NO BAIL! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#29

[SapphireSteel]

What a great idea - and aren't there giant sunflowers that are really tall?

Not such a great idea, but a great thought.

reasons -

1. sunflowers require staking.
2. they are not native and could turn into yet another exotic weed choking our waterways.

 

[mel-lou]

I have a theory, it wasn't just about the insurance money, but perhaps Allison was also going to expose a double life, not just the mistresses...but men he had been sleeping with...I heard a rumor...and it's just a rumour...friend of a friend who knows a cop...said that GBC had affairs with men also...now that wouldn't surprise me, and I seem to recall in previous threads people mentioning this being a possibility...perhaps the thought of that part getting exposed was too much for him to bear, that would really REALLY embarrass him and damage the so called high social status he thought he had...

 

[FirstTimer]

Cracks me up how GBC supporters focus on the rumours and gossip while they discount the evidence gathered and subsequently released thus far.

Where as anyone with any sense sees it all for what it is.

 

[CaseClosed]

Yup - agree completely. I was just making the point that those injuries would still be visible.

My own thoughts are that she was hidden further upstream, most likely at the scout camp, having been taken there by vehicle, given that GBC would know that camping area - and its fringes - very well. The creek runs through there. If she had been either buried (shallow) or otherwise left under some dense scrub on the banks of the creek, it would be quite feasible for her to have been washed downstream as the creek level rose a lot over that weekend with all the rain we had.

The creek takes an almost 90 degree bend to its right to pass under the road bridge and then empty into the Brisbane River, and a body would quite feasibly have been washed onto, and up, the bank on the outside radius of that bend - the bank where she was found. And the bridge supports, or possibly vegetation roots, could have snagged her there. Another few metres and she would have been in the main stream of the Brisbane River, and could have ended up anywhere.

It seems that insurance claim was first and foremost on his mind, hence the body needed to be found sooner rather than later. I don't believe the body was hidden or buried, because it appears the perp wanted the money quickly. IMO.

 

[Opinionsgalore]

Cracks me up how GBC supporters focus on the rumours and gossip while they discount the evidence gathered and subsequently released thus far.

Where as anyone with any sense sees it all for what it is.

The page says 'fictional charachter'. I think the page is perhaps meant as more of a joke, I'm just waiting to hear the punch line


IMO
JMO
MOO

 

[LauraMars]

If Doc Watson is around, or anyone else who might be able to answer, how easy/hard would it be to detect drowning as the cause of death, considering the state of decomposition of the body? Would the lungs etc also be quite decomposed, as would the outside of the body?

I've just been wondering if that's a likely COD, for a few reasons...

1 - It would be much harder to fight off an attacker if you were in the bath, both with the position and being put under water

2 - The killer could have thought placing her body in water after the fact (if in fact it was submerged in the creek) might hide a drowning at home

3 - Assuming it's true that the children were at home that night, drowning would be a lot quieter, ie. pretty hard to scream under water

4 - Drowning may not show much, if any, in the way of external injuries

5 - Also, it could point to him dressing her afterwards, unless he was going to dispose of a naked body, and with this means of death, there wouldn't be evidence of death on whatever clothes she may have been wearing at the hairdressers, and probably no need to get rid of the 'before the event' clothes

I know it's a horrible subject, just the whole COD thing has me, and obviously so many others baffled.

 

[FirstTimer]

The page says 'fictional charachter'. I think the page is perhaps meant as more of a joke, I'm just waiting to hear the punch line

Punch line = Century 21 years to life...........................

 

[Opinionsgalore]

Punch line = Century 21 years to life...........................

Rofl


IMO
JMO
MOO

 

[brookster]

I have a theory, it wasn't just about the insurance money, but perhaps Allison was also going to expose a double life, not just the mistresses...but men he had been sleeping with...I heard a rumor...and it's just a rumour...friend of a friend who knows a cop...said that GBC had affairs with men also...now that wouldn't surprise me, and I seem to recall in previous threads people mentioning this being a possibility...perhaps the thought of that part getting exposed was too much for him to bear, that would really REALLY embarrass him and damage the so called high social status he thought he had...

+

Thank you for this appleblossom

GBC actually has ONE supporter on this page - a person who goes by the modest "Nom de prat" of "Greatestbloke Ever". His facebook friends seem to include a high proportion of ladies with big titties that they like to show off.
GBE (Greatestbloke Ever) appears to follow Websleuths and believes that it is a forum of bitter and twisted women.
I can assure him that the men and women on Websleuths are intelligent, articulate and funny and many have big titties too. :crazy:

+ "Greatestbloke Ever"'s fb user's name

+ "Greatestbloke Ever"'s attitude towards women (degrading, disrespectful, resentful...)

+ "Greatestbloke Ever" complete support of gbc

+ tendency for "birds of a feather" to flock together

= interesting

moo-moo-moo

 

[DrWatson]

If Doc Watson is around, or anyone else who might be able to answer, how easy/hard would it be to detect drowning as the cause of death, considering the state of decomposition of the body? Would the lungs etc also be quite decomposed, as would the outside of the body?

I've just been wondering if that's a likely COD, for a few reasons...

1 - It would be much harder to fight off an attacker if you were in the bath, both with the position and being put under water

2 - The killer could have thought placing her body in water after the fact (if in fact it was submerged in the creek) might hide a drowning at home

3 - Assuming it's true that the children were at home that night, drowning would be a lot quieter, ie. pretty hard to scream under water

4 - Drowning may not show much, if any, in the way of external injuries

5 - Also, it could point to him dressing her afterwards, unless he was going to dispose of a naked body, and with this means of death, there wouldn't be evidence of death on whatever clothes she may have been wearing at the hairdressers, and probably no need to get rid of the 'before the event' clothes

I know it's a horrible subject, just the whole COD thing has me, and obviously so many others baffled.

Hi Laura M. Just saw your post between doing other stuff.

Drowning would still be apparent as the cause of death, and the type of water in the lungs would also indicate the likely site - eg bath vs creek. The lungs would still be intact.
The degree of decomposition would also be dependent on the ambient temperature, and if she was in cool running water for some or a lot of that time, the decomposition would be quite different from that seen in somebody that had been buried, or lying out in the sun, for example.

As has been posted before, there is a LOT of information still to be released from the autopsy, much of which will give us a lot more clues as to where and how she died.

 

[LauraMars]

Thanks Doc, much appreciated.

Do you mean the decomposition would be less if placed in cool running water, rather than not in any water/buried/left above ground etc?

I've only read a little on this, and I found conflicting info, some saying decomp is faster in water, and some saying the opposite, hence my confusion.

Out of interest, how long does it generally take for internal organs to start decomposing to the point where it's hard to ascertain anything?

 

[Aussie_expat.sg]

Hi Laura M. Just saw your post between doing other stuff.

Drowning would still be apparent as the cause of death, and the type of water in the lungs would also indicate the likely site - eg bath vs creek. The lungs would still be intact.
The degree of decomposition would also be dependent on the ambient temperature, and if she was in cool running water for some or a lot of that time, the decomposition would be quite different from that seen in somebody that had been buried, or lying out in the sun, for example.

As has been posted before, there is a LOT of information still to be released from the autopsy, much of which will give us a lot more clues as to where and how she died.

Great having you and your expertise here Dr Watson! thank you

 

[DrWatson]

Thanks Doc, much appreciated.

Do you mean the decomposition would be less if placed in cool running water, rather than not in any water/buried/left above ground etc?

I've only read a little on this, and I found conflicting info, some saying decomp is faster in water, and some saying the opposite, hence my confusion.

Out of interest, how long does it generally take for internal organs to start decomposing to the point where it's hard to ascertain anything?

Maybe I was a little ambiguous there. What I was getting at was the cooling effect of the water - which is usually in running water. Stagnant water tends to warm up to the same temperature as the ambient temp.

The decomposition seen after prolonged immersion is different from that seen in bodies buried or just laying in dry conditions.

The internal organs would take a much longer time to decompose, and that is more a function of bacterial decomposition and "organolysis". But we're talking 2-4 weeks for that to occur to a major extent.

In general terms - and we're getting a bit gruesome here I guess - a body that is buried tends to last longer. Next would be a body in water, and a body left lying out in the air would decompose the most quickly. Again, factors such as ambient temperature, humidity, etc would all come into play.

Sorry for getting into the nitty gritty bits there.....

 

[factfinda]

Maybe I was a little ambiguous there. What I was getting at was the cooling effect of the water - which is usually in running water. Stagnant water tends to warm up to the same temperature as the ambient temp.

The decomposition seen after prolonged immersion is different from that seen in bodies buried or just laying in dry conditions.

The internal organs would take a much longer time to decompose, and that is more a function of bacterial decomposition and "organolysis". But we're talking 2-4 weeks for that to occur to a major extent.

In general terms - and we're getting a bit gruesome here I guess - a body that is buried tends to last longer. Next would be a body in water, and a body left lying out in the air would decompose the most quickly. Again, factors such as ambient temperature, humidity, etc would all come into play.

Sorry for getting into the nitty gritty bits there.....

Loving your contributions Doc! It's great to have this kind of expert info about the medical side of things.

 

[appleblossom]

If Doc Watson is around, or anyone else who might be able to answer, how easy/hard would it be to detect drowning as the cause of death, considering the state of decomposition of the body? Would the lungs etc also be quite decomposed, as would the outside of the body?

I've just been wondering if that's a likely COD, for a few reasons...

1 - It would be much harder to fight off an attacker if you were in the bath, both with the position and being put under water

2 - The killer could have thought placing her body in water after the fact (if in fact it was submerged in the creek) might hide a drowning at home

3 - Assuming it's true that the children were at home that night, drowning would be a lot quieter, ie. pretty hard to scream under water

4 - Drowning may not show much, if any, in the way of external injuries

5 - Also, it could point to him dressing her afterwards, unless he was going to dispose of a naked body, and with this means of death, there wouldn't be evidence of death on whatever clothes she may have been wearing at the hairdressers, and probably no need to get rid of the 'before the event' clothes

I know it's a horrible subject, just the whole COD thing has me, and obviously so many others baffled.

Another theory... pretty graphic though.

I also wondered if she came home from the hairdressers, ran a nice warm bath and then Gerard came in and held her under while she scratched at him trying to be released.

Maybe he grabbed her by the hair on the back of her head and pushed her face downwards hard in the water and chipped her tooth on the bottom of the bath and broke her nose which gushed with blood. Once drowned pulled her out of the bath, wrapped her bleeding head in towels laid her on her back while he dressed her in walking gear. While the blood pooled to the back of the nose/throat?

Then put her in the back of the car, and the towels became loose and the combination of the water in the lungs and the blood from the back of the nose/throat came streaming out all over the back of the car.

Hopefully if this is the case, as the doc says, they will find chlorinated bath water in the lungs instead of creek water.

 

[Mani]

Cracks me up how GBC supporters focus on the rumours and gossip while they discount the evidence gathered and subsequently released thus far.

Where as anyone with any sense sees it all for what it is.

Which GBC supporters are you talkin' bout First Timer?

 

[LauraMars]

Maybe I was a little ambiguous there. What I was getting at was the cooling effect of the water - which is usually in running water. Stagnant water tends to warm up to the same temperature as the ambient temp.

The decomposition seen after prolonged immersion is different from that seen in bodies buried or just laying in dry conditions.

The internal organs would take a much longer time to decompose, and that is more a function of bacterial decomposition and "organolysis". But we're talking 2-4 weeks for that to occur to a major extent.

In general terms - and we're getting a bit gruesome here I guess - a body that is buried tends to last longer. Next would be a body in water, and a body left lying out in the air would decompose the most quickly. Again, factors such as ambient temperature, humidity, etc would all come into play.

Sorry for getting into the nitty gritty bits there.....

Thanks Doc

I guess if it was drowning, it doesn't explain the blood in the car.

It will be interesting to see what the autopsy results reveal.

 

[Mani]

Thanks Doc

I guess if it was drowning, it doesn't explain the blood in the car.

It will be interesting to see what the autopsy results reveal.

Also - Doc, given the amount of luminol showing blood in the car - does it look like a lot of blood to your eyes?

 

[appleblossom]

Maybe the 12.30am call was to EBC... Mummy how do you get blood out of carpet?

 

[BJsleuth]

If Doc Watson is around, or anyone else who might be able to answer, how easy/hard would it be to detect drowning as the cause of death, considering the state of decomposition of the body? Would the lungs etc also be quite decomposed, as would the outside of the body?

I've just been wondering if that's a likely COD, for a few reasons...

1 - It would be much harder to fight off an attacker if you were in the bath, both with the position and being put under water

2 - The killer could have thought placing her body in water after the fact (if in fact it was submerged in the creek) might hide a drowning at home

3 - Assuming it's true that the children were at home that night, drowning would be a lot quieter, ie. pretty hard to scream under water

4 - Drowning may not show much, if any, in the way of external injuries

5 - Also, it could point to him dressing her afterwards, unless he was going to dispose of a naked body, and with this means of death, there wouldn't be evidence of death on whatever clothes she may have been wearing at the hairdressers, and probably no need to get rid of the 'before the event' clothes

I know it's a horrible subject, just the whole COD thing has me, and obviously so many others baffled.

It's hard to detect and is only determined by exclusion, but holding a person may leave marks depending where they were held under and how tight/hard. There's no reliable test for it.