I heard that too, he also apparently kept saying he had sore ribs, but they couldn't find much wrong with him, perhaps trying to blame the scratch marks on the 'accident' .
A case which is based largely or exlcusively on circumstantial evidence is much more difficult for prosecutors. If there is insufficient direct evidence (such as DNA, eye witnesses, finger prints, CCTV footage) to convince the DPP that there is a good chancce to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then a trial will not take place. It may well costs ,illions of dollars and if unsuccessful will generally mean that the accused person(s) cannot be charged again. Where a person is charged solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence a jury must be convinced that the only expalanation consistent with that evidence is the guilt of the person charged. Circumstantial evidence is rarely that strong. It wll often be enough to make it highly likely that the accused committed the offence and be enough to make them liable for civil action, and to make them guilty in the eyes of the media and public. If the accused is acquitted in such circumstances then the very media outlets and public who demanded quick, and often premature, action will be out for the prosecution's blood.
People are only human and people blab, even cops.
HAWKINS: Thank you for bridging our gaps in knowledge again. Timely and constructive.There are generally seven ways in which a person may be held criminally responsible for an offence in Qld. Five of those appear most relevant to this alleged homicide. The Criminal Code provides that when an offence (such as murder) is committed, any and all of the following people may be charged with the murder:
The person(s) who actually committed the murder
Any person who aided the principal offender
Any person who enabled the principal offender to commit the offence
Any person who counselled the principal offender to commited the offence
Any person who procured the principal offender to commited the offence
An aider is usually physically present when the murder is carried out. They could hold the victim down or restrain them. They could simply be physically present and by that presence give encouragment and tacit support to the actual killer.
An enabler is not usually present at the time of the murder, but does something which helps the principal offender. They might provide the weapon, keep a lookout, clean up the scene, lure the victim to the murder location etc.
A counsellor is a person who advises the principal offender to carry out the murder and may offer advice as to how to carry it out.
A procurer is a person who obtains the assistance of another person to do the actual killing.
If investigators come across a fact and evidentiary scenario in which a number of these heads of complicity may be involved, then the investigation can be very complex and demanding in terms of time and resources. Witness statements, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence must all be collated and cross-checked and any inconsistencies resolved before charges are laid. If more than one offender is to be charged with the offence then the subsequent trials will usually be held concurrently. That is there will be a single court trial in which all those charged will appear in the dock at the same time, usually represented by separate lawyers, or at least separate barristers. Such a trial can be very demanding on all involved and the prosecution team will need a significant amount of time to prepare, as will the defence. The potential for errors and ommissions is significant.
Once a single person is charged, the dynamcis of the investigation become much narrower as all those who may be potentially charged are put in 'lock-down' by their own lawyers and the process becomes slower and more demanding still. Multiple lawyers with significant eperience will be watching for every potential breach of procedure and of the laws of evidence.
An interesting case in Tasmania recently may convince prosecutors to rely on circumstantial evidence more than they have in the past. The jury in R v Blyth Neill-Fraser convicted the defendent without a body or forensic evidence. The verdict was subsequently upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Whilst not binding in Queensland, the decision of the CCA could have significant impact on cases such as this one , where circumstantial evidence may be heavily relied upon. IMO
I think I've read every post on here over the past few days and now find myself checking this thread before my emails
Are you allowed to post on gossip ?? If not please feel free to remove this as I am not sure on what is allowed.
a) ABC was found with hand/s missing (info from Brookfield resident)
b) ABC was having an affair. Her husband had been doing the same for years. (this info was from a friend of her family)
If you go to youtube and watch the interview of him with the media where his sister is standing beside him you will notice that he shakes his head in a NO manner whilst saying
"helped the police as much as he can" which suggests to me that he knows more than he is willing to share and is blatantly lying. His sister is also biting her lower lip which suggests being nervous. And the "Thankyou, I'm sorry" comment, this made me feel uncomfortable.
His family has not shown any signs of distress, well anything that has been captured by the media either through photos or video footage.
And whats with that big pash by the inlaws NBC and EBC ????
does anyone else think allisons eyes look incredibly sad in this photo?
as though she has a broken heart and has suffered for years but holding it all together.
her girls would have been such a source of happiness for her
i cant copy and paste the photo but here is the link to it. it has been used a lot by the press, maybe it was the most recent photo of her given by the family to the police/press
http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/top/perth-now/hundreds-farewell-allison-baden-clay/665713
Just to keep my sanity somewhat (and maybe make it less painful for Kimster and Nurse Bee) I have made a chronology of what I think we know definitely (ie that can be substantiated by either the police, public statements by friends and or other links)
Please feel free to add subtract or correct.
April 19
-GBC was due to attend Kenmore CC meeting at 7 am. No conformation if he attended.
-around 9 am GBCmade purchase at chemist. Chemist made statement to police
-Cross country race atchildren's school at which both GBCand ABCattended
- ABC goes to hairdresser statingthat'shehas night off as children are at sleepover 'hairdresser interviewed by police.
- ABC speaks to best friend over phone and says she will drop in on Friday after Pathways conference
-10 pm Argument overheard by neighbours, scream and muffled scream heard, dog barking loudly
April 20
-witness sees two 4wds, one white and smaller blue one , white one with parking lights, bluenose full lights, at around 4am near Anstead 2 km from Kholo Creek Bridge
- 7.30 am GBC reports ABC missing to police
-police declare crime scene and impound both vehicles
-GBC engages lawyer
- GBC observed with scratches to face and torso
April 22
- GBCcrashes friend's car
April 22- 25
-GBC engages solicitor
- female colleague engages lawyer
April 30-now
- police keep asking anyone who saw anything suspicious near roundabout between 11 pm on April 19 and 4.30 am April 20 to contact them.
If any Qld ambo relayed that info to anyone else, they would surely lose their job. They are bound by strict rules.
I have seen air bag break nose when deployed in an accident. It doesn't just pop out.:moo:
Can we concentrate a bit on about how Allison's phone is missing. Surely, a phone is missing because it fell, was thrown, was stolen, or something else. Now, why, oh why would it be left on?
This is a SUPER CRITICAL point that keeps the husband out of it & I'm pretty positive that QPS thinks exactly the same thing as I do. So how about all of us put our theories forward to help them out....because some of you are really very clever.
The phone: Was still on, not in water, was in the area of Brookfield/Pullenvale. So, my theory is that it fell when she had been tackled or run over and that the person who did that to her didn't even notice that she had a phone on her....probably he went back to look for it and can't find it either. So, if you see a car stopping at the side of the road looking for something or someone in a park looking for something....could be the person you're looking for and near the spot where Allison went missing/was run over on her walk!
The missing phone also discounts any theory of suicide- because the phone would be wet if she jumped from a bridge and would not work...........& I'd like to see what forensics come up with!!
I have seen air bag break nose when deployed in an accident. It doesn't just pop out.:moo:
HAWKINS: We wish to avoid premature action. Many would like to see Justice done and the perpetrator(s) successfully convicted and sentenced. We do not want millions of dollars wasted and the work of many detectives, police officers, forensic investigators etc wasted.A case which is based largely or exlcusively on circumstantial evidence is much more difficult for prosecutors. If there is insufficient direct evidence (such as DNA, eye witnesses, finger prints, CCTV footage) to convince the DPP that there is a good chancce to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then a trial will not take place. It may well costs ,illions of dollars and if unsuccessful will generally mean that the accused person(s) cannot be charged again. Where a person is charged solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence a jury must be convinced that the only expalanation consistent with that evidence is the guilt of the person charged. Circumstantial evidence is rarely that strong. It wll often be enough to make it highly likely that the accused committed the offence and be enough to make them liable for civil action, and to make them guilty in the eyes of the media and public. If the accused is acquitted in such circumstances then the very media outlets and public who demanded quick, and often premature, action will be out for the prosecution's blood.
Have you been following the Singh murders case. Defence only needs to create "reasonable doubt".:banghead:
Just to keep my sanity somewhat (and maybe make it less painful for Kimster and Nurse Bee) I have made a chronology of what I think we know definitely (ie that can be substantiated by either the police, public statements by friends and or other links)
Please feel free to add subtract or correct.
April 19
-GBC was due to attend Kenmore CC meeting at 7 am. No conformation if he attended.
-around 9 am GBC made purchase at chemist. Chemist made statement to police
-Cross country race atchildren's school at which both GBC and ABC attended
- ABC goes to hairdresser stating that'shehas night off as children are at sleepover 'hairdresser interviewed by police.
- ABC speaks to best friend over phone and says she will drop in on Friday after Pathways conference
-10 pm Argument overheard by neighbours, scream and muffled scream heard, dog barking loudly
April 20
-witness sees two 4wds, one white and smaller blue one , white one with parking lights, bluenose full lights, at around 4am near Anstead 2 km from Kholo Creek Bridge
- 7.30 am GBC reports ABC missing to police
-police declare crime scene and impound both vehicles
-GBC engages solicitor
- GBC observed with scratches to face and torso
April 22
- GBCcrashes friend's car
April 22- 25
-GBC engages barrister
- female colleague engages lawyer
April 30-now
- police keep asking anyone who saw anything suspicious near roundabout between 11 pm on April 19 and 4.30 am April 20 to contact them.
True, but it also depends on your hight and the way your sitting and the seats. When I had a car accident, my airbag deployed, hit me straight in the chest I had serious bruising for weeks, it also cut one of my wrists. If I was shorter, perhaps it would of hit me in the face?
Can we concentrate a bit on about how Allison's phone is missing. Surely, a phone is missing because it fell, was thrown, was stolen, or something else. Now, why, oh why would it be left on?
This is a SUPER CRITICAL point that keeps the husband out of it & I'm pretty positive that QPS thinks exactly the same thing as I do. So how about all of us put our theories forward to help them out....because some of you are really very clever.
The phone: Was still on, not in water, was in the area of Brookfield/Pullenvale. So, my theory is that it fell when she had been tackled or run over and that the person who did that to her didn't even notice that she had a phone on her....probably he went back to look for it and can't find it either. So, if you see a car stopping at the side of the road looking for something or someone in a park looking for something....could be the person you're looking for and near the spot where Allison went missing/was run over on her walk!
The missing phone also discounts any theory of suicide- because the phone would be wet if she jumped from a bridge and would not work...........& I'd like to see what forensics come up with!!