Discussion in 'Allison Baden-Clay of Australia' started by marlywings, Jun 3, 2014.
... and he had planned to take his own life two times with a little car crash ...?
I could be remembering wrongly here but was there something about he opened the browser on his phone to look up the police number and it first opened to the page he had last viewed, which was the self incrimination info?
Gee whiz Trooper, you really do have an incredible way with words. Plus that brain of yours seems full of ...... well ... education and knowledge. Plus something that resembles a Birdseye view into the legal system. Including the "more twists than a rattle snake" scenarios.
This post of yours really truly shows <modsnip> The name was G Bad something (sorry I can't recall) at his finest; or the way he really is. Thank you:
"burbling, chirping, detail upon detail, little giggles" etc.
Somehow all that was supposed to "cut it"
Noticed that NBC, when he explained about making the lunches ........ (The school lunches that good ol' man of the house G reckons he made) Opps another furphy or mistake in script.....
Also added the laugh, (what the hell was funny BTW?)
Was that also the deflection?
PS. Whilst trying to produce a plausible time framer of events, I figured I needed to discount totally anything that came from the mouth of GBC, NBC, OW, also the so called pastor, or any of the innocent beautiful children who, IMO have been ordered in regards of what to say.
Probably not given there is mandatory sentencing for murder.
Unfortunately consecutive sentences are very rare in Australia, but common in the US. Like 2 crimes for the price of one!
I agree and said the same thing about the Sica case today to someone.
I am betting there will be no defence witnesses called at all. In this case the prosecution will do it's summing up tomorrow. Should also be time for the defences summing up too. Tomorrow would be a good day to go to court.
Yep they just having a desperate try on. Why not, nothing to lose.
Sorry everyone that I haven't been around today. I couldn't get on earlier this evening as couldn't connect to the ws server. I have just caught up. The only thing that I thought there may be new that we didn't know about was some evidence he had been driving around that night, but there was no evidence. I guess if he went via Rafting Ground rd to Kholo there are no cameras.
So my thoughts. I think it is a strong circumstantial case. The prosecution has presented the relevant evidence but not overwhelmed the jury with the lots of interesting but not necessary information even though every bit interests us. The jury have lots of evidence as it is and it has been presented to them carefully and calmly. The defence has been suggesting she killed herself as she was depressed for whatever reason. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that she was in a depressive mood at the time. She had contact with many people that day, all of whom said she was fine, positive and making plans. Even GBC told police she was fine. OW said she had no concerns about her mood and she should know given she gave lots of evidence when she observed Allison to be in an apparent depressive mood. She had no injuries consistent with a fall or jump from the bridge and there is no evidence she overdosed on her Zoloft. Even if she did there is not one person who is known to have died from an overdose without the interaction of other drugs.
The coroner determined that her death was not from natural causes. Expert evidence that she did not drown. Someone transported her to Kholo, 13 or so Kms away. Her blood was found in her car in a place consistent with her being placed in the boot area and some bleeding part of her body touching the wheel arch. The dripping down of the blood was hard to see until those 3 rd row of seats were put up. All those toys in the car that were going to be picked up are suggestive that they were placed there as a decoy.
She left her marks on her killer. Scratches, bruises indicative of a struggle. Fits with being smothered. He had plenty of opportunity from after about 8.30 pm and when the girls were asleep. In fact he had the whole night. Motive, well there are a couple of very strong ones. Money and the mistress. He gave a written commitment to Toni to be separated by 1 July and in fact was single by that day. He was stuffed financially and it would have ultimately ruined him as well as his standing in the community which he thought very important. A divorce would have made matters worse financially as he would only have got half of almost nothing and had to pay child support.
I think the prosecutions and defences summing up will pull their arguments together though the defence will struggle I think to convince the jury of anything. Not that they have to convince the jury, that is what the prosecution has to do. Let's wait until we hear those arguments then we can consider what we think about whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.
If anyone still has specific questions that they have asked me today and I have not answered would you mind posting them again.
Edit. Forget to mention the plant material in Allisons hair. Strong evidence her hair was in contact with or near the ground on her patio and carport.
I think prosecutor will ram it home in his closing address.
By the way, for anyone who may not have read it...this report has an excellent summary of his opening address....keeping in mind the defence didn't give an opening address....
10th June 2014
Let us agree to disagree. There are certain aspects of this case that will never see the light of day. CMC and Starchamber come to mind.
One may want to ask, for instance:
Why was TM given police protection and excused from the trial;
Why was OWB excused from the trial; or
Why was the witness placing NBC at the bus stop near a certain roundabout in the middle of the night of the 19th/20th never called to testify.
The answers to these questions will not be known at this trial. However, one thing I can guarantee will come up during the jury's deliberations, namely:
If GBC didn't so it who did.
Circumstantial evidence is like spinning silk, fibre by fibre, twine by twine, thread into rope.....
Well done to the defence team so far. Within the confines of the law, they have managed to lay out a case, based in facts placing GBC firmly in the picture, which so far the defence has barely been able to counter. I very much look forward to the Prosecution's closing statement, as I believe it will finally deliver justice for Allison. And on that we all agree.
This disappointed me too. I can't think of any evidence which has been presented tying GBC to Kholo Creek.
Pls bear with me as I'm reading back from what I missed and not sure if this is already been mentioned. Section BBM. So middle daughter allegedly saw GBC BEFORE the shaving accident. Anyone care to check the statement if this matches?!? Or is Sarah the middle child?
I have appreciated your clear explanations.
When I got my children phones they were in my name as at the time they had no licence to provide id.
Yes I agree. How did he not transfer any evidence from Kholo Creek back to home?
Oh Praise The Lord! Alioop has arrived!
Alioop is at the building!
It is crazy that the jury are not given a definition of reasonable doubt. In my opinion they should be. In other jurisdictions they are instructed they must be sure of the accused's guilt. I agree that the inability of someone to say 100% can't be certain does not preclude a jury from accepting the evidence of that person. It's almost meaningless as an opinion can rarely be 100% certain. So the jury should go through the evidence and decide what they accept and what they don't. They hopefully then put all they accept together as a whole and decide if they have enough to decide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now I am not one for using smilies but for you ladybird :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
Yes, the blood DNA match was known at the time of the bail application - hair results were still pending at that time. The link http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...his-wife-allison/story-fnihsrf2-1226948779375
that Amee dug up for me (thanks again!!) states this (attributed to Todd Fuller in his opening address):
"He said a hair attached to the blood stain was later confirmed with DNA as belonging to Ms Baden-Clay."
It could easily be a mistake - confused with the blood result, as today in court apparently there was testimony from Amanda Reeves (forensics) that the hair was too difficult to get DNA from.
The girl, aged eight,
She said her dad had a scratch on his face from his old razor.
``He scraped himself with his old shaver thing, this morning, you could see it, just a little scratch, she said.
The girl said she asked him why there was a scratch on his cheek and he told her he cut himself.
She said her father had no scratches on his face when she went to bed that night.
The girl said her father cut himself before on his cheeks while shaving.
She said her father was wearing his work clothes when she woke up that morning, a white shirt and black pants.
But then she said she first saw her father wearing his pyjamas when she woke up and had ``foam on his face.
She said her father did not often come into her room with foam on his face although, he had a couple of weeks ago
The girl said she woke up at 6.30am.
The girl said her father told her he had scratched himself shaving and had covered it with a Band-Aid.
``He said he scratched it about three times in a row because he had really old razors, she said.
She said her father usually shaved after he had a shower.
I think it may have just been the way the reporter wrote that sentence. The blood was definitely Allison's. We've not heard any further about the hair since bail hearing.
No, not take his own life, just covering up the scratch marks and other marks on his torso with seatbelt impressions. 'Just a little bit hurt'...my A...., that family is all nutso.
But I still think the evidence re he search should have been included? It could have been a happy coincidence, the fact is he did search the term a day before his wife went missing, isn't that enough to still include it as evidence....obviously I'm not a criminal lawyer!!