them shortly, in particular how Allison could have possibly arrived at that location without GBC's involvement and the plausibility of GBC being able to, without a single person noticing, murder Alison, drag her through the house or yard, load her into the car and drive off, much less placing him at any point on the 30-40km round trip at the time in question.

Edit again - Excuse the typos, can't be bothered going back to fix them all!

Thanks for this summary. I believe you have clearly detailed some of my misgivings regards the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Do you or any Websleuths you any knowledge, opinion regards the onboard computers built into Captivas? Do they give detailed information regards mileage and time of journeys? They were mentioned in a previous post but info on the internet was scare.

 

[Cattail]

Yes, but my point is there was no reported* testimony from the police as to whether they had been looked for, found, or not found. I also checked the agreed facts - not in there.

Just asking GBC isn't nearly enough for the prosecution make the point - and it seems it wouldn't have come up at all if GBC had decided not to testify!

*Operative word there being 'reported' so if anyone who was actually there and recalls mention of pjs by investigators on the stand please post!

Yes Mumma Bear I agree. This struck me as something that the prosecutor thought of on the spot - not something that had been investigated before.

Was there ever a house search for these pyjamas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cattail]

I would be very surprised if the jury went into consultation before Wednesday... I cant imagine that Mr Fuller, or Mr Boyle would take less than a whole day, possibly more to go thru Gerards entire body of the crime.. Gerard himself started his testimony with his childhood, so its reasonable to suppose that the Prosecution wont start too far from that point as well. I cant even guess how long Mr Byrne will take in his closing statement for the defence.. 10 mins , being cynical, but probably a morning, at least..

Too long and they may lose members of the jury. Concise and to the point will serve either side best in my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trooper]

But surely labeling one as a murderer even before the jury has retired is a prime example of what I am trying to say?

As for misrepresenting our financial positions, I do not mean this in a deceptive, fraudulent or even conscious way. How many of you have told the fundraisers who corral you in shopping centres that you don't have any cash on you? How about beggars? What about people who apply for a mortgage in the misguided belief that they have the capacity to meet their repayments should interest rates fluctuate? When you were younger, did you ever tell your mates that you couldn't go out because you were broke simply because you didn't want to go out? These are but a few examples, I could pull out a hundred more and I would be gobsmacked, absolutely astounded, if every adult in this country had not at one point or another lied (or were totally ignorant) about their finances.

BBM.... the only people who are obliged to believe Gerards tale NOW THAT HIS TRIAL HAS BEGUN is his defence team.. they are contracted to present his story.. in fact, they don't have to believe it to present it. One is entitled to a reasonable serve of belief, and this is why a trial is being held at our expense.. we decide to give Gerard a good chance of explaining himself. Once his trial begins, Gerard occupies no mans land. It is not rational practice to suspend belief for an extended amount of time. Not being on the jury, I am not obliged to maintain a fixed and stubborn belief in the face of evidence presented..

as for the rest of your claims there. (a)no .. and (b) no.. and (c)no.. and (d) no. That you would be astounded in no way makes it untrue.. it only makes it astounding to you.