GBC Trial General Discussion Thread #2

[marlywings]

Kate Kyriacou @KateKyriacou

The jury has left the house and is back on the bus. #badenclay

 

[LadyBird1]

I think it may have been quite prejudicial to the accused if he attended the site viewings. He would surely have some reaction or awkward body language which would be seen by judge and jury members. Best he is not there from all aspects of the situation. JMO

Is the jury not allowed to take into account his awkward body language or reaction? I don't understand that he should protected like that.
I was thinking about his initial police interviews, when he appeared quite animated whilst talking about himself. Could look the interviewer in the eye.
Then when the questions were about Allison, he looked downwards, got fidgety, and didn't look the interviewer in the eye.
When I was a little girl, and my (quite strict) parents wanted to know the truth about a matter, I, along with my siblings, were instructed "Look me in the eye, and tell me that!"
That was an entirely different equation.

 

[Amee]

Katrina Blowers ‏@katrinablowers 2h

Prosecutors and lawyers for Gerard #badenclay arrive Kholo Ck, where Allison's body was discovered. @7NewsBrisbane pic.twitter.com/MZcKTAJMF5

 

[Amee]

Kate Kyriacou ‏@KateKyriacou 1m

We're done for the day. Back at court tomorrow. #badenclay

 

[Isabellnecessary]

'At the house, jurors will be asked to have a look at specific areas like the carport, the driveway, as well as where the bedrooms are in the house.'

Interesting mention about the bedrooms... Moo


Source, ABC article

 

[BJsleuth]

Is other jury not allowed to take into account his awkward body language or reaction? I don't understand that he should protected like that.
I was thinking about his initial police interviews, when he appeared quite animated whilst talking about himself. Could look the interviewer in the eye.
Then when the questions were about Allison, he looked downwards, got fidgety, and didn't look the interviewer in the eye.
When I was a little girl, and my (quite strict) parents wanted to know the truth about a matter, I, along with my siblings, were instructed "Look me in the eye, and tell me that!"
That was an entirely different equation.

No, only on the evidence (what witnesses testify to under oath).

 

[possumheart]

I topped up the flowers at Kholo creek yesterday knowing the jury would be visiting. It's such a long time since I have been there. The memorial is lovely.

You are a treasure, Indromum!
:skip:

 

[AAAA]

On my way back past the house the jury had arrived. They were all in a group at the beginning of the driveway looking down the left hand side of the property. There were all up about 30 people, including barristers and what looked like security (plain clothes), and tonnes of cars and media.

 

[alioop]

It is worth keeping in mind that "beyond reasonable doubt" is NOT "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The narrative either adds up to a cohesive, believable sequence of events or it doesn't.

Either: Allison's cheating husband, facing financial ruin and under pressure from his mistress to end his marriage once and for all, killed his heavily insured wife (and am I right in thinking her death occurred on the last day she was covered by a policy they couldn't afford to renew?), transported her body in the car where blood was later found, and dumped her off a bridge

Or

Allison killed herself, via an unknown/undetectable mechanism, in a location she was either transported to by unknown means/person(s) who haven't come forward, or she walked to in the dark for in excess of two hours...

Or

Allison was killed by an unknown person who didn't rob or rape her...

And Gerard's facial abrasions were genuinely caused by a razor even though experts find that highly improbable...

And she coincidentally picked up botanical traces that match the low growth around her house...

And the blood came to be there by innocent means in the brief time she'd owned the car...

The question isn't: is it possible to find another explanation for each individual piece of information? The question is: taken as a whole, is it reasonable to conclude the prosecution's case is the most likely explanation? Is it reasonable to believe it was a series of increasingly unlikely coincidences - he just so happens to self inflict unusual shaving cuts on the very day his wife was killed in a random attack by a stranger, which is a very unusual murder (see: Jill Meagher), which coincidentally happened as his self-imposed deadline approached to leave his wife, etc.

I believe a reasonable person would be required to accept far too much happenstance to conclude he was innocent. Any alternate scenarios I can think of require too much of the fantastical to seriously challenge the simple explanation: the man with means, motive and circumstantial evidence pointing to him is the one who did it.

Thank you for this great post.

I wonder if the prosecution is allowed to tell them what the police think happened while they are there looking at the area - or do they have to stay quiet and let the jury take it all in and form their own view (this is probably a silly question)....

I think the lawyers have to stay quiet and may not even talk to the jury at all. Someone else will have the role of pointing out the relevant info they need to know, like exactly where Allison's body was etc. basic known facts, no theories or speculation.
I think it's a good thing GBC didn't want to go, maybe on advice of his lawyers. It would have turned it into a bigger circus with security issues for his safety and the safety of others.

 

[Not Poirot]

Surely if the prosecution were going to mention the roundabout they'd have done it before the jury were taken to Brookfield? So the jury would understand the lay of the land completely? I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to feel mighty dubious that the prosecution have any dazzling roundabout evidence up their sleeves

 

[Fluffykins]

Hello everyone, another new member here. I’ve been flat out catching up on the ABC threads the last few days and halleluia, I’ve finally done it! :great:

Just want to say how glad I am to have joined WS. I was keeping up with the news reports but was itching to hear some informed opinions/discussion. It finally occurred to me there’s probably a forum somewhere out there where they’re talking about it. Duh! :doh: I was absolutely stunned to find the amazing amount of discussion here on WS.

Must say how impressed I am with the discourse in here. So many ideas, so much thoughtful and insightful analysis, and all the while the tone is overall very friendly and respectful. It’s like coming in from the cold into a warm room buzzing with conversation - you just can’t wait to join in!

I really appreciate the very welcoming atmosphere in here. It’s great to be here! :loveyou:

 

[Fluffykins]

I'm really hoping the hair turns out to be the smoking gun. I think I recall reading the police were very interested in the contents of the bathroom - the products ABC was using. After colouring her hair three times in rapid succession, surely the hairdresser would have used a good leave-in product - conditioner, repair serum etc - and then if the police could not match that product to anything Allison had at home ... well, there's Allison's hair, treated with a product that can only have been applied on the 19th, stuck to Allison's blood. I am hopeful.

 

[possumheart]

Welcome fluffykins!
:thewave:​

 

[Isabellnecessary]

Hello everyone, another new member here. I’ve been flat out catching up on the ABC threads the last few days and halleluia, I’ve finally done it! :great:

....

I really appreciate the very welcoming atmosphere in here. It’s great to be here! :loveyou:

Hi Fluffykins. Nice to have you on board! :loveyou:

I'm really hoping the hair turns out to be the smoking gun. I think I recall reading the police were very interested in the contents of the bathroom - the products ABC was using. After colouring her hair three times in rapid succession, surely the hairdresser would have used a good leave-in product - conditioner, repair serum etc - and then if the police could not match that product to anything Allison had at home ... well, there's Allison's hair, treated with a product that can only have been applied on the 19th, stuck to Allison's blood. I am hopeful.

I really hope you're right about that. Obviously it will have been recently dried, all the cuticles of the hair lying flat. It would be amazing if they could get some sort of chemical from it which the hairdresser had... just amazing.

lease:

 

[Amee]

<modsnip>

there are some pics in this link that locals have very kindly taken for us WSer's


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178134"]PICTURES from our locals *NO DISCUSSION* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[volunteer]

Great sleuthing!! I wonder f the prosecution team have "simulated" a size 12 woman with similar measurements to alison attempting to walk or run in 2xl Katies trackies? Could be something big in the case if they cant stay up when the wearer is walking

Wonder what sizes track pants EBC wears. Am I allowed to ask that?

 

[KG1]

Is the jury not allowed to take into account his awkward body language or reaction? I don't understand that he should protected like that.
I was thinking about his initial police interviews, when he appeared quite animated whilst talking about himself. Could look the interviewer in the eye.
Then when the questions were about Allison, he looked downwards, got fidgety, and didn't look the interviewer in the eye.
When I was a little girl, and my (quite strict) parents wanted to know the truth about a matter, I, along with my siblings, were instructed "Look me in the eye, and tell me that!"
That was an entirely different equation.

If he was required/made to go to the scenes and had no choice, any reaction/behaviour by him, seen by the jury, could be used as grounds of appeal if he is convicted, as it could be taken as placing him in a situation where he was vulnerable, and therefore that was prejudicial to him. However, if he had a choice about going, and went, then that is a choice he made and any observations by a jury, could hardly be held to be prejudicial or grounds for appeal- similar to their observations of him in the court room. MOO

 

[Humdinger]

I'm really hoping the hair turns out to be the smoking gun. I think I recall reading the police were very interested in the contents of the bathroom - the products ABC was using. After colouring her hair three times in rapid succession, surely the hairdresser would have used a good leave-in product - conditioner, repair serum etc - and then if the police could not match that product to anything Allison had at home ... well, there's Allison's hair, treated with a product that can only have been applied on the 19th, stuck to Allison's blood. I am hopeful.

Wow, yes! I recall just recently reading that they went back to the house looking at contents if her bathroom etc. maybe last week at the trial this came out?
This could really tie it together!

And welcome you'll be an addict in no time

 

[Indromum]

Surely if the prosecution were going to mention the roundabout they'd have done it before the jury were taken to Brookfield? So the jury would understand the lay of the land completely? I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to feel mighty dubious that the prosecution have any dazzling roundabout evidence up their sleeves

I think you may be right!

 

[Not Poirot]

I think you may be right!

I really hope not!

(Thanks for adding flowers, so lovely!)