Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #48

Status
Not open for further replies.

Makara

Former Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
7,107
Reaction score
80
Driving down to see the gold coast lawyer would be my guess. You can see the towers along the way on the phone records as they were travelling.

Yes Alioop, that's my assumption also. Attached is a map showing the location of each tower according to the pings from GBC's phone record on 20 April 2012.

Interestingly GBC had ceased calling Allison's mobile at 3:45pm on 20 April. Immediately after that call he phoned TM twice in quick succession and then down the highway he went to meet his new solicitor while making the following calls. It seems that he really wanted to keep TM in the loop as to what he was doing.

At 5:02pm GBC calls his solicitor.

At 5:14pm he calls TM.

At 5:30pm he calls his solicitor.

At 6:38pm he calls OW.

At 6:41pm he calls TM.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9048233&postcount=23"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Bail Hearing Documents *No Discussion*[/ame]


Phone-Pings-20-April-2012.jpg
 

possumheart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
93
Yes Alioop, that's my assumption also. Attached is a map showing the location of each tower according to the pings from GBC's phone record on 20 April 2012.

Interestingly GBC had ceased calling Allison's mobile at 3:45pm on 20 April. Immediately after that call he phoned TM twice in quick succession and then down the highway he went to meet his new solicitor while making the following calls. It seems that he really wanted to keep TM in the loop as to what he was doing.

At 5:02pm GBC calls his solicitor.

At 5:14pm he calls TM.

At 5:30pm he calls his solicitor.

At 6:38pm he calls OW.

At 6:41pm he calls TM.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Bail Hearing Documents *No Discussion*


View attachment 44131

And his longest call at Yatala was back to 18 Olfield Street.
 

LadyBird1

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
942
Reaction score
0
TMH Statement No: 4
Commenced - 26 May 2012
Completed - 2 June 2012

Para 17: GBC mentioned to me on the night of the 19 April 2012 that he was thinking of selling the business.
I did ask him what he was going to do first, leave the marriage or sell the business.
He said "Leave the marriage".

Para 30:
In relation to para 37 (seems to fit more with para 17)
I had not seen GBC in person for approx 3 weeks prior to Thursday 19 April 2012.
I wanted to meet with him in person to have a better understanding of how he felt it was achievable for us to be together.
This meeting never took place.
The last time I saw GBC physically was 3 weeks before Allison disappeared.

And then the very last sentence of statement 4.
para 46: There are no security camera's in my unit block that I am aware of.

1) Did this conversation take place during that phone call about 5pm while GBC was buying sausages for dinner?

2)Did they speak again later that night by phone?

3) Did they physically see each other that night?

A lot occured in the following 10 days.

1) We know from police witness at court that TMH has made statement 5.

2) Tully blog talked of immunity and pending arrest.

3) GBC was arrested for the murder of his wife.

Then of course TMH was escorted to court.

It is quite possible that they truthfully didn't "See each other that night" If it was all dark or with no lighting or whatever, how COULD they "see each other"?
And disregarding dark circumstances, if either party were looking the other way, or had eyes closed or down cast, during a meeting (intimate or not) it could be truthfully said that they hadn't seen each other etc.
 

LadyBird1

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
942
Reaction score
0
Why was TMcH escorted to court?

Josh Rathmell was escorted to & from court in the Gittany case because he was a crucial witness or concern for his welfare.
Would this be the same reason or just to make sure she arrives.

I was quite concerned about the welfare of Josh Rathmell considering the character of Simon Gittany including his past history and also including his cold unsympathetic nature. Simon Gittany showed no remorse, and he showed no sympathy for the deceased victim. His concern always appeared for himself.
His other chief concern was that he would be seen as Innocent. I worried terribly that Josh Rathmell might be made "unable to testify."
These fears become greatest when (and especially) when the "I, My, and Me" appear uppermost in priority.
 

whitechapel

Justice For Allison
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
144
Reaction score
1
TMH Statement No: 4
Commenced - 26 May 2012
Completed - 2 June 2012

The last time I saw GBC physically was 3 weeks before Allison disappeared.

Thanks sosocurious.
If TM did not see GMC physically (note the carefully chosen words 'saw' not 'spoke'), then my guess would be that she saw him after this time with video calls like skype or facetime.

Wasn't there another later statement made by TM that was not published as part of the bail hearing docs?
If so, I think the contents will reveal the true extent of her involvement (plus immunity deal if any) and what GBC told her about that night.

Also it is worth mentioning again (discussed in previous threads) that in the time leading up to the alleged murder, I recall GBC phone records did not show any contact with TM, but afterwards, while Allison was missing, there were plenty.

My Opinion Only...
Due to trust issues, Allison was checking his phone regularly, so he had to be careful about contacting TM. But he knew she would never be able check his phone logs again after she "went for a walk" so he was 'free' to call her and do what he wanted. Business as usual.

MOO IMO etc
 

possumheart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
93
Seriously, Bruce Flegg and Sue Heath were just as passionate about Real Estate as Gerard and TM, who I am sure wished this was them instead. Filmed in 2012. Could have moved G to tears of envy and pleas for $. I bet T and G were sorry to see the money go offshore.

<modsnip>

http://corenyc.com/blog/2013/01/5-things-you-didnt-see-on-this-weeks-selling-new-york-16/

Bruce had to change his shares to property. Pretty exciting.
The Courier-Mail can reveal that Parliament's wealthiest but trouble-prone MP picked up the property shortly before his party cruised to an election victory in March.

The purchase was likely made in anticipation of being a minister, with Dr Flegg forced to unload his share portfolio to meet the ban on Cabinet members dabbling on the stock market.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-housing-minister-bruce-flegg-buys-fifth-avenue-apartment-in-new-york/story-e6freoof-1226431220800

Bruce must have been one very desirable customer to have in March 2012.
 

Kimster

Former Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
58,137
Reaction score
349
Website
www.ufo2001.com
Did I mention our mod team for trial? Can't remember, so I'll mention it again if I haven't. :)

We have Marlywings as point mod, Imamaze, Coldpizza (she's new to you), and myself as your administrator. Summer_breeze may still pop in from time to time, but her new work schedule prevents her from spending as much time with us as she used to have. :sigh:

Be sure to brush up on the rules. Those who have been here from the beginning are now considered to be our veterans in this case and we depend on you to help show the newbies around and answer questions, greet them, and show good ole Websleuths hospitality. :yes:

:cheers:

:gday:
 

Mountain Misst

FA in Aus.
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
1,698
Reaction score
2,261
Website
mountainmisst.com
Thanks MM :)

Interesting - I'd forgotten that in one of the (many) Jayant Patel cases, John Byrne was the judge, and Michael Byrne was Patel's defence counsel. I'm assuming that GBC's Michael Byrne would be the same one, so these two have faced off in court before. And from those links, it appears Judge John Byrne doesn't take any crap from barristers....

Nor the shenanigans that OW got up to on previous court appearances by GBC, we trust. Can't see His Honour allowing OW to rush to the glass cage and carry on like a raw prawn as she did in the hearings.
 

they'll get you

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
14,421
Reaction score
54,754
Nor the shenanigans that OW got up to on previous court appearances by GBC, we trust. Can't see His Honour allowing OW to rush to the glass cage and carry on like a raw prawn as she did in the hearings.

Mmmm raw shenanigans. :)
Speaking to her brother through the glass before the judge comes in should be OK. Surely she would have been advised not to. Could prisoner conversations be taped?
Her confidence is breathtaking. If my brother was going through this I'd be scared as a field mouse and to also speak to the media usually is for the barristers. Just very interesting to me.
 

ozazure

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
168
A question for those in the know : If there were accomplices after the fact, is it unusual they have not been charged with anything? Or is it not unheard of for them to concentrate on the main perp and then turn their sights to them later? Obviously giving them immunity to testify is a recognised scenario. I just don't think TM was involved at all and it is way more likely his father and sister.
 

they'll get you

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
14,421
Reaction score
54,754
A question for those in the know : If there were accomplices after the fact, is it unusual they have not been charged with anything? Or is it not unheard of for them to concentrate on the main perp and then turn their sights to them later? Obviously giving them immunity to testify is a recognised scenario. I just don't think TM was involved at all and it is way more likely his father and sister.

That's been bugging me too ozazure. This is all new to me.
I don't agree anyone should get immunity if they had anything to do with Allison's death, before, during or after.
 

sosocurious

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
6,374
Reaction score
16,299
Thanks sosocurious.
If TM did not see GMC physically (note the carefully chosen words 'saw' not 'spoke'), then my guess would be that she saw him after this time with video calls like skype or facetime.

Wasn't there another later statement made by TM that was not published as part of the bail hearing docs?
If so, I think the contents will reveal the true extent of her involvement (plus immunity deal if any) and what GBC told her about that night.

Also it is worth mentioning again (discussed in previous threads) that in the time leading up to the alleged murder, I recall GBC phone records did not show any contact with TM, but afterwards, while Allison was missing, there were plenty.

My Opinion Only...
Due to trust issues, Allison was checking his phone regularly, so he had to be careful about contacting TM. But he knew she would never be able check his phone logs again after she "went for a walk" so he was 'free' to call her and do what he wanted. Business as usual.

MOO IMO etc

Yes Whitechapel the word physical stood out to me.
A skype call would not be physica would it?
TMH advised in statement 3 that she had deleted material from her i phone and e-mail account.
Her reason for deleting - privacy.
 

Mountain Misst

FA in Aus.
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
1,698
Reaction score
2,261
Website
mountainmisst.com
That's been bugging me too ozazure. This is all new to me.
I don't agree anyone should get immunity if they had anything to do with Allison's death, before, during or after.

Would an alleged murderer need to be found guilty of the crime of murder, before a charge of 'incitement to commit the crime of murder' was laid against someone else? Would make a rather tempting incentive to cooperate if it were.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,932
Reaction score
140,976
That's been bugging me too ozazure. This is all new to me.
I don't agree anyone should get immunity if they had anything to do with Allison's death, before, during or after.


This may be a bit of a dodgy link, but in this book &#8220;A Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law&#8221; it says that some statutes exempt family members from accessory after the fact liability. Primarily because it is too difficult to prove if the family member is just helping as normal, or is helping specifically due to the crime. (I wonder if this could apply to a very close friend as well.)

So, if a family member is say .. helping clean a car .. is that unusual, or is it something they periodically/regularly might do anyway? Even if it seems unusual, can it be proven as unusual and directly connected to the crime?

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...om accessory after the fact liability&f=false


(Sorry if this has been discussed in great detail .. I honestly haven't kept up with every page of the 48 Threads in this case .. but it doesn't seem as though family/friends are generally charged as accessories, even if they should be.)
 

PrimeSuspect

Born Free
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
10,423
Reaction score
18,273
This may be a bit of a dodgy link, but in this book “A Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law” it says that some statutes exempt family members from accessory after the fact liability. Primarily because it is too difficult to prove if the family member is just helping as normal, or is helping specifically due to the crime. (I wonder if this could apply to a very close friend as well.)

So, if a family member is say .. helping clean a car .. is that unusual, or is it something they periodically/regularly might do anyway? Even if it seems unusual, can it be proven as unusual and directly connected to the crime?

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...om accessory after the fact liability&f=false


(Sorry if this has been discussed in great detail .. I honestly haven't kept up with every page of the 48 Threads in this case .. but it doesn't seem as though family/friends are generally charged as accessories, even if they should be.)

I think it is hard to prove a family/friend is an accessory unless the accused owns up to the crime and gives details of who did what or if there are credible witnesses/CCTV to the crime or disposal of body/weapons. I asked a similar question earlier if during the trial there was enough evidence that the crime was committed by the accused and there was an accomplice after the fact, if there would be an immediate arrest?

If a family/friend lied to police but then on the stand under oath tells the truth, which seems to be the most important, they will be treated leniently. jmo
 

they'll get you

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
14,421
Reaction score
54,754
I'm thinking of the Oscar Pistorius trial and how he was hammered on the stand until he was ill. Will GBC be on the stand answering questions? If so, do you think there could be a confession or a heartfelt message read for Allison's family and by who, OW on behalf of the family?
Brett Cowan didn't have to say anything he'd already said on tape.
I think Gittany did.
I'm not sure what to expect with this case.
Anyone got any ideas what what the legal process might be and what to expect?
Sorry for the questions but will the police keep the 'trump card' for later in the trial?

I guess it all will unfold.
 

kiwijayne

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
771
Reaction score
739
There are alot of sirens in Kenmore right now all heading down Brookfield Road. Must be something big as it was two police cars and at least two other vehicles I didn't see but heard.
 

kiwijayne

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
771
Reaction score
739
Heck must be something big two more first response ambulance vehicles went flying past.
 

alioop

Verified Attorney (AU)
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
4
I think there is extremely little likelihood of GBC testifying in his own defence. If I was his lawyer I would say you will not be testifying. Of course if he doesn't testify then he cannot be cross examined by the prosecution.

You only have to look at the damage Oscar Pistorius and Rolf Harris have done to their defence cases by testifying. Mind you, Oscar had no choice because as he admitted to shooting 4 bullets into his girlfriend, the onus is on him to prove that it was not an unlawful killing. The prosecution does not have to prove he shot her as he admits to that. So there is a reversal of proof in that case with the murder charge.
 

they'll get you

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
14,421
Reaction score
54,754
I think there is extremely little likelihood of GBC testifying in his own defence. If I was his lawyer I would say you will not be testifying. Of course if he doesn't testify then he cannot be cross examined by the prosecution.

You only have to look at the damage Oscar Pistorius and Rolf Harris have done to their defence cases by testifying. Mind you, Oscar had no choice because as he admitted to shooting 4 bullets into his girlfriend, the onus is on him to prove that it was not an unlawful killing. The prosecution does not have to prove he shot her as he admits to that. So there is a reversal of proof in that case with the murder charge.

Brilliant! You just answered everything. Thank you alioop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top