TONI MCHUGH CLAIMS THAT SHE IS AUSTRALIA’S MONICA LEWINSKY
Toni McHugh, who now likens herself to the former US President’s paramour, Monica Lewinsky, said that she believed Gerard when he said that he had not ever had sex with anyone except for Allison and herself and that she plans to write a book.
Toni McHugh, “I was furious, but I was still madly in love with him. I remember after the police told me, Gerard called me from a blocked number and said, ‘I’m outside your office, I’m in a cab, I have to talk to you;”.
Toni McHugh, “The first thing he said when I got in the cab was, ‘are you wearing a wire?'”
Photo courtesy of Women’s Weekly.
Toni and Baden-Clay, in the cab, then drove to a unit at Fortitude Valley to talk. Toni said, “He gave me all these reasons for having sex with other women.
He wanted to make sure what he had with me was real. Like an idiot, I believed it, but he’d also told me previously that he’d never been with any women besides Allison.”
As we know, GBC frequented AdultFriendFinder.com, where he described himself as “average” and, “married, but don’t want to be, looking for some sex on the side!”.
Toni claimed with regard to Baden-Clay being responsible for Allison’s murder, “I’d been putting my head in the sand about that”.
Toni had been hiding in her apartment since her affair with Baden-Clay had become public, her mother phoned her on the 30th April, to tell her to come out of hiding.
Toni also confessed that she had driven over the Kholo Creek bridge just hours before Allison’s body was found, she said, “And that was the worst day because WE drove over that bridge. We drove over the bridge and she was under there and later that day, maybe around noon, we heard a woman’s body has been found, and I knew straight away – instantly – that it was Allison.”
Toni McHugh on Allison’s children, “I need them to know that I’m very, very, sorry for what’s happened. The future I was planning with Gerard, it actually included them. It included Allison! I thought we would all get to the point where we all, you know, shared custody, like adults, and got on.”
It has been reported that Toni McHugh was paid more than $200,000.00 for the interview with Channel 9’s 60 Minutes programme which aired on the Sunday after Gerard Baden-Clay was charged guilty of murder.
“Toni McHugh quotes of hardship” from what is believed to be another paid interview, this time with Woman’s Weekly:
“I’m still coping with the damage, emotionally and financially”. (Toni is, of course, being paid for these interviews).
“I lost my job, which I loved, and which I was good at. And sometimes I feel like I’m Australia’s Monica Lewinski – like, what man is ever going to want to come near me? So I have suffered, too.”
Toni McHugh on feeling sorry for Allison, “I’m so sorry that her life has been so painful – no woman should have to go through those feelings of inadequacy that she was feeling”.
“I can’t be held personally responsible.”
“I know that if it wasn’t me, it would have been another woman.”
“The marriage problems were pre-existing well before I became a part of Gerard’s life.”
Asked if she felt the murder happened because of her, she said: “No. It didn’t happen because of me.”
Gerard Baden-Clay launches appeal against ‘unreasonable’ murder conviction
Justice Byrne said it was likely Baden-Clay had smothered his wife and scratch marks on his face were likely to be signs of a struggle.
The former real estate agent has always maintained his innocence.
1. He has appealed against his conviction on four grounds, including that the verdict of murder was unreasonable, and that:
2. “A miscarriage of justice occurred because the jury should have been, but was not, directed that the presence of the deceased’s blood in a motor vehicle was only relevant if the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the presence of blood was attributed to an injury sustained to the deceased’s body on the evening of 19 April 2012 or the morning of 20 April 2012,” the application reads.
3. “The trial judge erred in law in not directing the jury that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant placed the body of the deceased at Kholo Creek in order to use such a finding as post-offence conduct going to guilt.
4. “The trial judge erred in leaving to the jury that the appellant attempted to disguise marks on his face by making razor cuts.”
Queensland’s mandatory sentencing laws mean Baden-Clay does not have a chance of seeing a reduction in his jail time.
Justin Quill, the director of Kelly Hazel Quill Lawyers, has previously said Baden-Clay may have “very good” grounds to appeal the conviction.
“Potentially there is an appeal on conviction – that could be on a whole stack of grounds,” he said.
“Those grounds could be the exclusion of particular pieces of evidence.
“It could be taking the judge to task on the precise wording of the charge or the answers to the questions. The answers to the questions are crucial.”
On Friday 1st August it’sWear Yellow for Allison Baden-Clay Day. This day is not about raising money. Instead Allison’s friends and family asks you to wear some yellow and perform an act of kindness (big or small) in memory of Allison.
Baden-Clay has been exposed as an egocentric sybarite obsessed with his own indulgences; a man who paid scant regard to the emotional damage he inflicted on those he claimed to love.
He is not a man for whom remorse and repentance are a priority. Instead, Baden-Clay is driven by self-interest. The great tragedy is that the victim of his unbridled selfishness not only paid the ultimate price for her generosity of spirit and attempts to rebuild the family unit, but also has had her memory dragged through the mud by a guilty man increasingly desperate to cover his tracks.
Killer Gerard Baden-Clay captured on a security camera in the back of the police van transporting him to prison after his conviction yesterday. Picture: Peter Wallis
Detectives discovered that, far from the family man he pretended to be, Baden-Clay was a serial womaniser with his profile on a swingers’ internet site and a series of affairs. Allison left the mark of guilt on his face. As Allison Baden-Clay fought for her life, with her left hand she scratched her husband Gerard’s right cheek. Allison had been on the ground at the back of the carport, next to the couple’s silver Holden Captiva. The Holden Captiva where police found Allison’s blood in the boot, along a plastic trim. A blonde hair was found in the dried blood.
On Friday 1st August it’sWear Yellow for Allison Baden-Clay Day. This day is not about raising money. Instead Allison’s friends and family asks you to wear some yellow and perform an act of kindness (big or small) in memory of Allison.
As you danced in the light with joy, love lifted you.
As you brushed against this world so gently, you lifted us.
When we have enough messages, will send your messages of sympathy to Mr and Mrs Dickie.
On Friday 1st August it’s Wear Yellow for Allison Baden-Clay Day. This day is not about raising money. Instead Allison’s friends and family asks you to wear some yellow and perform an act of kindness (big or small) in memory of Allison.
If you wish to donate money to The Late Allison Baden-Clay Children’s Trust Fund, you can do so using these details
Jurors deliberating Gerard Baden-Clay’s future, have been warned to not seek outside assistance after one jury member downloaded information on jury deliberations from the internet.
Justice John Byrne recalled jurors two hours after they retired to consider their verdict.
Justice Byrne, “What was done is wrong. I am however grateful that what has happened has been drawn to my attention,” he told the seven men and five women. “However, I appreciate a juror’s job is never easy and you may look for assistance.’ That assistance must come from the court and only from the court and not from some expert source. You scarcely need to know what some overseas commentator speaking about a very different system of jury trials happens to think, the downloaded document won’t be returned to the jury room.”
The jury members already had a guide available to them when they retired to consider their verdict at 11:10am., Thursday, 10th July, 2014, the 18th day of Gerard Baden-Clay’s trial.
The Crown accused Baden-Clay of probably smothering his wife at their house and then dumping her body, rolling it from Kholo Creek bridge.
Our theory is that Baden-Clay, father of three, allegedly smothered Allison by placing his knee on her chest, due to bruising found at autopsy by the coroner. Allison’s chipped tooth and subsequent blood in the car may be related to a mark on Baden-Clay’s left hand, that he claims was from a screwdriver piercing his hand (he is right handed) when he was changing a light bulb.
Before the jury retired, Justice Byrne advised that in order to convict Baden-Clay of murder, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that Baden-Clay killed her, and that he did so with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm.
Baden-Clay’s defence maintain that Allison, although not one to exercise, having been reported as happy that day, and planning a future, had her hair done for the third time to make sure the colour was right, walked 13km on a dark street after 1:48am (after she placed Baden-Clay’s phone on charger), the distance sporting very large hills, without footpaths and proper lighting, (which would have taken an experience walker at least 3 1/2 hours to walk on flat ground), after depositing her blood in rivulets under the seat in her two month old car, then placing children’s toys in the back, then an empty packet of Zoloft at the front of the car, she then walked for hours, and threw herself off the low bridge at Anstead, landing under the bridge itself in the dirt, not beside the bridge, with her jumper over her head, and leaves through her hair with a bruised chest and chipped tooth.
Baden-Clay was so upset at his wife missing, he shaved himself with a razor, to make it look like fingernail scratches, with marks on his chest that appeared as an immaculate conception, the marks that he didn’t mention to police. He was cool and calm, ringing all his friends and family, rather than looking for Allison, although he did do a drive around at Brookfield one stage, in the area that Allison’s phone was triangulated as missing. Her phone wasn’t ever found.
Baden-Clay refused to give police subsequent interviews, in fact, he drove out of his way on the way to the police station the following Monday, and somehow, on a one way street, drove a car into a concrete upright, avoiding giving the statement, his bruises on his chest and scratches on his face, his own, for now.
The jury heard 75 witnesses, including Baden-Clay’s former mistress, Toni, whom he rang the night Allison disappeared and after Allison disappeared, from a pay phone, although Baden-Clay denied that he spoke with her, that she is a volatile woman whom he always agreed with.
Approximately 180 items were submitted as evidence, including photographs of scratches on Baden-Clay’s face and photographs of rivulets of Allison’s blood found in her Captiva.
Justice Byrne’s Summations of the Lawyer’s Closing Arguments
A short delay due to legal discussion. Jury is yet to enter the courtroom.
Gerard is immaculately groomed, with a checked shirt, dark suit, blue and white tie, hair freshly cut and face cleanly shaven.
The jury is entering the courtroom, Justice John Byrne will then begin his summation of the lawyers’ closing arguments, beginning with the defence.
Byrne, “The defence case is that friends, family, and the children had not ever seen Gerard and Allison argue, let alone any violence. The defence’s case is that the Crown have not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that you must not find Gerard guilty.
The defence case is that the jury must not speculate.
The defence and crown cases are all about perhaps or what probably happened.
The defence stated that no-one can prove how the deceased died.”
The judge is summarising the defence’s discussions on the pathologist’s report.
Judge, “The defence said a thorough search of the house was completed by police and nothing of relevance was discovered. The defence said that the three children heard nothing at all on the night of 19th April, 2012.
The defence said that if Gerard killed his wife that night, he must have dressed her in the walking clothes she was found in. The defence asked why had she bled only in the Captiva? They asked if Allison was dragged through the garden foliage, why did leaves that stuck into her hair, were also not found in the car? They asked why there wasn’t any mud or grasses found in the car from Kholo Creek if Gerard dragged his wife’s body down. They said that there weren’t any obvious signs of a cleanup in the car. They said if there isn’t any proof of disposal of the body, the Crown case collapses.
The defence said that Gerard is lacking in morals, although that doesn’t mean he is a murderer. The defence denied that Gerard was going to leave his wife for Toni, that he was good at making promises but nothing ever happened. Gerard wasn’t faithful to Toni, either. She was not the love of his life. Their case is that Gerard did not want to be with Toni, so no need to kill his wife to be with her.
The defence pointed out that Gerard remained calm during cross examination, that he does not have a violent temper. They disputed Gerard was under financial pressure. They said that Gerard was confident the business was on the up and he had been able to pay for the rental arm.
Gerard’s father advised him to make a claim on the life insurance. The defence case is that the leaves could have washed into Allison’s hair by the creek. They state that Gerard didn’t ever attempt to conceal any marks on his face, that he told everyone who asked that the marks on his face were from shaving. The defence said that none of the experts could be 100% sure what caused the marks on Gerard’s face.
The defence gave the possible causes of death which were: falling from a height, seratonin syndrome leaning to drowning or Sertraline toxicity.
The defence discussed Allison’s mental health history, her Zoloft use, her sessions with psychologists.
The defence discussed advice from the marriage counsellor, which was given to her a few days before she disappeared.
The defence’s case is that discussions of an affair in the counsellor advised sessions would have caused a relapse in Allison’s depression. They stated that Allison was stressed at the hairdressers on 19th April, 2012, they told the jury to consider Allison was upset after hearing of the birth of a nephew. They claim that she always wanted a son.
The defence asked why Allison missed a parent teacher interview for a hairdressing appointment.
The defence’s case is that Allison stayed up late, thinking about the affair, and that she possibly went for a walk to clear her head. Allison plugged her husband’s phone into charge at 1:48am, she took some Sertraline and went for a walk. They suggested that she walked to Kholo Creek and ended up at the creek.
The defence said that Gerard did not have to give evidence, but he did.
JUSTICE BYRNE IS NOW SUMMING UP THE PROSECUTION’S CASE
Justice Byrne, “The Crown said that Gerard and Allison appeared to be the perfect couple, but they weren’t. The Crown said that Gerard had pressures from many angles in April, 2012. The Crown case is that Allison would not have been upset about the birth of her nephew. It had been six years since she had given birth.
The Crown said that Allison was a reluctant exerciser, she would not have walked 13km, and no-one saw her walking.
The Crown showed the rainfall records, the creek would not have been muddy at the time. The area leading down to the creek was vegetated. The Crown said that Allison had been rolled or pushed from the ledge above. The Crow said that there wasn’t any evidence that Allison was drug effected.
They said that post mortem changes showed that Allison’s body had not oved.
The Crown’s case is that drowning is not a reasonable suggestion, as there isn’t any evidence of it. The Crown case is that Allison’s body was dumped to avoid it being found. There isn’t any evidence of recent Sertraline ingestion, that drug toxicity as a cause of death is excluded by the evidence.
The Crown case is that Allison was not depressed, the evidence from those who saw her that day, is that she was “great.”
The Crown pointed out that the baby monitor in Gerard and Allison’s room as evidence that sound did not travel well in the house.
They discussed the six leaves of the plant species found in Allison’s hair, which were all found in the garden, only two of these species were found at the creek.
The Crown said that Allison was injured that night and bled in the car.
They said that Gerard had to explain the scratches on his face, that he couldn’t hide them. Gerard shaved over the scratches to make smaller cuts over the top.
The Crown said that the abrasions near Gerard’s armpit are consistent with Allison’s pulling on his clothing during the struggle. The scratches occurred after the last time the girls saw their mother and before they woke up to find her gone.
The Crown said that there were three pressures on Gerard at the time:
The Crown said that Gerard played up his wife’s depression in the hope that the jury would consider that she committed suicide.
The Crown pointed out that Gerard didn’t ever tell police about his conversations with Toni McHugh on the Thursday night.
The Crown said that Allison was sharing his passions with the business while Gerard was out resuming his affair.
The Crown case is that Gerard was in love with Toni. Toni had demanded that he tell Allison both women would be at the same conference the next day.
Gerard had mounting debts that needed to be paid.
Gerard made up a story to explain why he said in emails that he loved Toni.
Allison told people that she was happy about the birth of her nephew.
Gerard told Toni that he was going to sell the business and be with her.
At the conference, Allison could have found out that he’d continued the affair, with catastrophic results.
Gerard told police that he had not seen any signs of depression in his wife, which is a contrast to his actual testimony.
The Crown said that Gerard had an opportunity to kill, that he lied about scratches on his cheek and that he had discussions with his mistress that night.
The Crown said that it is highly unusual for all those plant species to be in the hair, cuts on his face, her blood in the car, if not murder.
JUSTICE BYRNE HAS COMPLETED HIS SUMMATION OF THE CROWN CASE.
Justice Byrne is giving the jury instructions should they need help with anything.
Justice Byrne is addressing the jury,
“You must answer the associate when you return with your verdict.
You must speak in unison when asked whether you have reached a verdict.
An associate will ask whether you have found Gerard guilty or not guilty of murder, the foreman will answer.
If not guilty, you will be asked the same of manslaughter.
Thank you to the three reserve jurors, you are discharged. Thank you for the dedication in which you approached your task. ”
The associate is now swearing in the bailiff as the jury’s keeper.
The jury have now retired to consider and reach a verdict.
Jurors have returned to court – and are receiving direction from the judge as a juror downloaded a document on jury deliberations from an overseas commentator.
Justice Byrne, “You must not make enquiries outside the trial, the advice needs to come from this court, you must not do this, it was wrong.”
The court has given them a jury guide, the jury requested a copy of Justice Byrne’s summation of closing addresses. Request denied. Justice Byrne instructs the jury, if they so wish, to write out a written request for his summation to be read aloud in open court.
The jury have been excused.
The jury have been sent home. Tomorrow, at 9:00am, they will reconvene to continue their deliberations.
Mr Todd Fuller QC, will be discussing more about Gerard’s
financial difficulties today.
The jury is entering the courtroom.
Mr Todd Fuller QC addresses the jury
Fuller, “I shall clarify information with regard to Gerard’s financial position.
Gerard would have sold his business with Allison working there. Financially, leaving Allison, was not an option. Gerard told the marriage counsellor, Carmel Ritchie, his wife didn’t trust him. Gerard was only there because Allison wanted him to, not because he wanted to save the marriage. The advice Gerard received from the marriage counsellor was to sit and listen to this wife. Allison always blamed herself, after the affair, she knew someone else was at fault.
Allison was over the moon that Gerard had gone to see the counsellor. It is an insight into her mind. This phrase does not mean that they were back on an even keel as Gerard suggested. Gerard would have the jury believe it was just Toni making the contact. Not true. The emails show that.
Same as the explanation of the shaving cuts, same as the financials, he had to make up a story to explain his actions.
Gerard tells Toni that he loves her, he tells her in the details and on the phone.
How do you put all that together other than that he loves Toni?
Gerard’s claim that he and Allison’s question and answer session was on 18th April, is not true.
Gerard made it clear to the police early on that it was on 19th April.”
Mr Fuller is discussing the night of 18th April, when Nigel and Elaine came to watch the children.
Fuller, “Is this when Allison retired for the night and wrote out her list of questions? Allison retired and left her husband, watching TV with his parents. If Allison was so upset about the birth of her nephew, what happened the next day?
The 19th April was a normal day. Allison took the children to school, she told friends she was happy about the birth. Nobody noticed anything unusual.
Yet, Gerard, would have you believe the question and answer session happened the night before.
On 19th April, the staff described Allison as upbeat, laughing and joking, she introduced a trainer to her husband. Allison was excited about the conference the next day, was excited about plans for the business.
Gerard told the police everything was fine, there wasn’t a reason that his wife would disappear. Allison had a hair appointment, children were at the school cross country. The kids ate dinner at Nigel and Elaine’s, then went home and were tucked into bed.
What we didn’t hear about was the conversation with Toni, except for Toni Mc Hugh.
Going from about 5:03pm until about 5:40pm, Gerard was talking to Toni Mc Hugh. The conversation was inflamed when it was raised that Allison and Toni would be at the same conference the next day. Gerard used the words “two of my staff are going”. He didn’t have the courage to say straight up it was his wife.
Gerard said that both Allison and Toni contacted him when they bumped into each other at the gym. Allison had flashbacks about it.
Gerard insisted that he was not concerned about the two women running into each other. Toni made the decision to leave the business herself after Allison found out about the affair. Toni was angry at the person who let the affair slip. There wasn’t a suggestion that she was angry at Gerard until he made the claim.
Please believe Toni’s version of events. Toni told Gerard it was unfair for both women to be at the conference. Toni had no option, she had begun a new job. She had to go.
Toni insisted that Gerard warn Allison. You might say that that is significant pressure on Gerard. It was that afternoon, 19th April, on the phone to Toni, that he said he was going to sell the business. It had not been that long since Gerard had told Sue Heath on the phone that he was about to go broke.
Toni said that she was angry on the phone, that she was expressing her anger.
In September, 2011, Gerard had to make significant changes. He told his staff about the affair, Allison came to work.
What was going to happen if Allison found out for a second time?
Gerard claimed he did nothing about the two women meeting the next day, that he didn’t have a concern. When the ultimatum was coming the second time, what decision would he make?
He was going to be shown to be disingenuous, a coward or a fool. You would think the personal risks to Gerard were huge.
We was in jeopardy, in respect to his friends, family and business. You add that to the scratches, the blood in the car, the leaves in the hair.
Gerard didn’t have any explanation for his charger being connected at 1:48am other than it must have been Allison.
That morning, 20th April, there was a series of phone calls to Allison almost straight away. Why is that? He doesn’t know what time Allison is supposed to be meeting Kate Rankine for the conference.
COURT – Text message Gerard sent to Allison at 6:41am asking where she is.
“Gerard – where are you?”
The cars are there, she could only have gone for a walk. The message talks about the girls being up, and making their lunches. It was always the plan for Gerard to get the girls ready. Gerard didn’t bundle the girls into the car and do a quick couple of laps. He called his parents and waited for them.
Gerard tried calling a police officer he knew before searching the streets for her. It was a 24 hour station, he would have gotten a recorded message and options to be put through.
Gerard and his sister searched the area, no sign of her.
It is now 7:15am, a number of calls unanswered, a couple of texts not responded to, an unsuccessful search.
Gerard made a 000 call on the side of the road, he goes home, then reverses the car in.
The police arrive at 8:00am. Gerard claimed that he answered all the questions from police although he declined to make a statement.
The jury has heard Gerard’s voice on tapes, during interviews. It is for you to determine what level of anxiety.
Gerard told police that he did not know whether Allison came to bed or not. Gerard told them about the affair. He didn’t want his father to know. Gerard phoned his own family, his own friends, he made work calls, all before phoning Allison’s friends and family.
By the time more police arrived, three and a half hours on, it must have been something more sinister. Gerard told police it was out of character for Allison to disappear, she hadn’t ever done anything like that before.
Gerard described his wife’s mental health as good. He didn’t even know if she was still on medication. Gerard said Allison was “all better now”. Gerard didn’t make any reference to any adverse reactions to her medication.
In this trail, the mental health issue has been amplified to justify what he did. If there was any risk of any mental health problems, that is when we would have heard about them, on 20th April, 2012.
According to Gerard, there wasn’t anything to explain why his wife wasn’t home. She had gone for a walk, and would be back soon. There wasn’t mention of the conversation with Toni the night before. Only that Toni knows about that.
Was Allison likely to stay up late watching the Footy Show on the couch when she had a big day the next day?
She was likely to go or a walk that morning when she was time poor, Gerard had agreed to get the girls ready. So, she didn’t have any time for the school drop off when the school is not very far away.
It was highly unlikely that on the morning of the 20th April, 2012, Allison would be walking the streets of Brookfield.
Gerard told police that morning, twice, “we had our 15 minutes last night.” Gerard was at great pains to tell police “nothing came out of the 15 minute session, it was all good.”
Gerard told police the truth that day. Allison hadn’t asked the questions on 18th April, the questions were done on the 19th.
Allison’s questions about his affair were quite rudimentary. Movies, driving together, how many times? Did you kiss and hug, were you scared of being seen together, were the seats down, did you lie there afterwards?
Place yourself in Mr Baden-Clay’s position. Place yourself in the sordid detail of it. If the 18th April is correct, why did they leave the house to ask and answer the questions? The children were already in be. (Gerard had already told the court under oath, that he and Allison had driven to Mt Cooth-tha on 18th April, for the 15 minute session while his parents babysat).
Edit: Gerard’s parents allegedly appear to cover a lot for their caterpillar.
Mr Fuller is reading from Allison’s list. “I couldn’t go back to her even if I wanted to”.
Fuller, “That isn’t a question, that is a statement from Gerard. Gerard made that statement. Contrast that with the emails.
Mr Fuller, “If he made that statement to her, it was simply a lie. Toni made her choices back in 2008 when she left her partner and found her own place to live. Coincidentally, a picture of Toni’s place was on the next page of Allison’s journal.
It took Gerard hours to call Allison’s parents. A major search was already underway. Just after 9:00am Gerard calls his three friends, the ones who had lent him money. At 9:58am he calls Kerry-Anne Walker. When he speaks to Toni, she asks, “did you argue”. She knows what the conflict was likely to be.
Gerard tells Toni to lay low. The next day, he tells Toni to tell the truth to the police. What option did he have? He knows the police are looking at him. They’re taking photos of his injuries. If he’d told her to lie, it would have unravelled.
A SHORT BREAK.
Mr Fuller is talking about Gerard’s contact with Toni after Allison went missing.
Mr Fuller, “Gerard contacted Toni again. It is NOT HER contacting HIM, he tells her he loves her.
Toni deletes her emails and texts.
Gerard then wants to meet with her, to explain to her about his other affairs.
Is this someone who just placates? Or does he have real affection for her?
Gerard told her to “fall in love with someone else” because “things weren’t looking good for me”.
Gerard was finally walking away from Toni because of the circumstances he found himself in. Gerard had manipulated her throughout their relationship.
Gerard was engaged in deceptive and manipulative behaviour across all his relationship with her. It is all about him, his life, his business, his needs.”
Court – A page from Allison’s journal.
The journal mentions a large portrait with Toni.
Mr Fuller, “We know how Allison feels. She still gets sick in her stomach. Gerard had the opportunity, he had the scratches on his cheek. He lies about them, attempts to disguise them.
Gerard hasn’t changed after his behaviour is exposed. We have it in black and white, the emails, the tension between Gerard and Toni. We have the financial strain, the debts to be called in.
We have the real prospect of Allison and Toni coming together, the real prospect of him being exposed.
The way he has been exposed in this trial.
We have the real prospect of Allison not being willing to forgive him a second time.
This is not about Allison’s mental health, her drug taking, walking off inexplicably into the night.
You might think it is highly unusual for someone with a history of sertraline use to suddenly overdose.
You might think it highly unusual that the plants in her hair were all from the Brookfield Road house. You might think it highly unusual for a man to cut himself and it look like fingernail scratches.
You might think it highly unusual for Allison’s blood to be in her car.
It is highly unusual for Gerard to have killed his wife? NO, THAT IS WHAT HE DID.
It was close, it was personal, it was violent.
Gerard was frustrated, the double life, the daily deceptions, the risk of it all coming crashing down.
He just wanted to wipe the slate clean.
MR TODD FULLER, QC, HAS CLOSED HIS ARGUMENT.
JUSTICE BYRNE HAS BEGUN HIS SUMMATION.
Justice Byrne, “Your roll is to determine on the evidence whether he is guilty or not guilty.
I must sum up and then you will retire and consider your verdict.
You MUST abide by my instructions. You must decide what evidence you accept, then apply the law. You are the sole judges of the facts. You must strike an unanimous verdict.
Your verdict must be on the evidence and only the evidence. The exhibits will all be available in the jury room.”
Justice Byrne is explaining what makes evidence.:
01. Answers from witnesses only, not statements from lawyers.
02. The jury is to ignore any information they may have read or heard about the case outside of the courtroom.
03. The jury must ignore social networking, including Twitter, Facebook and Youtube.
04. You must not visit the scene or anywhere else of relevance.
05. It would be unjust for you to consider any information outside of the courtroom.
06. It is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for a juror to inquire about an accused person.
07. You are not detectives, you are judges of the facts.
08. In the past trials have been abandoned because jurors have looked things up on the internet.
09. Jurors are duty bound to bring it to my attention if you are aware of a fellow juror doing the wrong thing.
10. You must not pay any regard to news reports.
11. The jury must not allow media reports to influence your thoughts.
12. You can draw inferences from facts that you have heard during the trial.
13. The inferences must be reasonable. They must be logical and rational conclusions drawn from the facts.
14. You cannot use instinct or guess work.
15. Evidence can be accepted whole, in part of not at all.
16. You must consider whether a witness seems reliable. Did they see, hear, know things they are testifying about?
17. Does it differ from things that the witness testified to previously?
18. An observation of something said or done is not always reliable. Memory can be fallible.
19. People do not always observe closely sights and sounds, let alone manage to recollect them two years later.
20. As I said, it is up to you to assess the evidence and what weight you give a witness’s testimony.
21. The accused is presumed to be innocent.
22. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
23. If you are left with reasonable doubt, your duty is to acquit.
24. If there is no reasonable doubt, you must find him guilty.
25. This is a circumstantial case – still acceptable proof of facts. This means that it must be only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstances. Emotion does not have any part to play in your decision.
26. The accused was not obliged to give evidence or to call witnesses.
27. It is the prosecution who had the burden of proof.
28. It is not a matter of making a choice between prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the accused.
29. If you don’t believe the evidence of the accused, you shouldn’t jump directly to his guilt.
TEN MINUTE BREAK
Jury is back.
Justice Byrnes is explaining the difference between murder and manslaughter.
“Justice Byrnes, “With regard to murder, you must be satisfied that Gerard caused the death of his wife with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
Manslaughter is an unlawful killing, with the intention to harm not being involved.
Neither the prosecution or the defence contends manslaughter.
The motive is not material to murder or manslaughter. Sometimes the motive is never known to anyone but the murderer. The Prosecution does not have to establish motive.
The evidence of things the deceased has said, can be unreliable. Most of it is second hand.
(Edit – I feel sick, the above were Allison’s thoughts, in private, without any intent to hurt anyone, without agenda).
Justice Byrne, “The recorded interviews with the Baden-Clay children are evidence. None spoke of hearing anything. It is routine to show recorded interviews with children rather than have them testify in court.
You (the jury) will have transcripts of recordings with the children. The recording is evidence, not the transcript.
The view of the Kholo Creek bridge and the house is not evidence. It is just to assist in your understanding. The areas have changed considerably since 2012.”
Justice Byrne is discussing what weight should be put towards statements that were made to the police by Gerard.
Detective Superintendent Mark Ainsworth at a police command centre at Brookfield Showgrounds on April 30, 2012. Photo: Marissa Calligeros
You (the jury) must decide whether the statements are truth or lies.”
Justice Byrne is now discussing the evidence given by experts, what the difference is between opinions and facts.
Justice Byrne, “The Baden-clay house is 13km from the Kholo Creek bridge. It takes 13 to 20 minutes to drive from Brookfield to the bridge.”
Justice Byrne is talking about the clothing that Allison was wearing. He mentions that her phone wasn’t ever found and that she normally took it walking with her. He said that Allison’s body was found on a pleateau down a steep bank.
Justice Byrne, “The pathologist found significant decomposition. The pathologist found that the decomposition was consistent with death 11 days earlier. Changes to her body were consistent with her body having been in the same position for all of that time. The pathologist didn’t find any injuries, only a “probable” bruise to the chest.
A chip was on Allison’s tooth that could not be aged. There wasn’t a sign of sexual assault. The pathologist didn’t find any evidence of bruises and scratches from the body being moved by the water.
The pathologist found higher than normal levels of sertraline, the decomposition of the body can cause that.
The pathologist expected significant injuries like fractures, these would be present if Allison had fallen from the bridge.
If she fell and landed in the water, this could have resulted in no injuries. The pathologist did NOT find any evidence of drowning, although it couldn’t be ruled out.”
Justice Byrne is summarising the evidence from the entomologist expert.
Justice Byrne is summarising the evidence from the diatom expert. Diatoms are usually found if someone drowns. Diatoms weren’t discovered.
Justice Byrne is discussing the forensic expert, Amanda Reeves. Ms Reeves found that there was an indication of a second DNA profile under the nails. There wasn’t enough to test.
Justice Byrne is discussing the evidence submitted with regard to Zoloft levels, submitted by the toxicologist. Zoloft isn’t particularly toxic. There hasn’t EVER been a single case of Zoloft alone, causing death. There wasn’t any ingestion of a large number of tables in the hours before her death.
The toxicologist said that seratonin syndrome should not be expected in someone taking a normal does of sertraline. The toxicologist gave the opinion that sertraline did not contribute to Allison’s death.
The defence’s toxicologist accepted that there had not been a recent ingestion of a large amount of sertraline.”
Justice Bryne is discussing the evidence of Dr Gordon Guymer, the botanist. Dr Guymer identified six species of plant entwined in Allison’s hair and body. Dr Guymer found one Cat’s Claw Creeper leaf was pulled from the plant after being caught on something. Dr Guymer found that most were fallen leaves. Dr Guymer found only two species at the creek, but all six at the house.
Toni McHugh gave evidence that she began an affair with Gerard in August, 2008. Toni said that the affair was up and down all the time. Toni spoke of Gerard breaking things off after Allison found out about their affair. The affair was not over. Toni spoke of being contacted again by Gerard, thins resumed.
Court – emails shown between Gerard and Toni.
Justice Byrne, “The two were in regular contact in April, 2012. On 19th April, they spoke on the phone. Gerard told Toni that she and Allison would both be at the real estate conference the next day.
Toni said that she “lost it”. Gerard needed to tell Allison, it wasn’t fair on either of them. Toni said that she asked Gerard what he was going to do. Gerard spoke about selling the business. Tonii called Gerard from the conference the next day to ask where Allison was.
Toni was at the police station the next day. Gerard called and said, “just answer yes or no, have you told them we are back together?”
Adjourned until 2:30pm
Justice John Byrne continues his summation:
Justice Byrne, “Dr Tom George treated Allison for years, he said that her symptoms of depression cleared up early on. Dr George recommended a marriage counsellor for Allison. According to Dr George, apart from the first two consulations, Allison was not depressed. Dr George didn’t have any concerns that Allison was suicidal and that Allison presented as extremely attached to her children.”
Justice Byrne referred to evidence from Dr Lumsden, who believed Allison’s risk of suicide was absolutely zero.
Justice Byrne referred to evidence from Dr Bourke, who prescribed Allison the anti-depressant, Zoloft, and discussed with her about the stress over the affair. Dr Bourke’s opinion was that she was not at risk of suicide.
Justice Bryne referred to Ms Nutting, a psychologist, who saw both Gerard and Allison. Ms Nutting spoke to Allison of panic attacks during the second pregancy. When Ms Nutting saw Allison at first, she was not experiencing depression symptoms. During the second appointment after the affair was discovered, Allison was more fragile. Allison was better at the third appointment.
Justice Byrne referred to evidence from the defence witness Dr Schramm. Dr Schramm referred to reports and had not interviewed Allison or Gerard. Dr Schramm said that people with depression are more likely to commit suicide and don’t always leave a note.
There isn’t any evidence whatsoever that Allison experienced any adverse reactions to Zoloft.
Justice Byrne is now referring to evidence from relationship counsellor Carmel Ritchie. Allison told Ms Ritchie that she was a conflict avoider and that her husband criticised her parenting skills. Ms Richie spoke to the accused alone initially. GBC told her that he wanted to wipe the past slate clean.
Ms Ritchie recommended 15 minute sessions every second night so that Allison could talk. Gerard was very resistant initially to these sessions.”
One of the juror’s chairs just broke, the bailiff quickly found a replacement.
Justice Byrne, “Gerard eventually agreed. Allison was brought back to the room. Allison advised Gerard that she was “over the moon” that he had spent time with the counsellor.”
Justice Byrne is discussing Allison’s journal.
Justice Byrne, “On 19th April, Allison went to a four hour training course, the trainer thought that Allison was very positive. Allison then drove to the hairdressers. Gerard spoke to Toni on the phone around 5:00pm.
Allison spoke to Olivia on the phone at 8:30pm. She was speaking quietly, with signs that the children were going to sleep. Gerard’s phone was plugged into the charge at 1:48am, and removed around 6:00am.”
Justice Byrne is running through the events of the morning of 20th April and referring to Gerard explaining to the police that he’d cut himself shaving. Gerard was asked by police about his wife’s state of mind. “Pretty good” he said. Gerard explained that the 15 minute sessions recommended by the counsellor to the police. Gerard told the police “we had one last night” and said that there were some difficult things that they had talked about. Gerard told the police that he honestly didn’t know whether Allison had come to bed the night before that he is a heavy sleeper.”
Justice Byrne said that the police asked Gerard how his wife had been the last week, or so, “Pretty good” he’d said. Gerard had told police that his wife had had a list of questions for him that she’d asked on the 19th April, (the night of her death). Gerard told the police that his financial situation was “pretty dire”.”
Justice Byrne is discussing the interview between Gerard and the police on 21st April.
Justice Byrne, “Gerard told police that Allison must have come to bed because her side of the doona was folded back. When Gerard was asked if Allison was suicidal, he said, “no”. Gerard went to see Dr Candice Beaven about the scratches, he told her he’d cut himself shaving. Gerard told her it was one motion, then said it must have been a couple, he was rushed. Gerard then went to see Dr Renu Kumar about his enquiries, he told her the cuts on his face from an old razor. “A rush job.”
Justice Byrne is now discussing the forensic examination of the house.
“There isn’t any indication of blood in the house or carport area. There isn’t an indication of a cleanup. Gerard’s razor was tested for blood, there wasn’t any found, although blood had been washed away by water.
There were flow rivulets of blood found in the back of the car.”
Justice Byrne is discussing the evidence from experts who interpreted Gerard’s injuries.
Justice Byrne, “Dr Margaret Stark said that the marks on Gerard’s face were typical of fingernail scratches.”
Dr Robert Hoskins, who said that the marks had characteristics of fingernail scratches, said that it was “extremely implausible” that they were caused by a razor.
Justice Byrne referred to evidence from Dr David Wells, who said that the first thing that came to mind was fingernail scratches.
Justice Byrne is now summarising evidence of Gerard’s three friends who lent him money. He didn’t repay any of them by April, 2012.
Judge is referring to evidence of Ms Sue Heath. Gerard spoke to her about borrowing money from her friend Dr Flegg. The prosecution contends that Gerard lied, both in evidence and when speaking to the police. Prosecution contends that Gerard lied about the cuts on his face. It would be wrong to approach the case, that if Gerard lied, it must mean he killed his wife.
It must be a lie “that an innocent person would not tell” to find him guilty. If the prosecution is to prove that he lied about the cuts, they would have to have proved that they were not caused by a razor. People do not always act rationally and telling a lie might be explained in some way.
Both murder and manslaughter involve unlawful killing. To convict of murder, you must be sure that he intended to kill, even if you believe he lied about the scratches.
Justice Byrne told the jury that they could consider the lessor charge of manslaughter.
“You may wish to consider first murder, which is the more serious charge.
“If you find the accused guilty of murder, you do not need to consider manslaughter.
“But if you find the accused not guilty of murder, then consider the alternative of manslaughter.”
Justice Byrne is speaking about the conduct of the accused, according to the prosecution.
Justice Byrne, “They cannot use Gerard’s alleged disposal of Allison’s body as proof of intent. The prosecution contends that the scratches were caused in a violent struggle, meaning that there was intent.
Justice Byrne is now referring to Gerard’s evidence. “Gerard denied killing his wife, he said he got the cuts on his face shaving, and gave other explanations for other injuries.
Justice Byrne is discussing Gerard’s evidence with regard to his wife’s mental health.
Gerard and Toni “always” recommenced their physical relationship. Gerard and Allison attended counselling while he was having an affair. Gerard did not mention it.
Justice Byrne is now summarising Gerard’s evidence about the business, the partners and moving to new premises, that he borrowed $90,000.00 from each of his three friends.
Gerard got back together with Toni for the sake of the business.
Justice Byrne is discussing the evidence on Allison discovering the affair. Gerard broke things off with Toni, said she was furious, and threw things.
Gerard’s evidence with Allison’s reaction, she insisted on checking his phone and gave him a curfew.
Justice Byrne is detailing Gerard’s evidence on getting back together with Toni after Allison found out about the affair. Allisn was unaware that he was continuing the affair. Gerard would delete call history from his mobile phone. Gerard and Allison went to see a marriage counsellor on 16th April, 2012. Gerard was resistant to talking about the affair. To him it seemed strange.
Justice Byrne is discussing the email from Toni to Gerard, he said that Gerard said he was doing his best to push Toni away at that time. Gerard’s evidence was that he would roll over and tell Toni whatever she wanted to hear as she was volatile. Gerard’s evidence was that he gave Toni the date, 1st July, for when he would come to her, a random. Gerard’s evidence was that he definitely did not intend to leave his wife.
Court – Gerard’s email to Toni, “leave things to me now, I love you”.
Gerard’s evidence was that they had the 15 minute session on 18th April, after a drive to Mt Coot-tha. The next day was 19th April, the last day that Allison was seen alive. Gerard’s evidence was that he doesn’t know how the toys got into the Captiva, he doesn’t know how her blood got there. His evidence is that he and Allison sat on the couch and chatted after the girls went to bed and that Allison asked a couple of follow up questions. Gerard admired her strength and forgiveness.
He denied placing his mobile phone on charge at 1:48am. Gerard demonstrated to the court how he cut himself shaving, doing it in three separate motions.
On 21st April, Gerard attended the Brookfield command post and spoke with the police.
Gerard testified that Toni was upset about Allison going to the same conference the next day and wanted Allison advised. He did not advise Allison and he was not concerned about the two women.
Gerard called the life insurance company on 1st May to determine how he could make a claim.
Gerard said that his father told him he had to notify the insurance company of her death.
Gerard testified that financially, the business was turning around, and that it was “absolutely untrue” that he was going to leave his wife for his mistress.
Justice Byrne is now talking about Gerard’s cross examination.
Justice Byrne, “Gerard did not tell his wife that he was sleeping with Toni McHugh after Allison found out about the affair. Gerard’s evidence was that the emails and claims of love were all to placate her or “for the sake of the business”.
Gerard used a secret email account to contact Toni. He didn’t intend to tell his wife.
Justice is discussing Gerard’s financial position under cross examination.
“Gerard’s evidence was that he was under constant pressure from Toni to leave his wife. Gerard acknowledged that he had told Toni in December, 2011 that he wanted to leave his wife and come to her “unconditionally”. He said that he did not consider that he was in a relationship with Toni. Gerard said that he and Allison had recommenced a sexual relationship in February, 2012. Despite Toni’s reaction to Allison going to the conference, he didn’t have a fear that Toni would approach Allison.
Gerard was asked about the phone charger on Allison’s side, why she would plug his phone in on his side of the bed.
Gerard did not disclose to police at any stage his conversations with Toni on the Thursday afternoon.
Gerard did not tell police that he had injuries on his chest when they took the photographs of his face.
Gerard rejected suggestions that he killed his wife, that she clawed at his face, probably as he smothered her. Gerard denied having ever physically harming his wife. Gerard said that he didn’t know how the leaves arrived in Allison’s hair.
JUSTICE BYRNE WILL NOW SUMMARISE THE LAWYER’S CLOSING ADDRESSES, tomorrow at 10:am, he apologised for any repetition.
Crown prosecutor Todd Fuller QC: One of Queensland’s top silks, Mr Fuller is an assistant director of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He studied law at the University of Queensland and was admitted as a barrister in 1989. Mr Fuller was appointed principal crown prosecutor at the DPP in 2003. In recent years, he has successfully prosecuted cop killers Phillip Graeme Abel and Donna Lee McAvoy and triple murderer Max Sica.
Dear Mr Fuller – this is our page, dedicated to you, to thank you.
The jury will retire this week to consider their verdict
‘I did not kill my wife’ says Baden-Clay
Todd Fuller, “YOU killed her. You attacked her.
You smothered her. You took the life from her.”
Todd Fuller QC – Prosecutor
The jury has entered court, with GBC, defence and prosecution waiting for Justice John Byrne to enter.
Justice Byrne addresses the jury, “You will not be sequestered, it is up to you if you want to deliberate on Fridays and weekends.”
Michael Byrne, QC continues his closing argument.
Byrne, “A person charged with a crime is not under obligation to give evidence. Gerard spent some period explaining his life with Allison, their relationship, their problems. You might thin that he didn’t hold back. If you (the jury) think that Gerard’s evidence is credible and reliable, you have to find him NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.
Gerard denied killing his wife, denied dumping her body, denied leaving his girls home alone to do so. If you think his evidence was not convincing, but left you in doubt as to what happened, he is still not guilty.
Gerard didn’t have to give evidence, he elected to do so. Gerard exposed himself to cross examination, where he was attacked by prosecutor Todd Fuller.
Gerard wanted to tell the jury a detailed history of his lie, Gerard’s lapses were in respect to women and keeping quiet about such liaisons. It’s not something shared with family, it is not something shared with friends. Gerard’s only deception related to not broadcasting his straying particularly from his wife (edit and his lover. Good grief).
He admitted all of t hat and you saw him speak to that (edit, he is an angel, he was CAUGHT THEN ADMITTED IT).
Gerard is not the type of person to explode in temper. Apart from Allison slipping back into depression and the birth of her male nephew, things were as they always were. I urge you to pay attention to details. Think in the scenario of waking up to find your partner gone from their own lives. This is not a person who is hiding, who violently murdered his wife the night before. You should consider one piece of evidence – Gerard telling Toni to tell police the truth. That is not someone who has just violently killed his wife.
There are two possibilities:
1. Gerard murdered his wife and dumped her body.
2. Gerard was worried about his wife and expected her to be found at any moment.
It is telling that Gerard on the morning of 20th April told police about the affair. If she was dead, and he knew she was dead, why would he care? Gerard had asked his dad and sister to leave t he room.
The jury must deliver an unanimous verdict. You must make your decision on evidence. The sensational media coverage has taken this case to the lowest common denominator. You must ignore it.
The media coverage must be completely out of your contemplation. Each member of the jury is in the best possible position to assess the evidence. You have seen the Kholo Creek bridge, you have walked through the house. On all the evidence, you cannot find Gerard guilty of murdering his wife.
There isn’t a cause of death, there aren’t realistic means of carrying it out. Your verdict on the evidence must be not guilty.
Michael Byrne QC has taken his seat.
TODD FULLER IS BEGINNING TO ADDRESS THE JURY.
It is not unknown for a person of previous good character to step outside his character. We have been programmed to have an expectation as to how someone should behave. We have all seen someone under pressure react in an unexpected way.
Jurors are participating in a process to determine whether Gerard killed his wife.
It is not about the mechanisms, it is about whether you are satisfied if he did it.
If you apply your experiences, your knowledge of that person to make your decisions. A courtroom is an unofficial environment. You can’t have a relationship with any o the people who come before you. You are restricted to what people say in the courtroom and how they say it. On the surface, the Baden-Clay’s appeared to be a perfect couple. It was just a facade.
They were two desperately unhappy people, for different reasons. Allison was a woman who battled for years to keep her marriage on track. Gerard would go home to his family, then slink back to his mistress. Gerard conducted an affair with a woman from the office, where his father worked. This shows the level of bravado and confidence Gerard can use to carry off deception. He presented a number of faces to a number of different people, right up until his evidence in this trial.
Gerard cried when he spoke of falling in love with Allison. What about his reaction when asked about the first time he told her he no longer loved her? The pressures on Allison hadn’t changed for years. The pressures on Gerard had.
The killing was the result of a set of circumstances, accumulating over time. Gerard is a man who prided himself on his achievements. Look at the difference between the answers Allison and Gerard gave to the counsellor when asked about themselves. Allison said she was a wife and mother. Gerard said he was the president of the chamber of commerce, etc.
The jury needs to decide whether Gerard killed his wife, if there was intent. Nobody saw the killing, nobody has confessed, it means that the case is circumstantial.
A circumstantial case is a much maligned term. It can be every bit as compelling. The jury must look at the evidence as a while and make a decision from that. There is a superficial attraction in looking at each piece of evidence. It is the context of everything that each witness testifies to, is what you must look at.
Yesterday afternoon the defence discussed Allison being stressed and subdued at the hairdresser. The defence spoke of a psychiatrist who had never met Allison. The defence claimed she was so depressed she’d gone walking into the night never to be seen again. In context Allison was a general manager going to a major conference. Allison had a cold, does that put things in context? The women at the office had told her to leave early for the hairdressers, there had been a crash, there was a lot of traffic. Allison had made a phonecall to the hairdressers to say she was going to be late.”
Mr Fuller said the defence theory, once placed in context, could not be substantiated.
“You’ve been led astray,” he said.
Fuller is discussing the evidence of Amanda Reeves, the DNA expert.
Fuller, “Reeves told you statistically, that the blood in the car belonged to Allison Baden-Clay. The blood was found in Allison’s car. The other people who used the car were DNA tested. The blood did not belong to them. They only owned the car for eight weeks.
Justice Byrne, “Please contemplate sitting hours of 9:00am until 4:30pm excluding weekends.”
Fuller, “Please contemplate the evidence through Gerard’s eyes”
The suggested trigger that Allison was upset over was the birth of her nephew which came six years after her last child. The affair may have been more on her mind than Gerard’s brother having a baby boy. The pressures were building on Gerard, personal life and business. So what does Allison tell us in death?
You can safely conclude that her body was dumped where it was found. It did not fall from the bridge, it did not wash up. Her body was found 13klm from home. It would have taken a considerable time to walk it, due to distance.
Both cars were at home, she either walked or was taken there by someone else – there isn’t any evidence of that. Allison was a reluctant exerciser. Do we have her walking that distance? Even Gerard said that Allison normally walked to avoid hills. She did not walk there to die, did not negotiate her way down to the creek bank. The police didn’t find a single person who saw her walking.
Kayakers had to negotiate the pipes to go along the creek. The houses are some distance away from the Kholo Creek bridge. There is room to pull over in a car.
COURT – Pictures of the Kholo Creek bridge area.
Court exhibit – Kholo Creek bridge (underneath).
Fuller, “Be careful of the presumptions they make. The dark coloured Captiva is less conspicuous than the white Prado with personalised plates.
Gerard had sold a house nearby. Gerard could have been at the bridge quickly in the middle of the night with no traffic. Ten, thirteen minutes.
Court – Photographs taken on 30th April, 2012
Court exhibit, Kholo Creek bridge taken April, 2012.
There have been significant changes to the bridge area since Allison’s body was discovered.
Court – Photographs taken on 30th April, 2012
Reviews of the rainfall from 19th April to 30th April, 2012, the evening of 28th April to morning of 28th April was the only rain. So where is the mud that is going to be there on 19th April?
There isn’t any evidence that there would have been mud there at the time.
Court – Picutre of the underneath the bridge
Fuller is discussing the differences in the slope now to the time of Allison’s death. It has not been made steeper.
Fuller is talking about the officer who fell when they discovered Allison’s body. He fell negotiating a different track. The idea of mud dissipates under the bridge, where the rain doesn’t reach. So don’t be distracted by the mud. The officer didn’t fall walking down or under the bridge. He fell in the mud by the water’s edge, below the body.
You can pull over on the right hand side of t he bridge travelling from Brookfield. It hadn’t rained.
Court – Photographs of Allison’s body.
Her body was pushed off that ledge and fell to where she was. That is where she remained. The positioning of Allison’s arms and legs are consistent with her being rolled/pushed off the concrete ledge above. There was a dent in the mud after Allison’s body was taken away. It remained even in August.
Court – Photograph of Allison taken from the ridge above.It shows the positioning of her arms and legs.
You should be satisfied that she didn’t fall down there or negotiate her own way down. She didn’t jump the bridge.
If Allison had fallen from the bridge and landed on the ground, she would have sustained serious injuries. If Allison had fallen into a depth of water, she would have had to have washed up onto the bank. At best the water lapped up against her.
Allison’s body was clearly underneath the bridge, not next to it. She had not fallen from the bridge to end up in that position. The pathologist said that Allison’s body did not have the appearance of having been in the water. There would have been injuries from bumping into things as she was moved by the water.”
Fuller is talking about the time lapse footage of the rise and fall of the tides used by the defence.
Fuller, “The time lapse made it seem like debris was floating past quickly. No so, the tide takes six hours to come in and out. It was not a constant forceful stream as it appeared in timelapse.
The pathologist said that there were post mortem changes consistent with her being in the same position from soon after death.
The top half of the body was mummified, the bottom half in mud was putrified.
For Allison to have been washed up the creek, she would still have had to have made it 13km from home.
Court – Maps of the creek
Court – Tide charts for the relevant dates
Court – Tide heights and times from the time the footage was taken for defence in June, 2014.
Fuller, “This shows the folly of their footage. Tide heights were different, the topography was different, the water flows, etc. There weren’t any markings in the footage to show where the body would have been. whether there was water lapping around her body wasn’t the point. There had to have been enough water to make her bouyant, deposit her there and recede.
Allison’s body was at the 1.5m mark. Tides fell below that mark during the relevant times. Rainfall would only have affected the low tide. You can be confident that the water never reached Allison’s body.”
Gerard has a notepad on his lap, pen in hand, listening to the prosecutor’s detail.
Fuller, “You will conclude, she was not in a depth of water. In that case, what does that exclude?
The trial is not about establishing a cause of death.
If Allison’s body had not been so decomposed, the pathologist would have been in a better position.
The diatom expert (organisms in water) said there weren’t any in Allison’s system. This shows that drowning is unlikely.
If Allison didn’t drown, if she didn’t fall, if she wasn’t deposited by the water, what is left?
ADJOURNED FOR 20 MINUTES
Fuller, “Allison’s body was left where it was to delay discovery.”
Court – Photographs showing someone would have to be standing on the edge of the ledge to see Allison’s body.
Fuller, “Why do you have to distance yourself from the body? That is because you’ve killed someone.”
Fuller addresses the jury, “Do you know of anyone good at hiding things, covering their tracks, someone who has lived a lie? Gerard corrected his evidence, saying it was his idea to put the tracking app on their phones. Gerard claimed it was to give his wife peace of mind. It was good peace of mind, Gerard had kept on with the affair. Gerard knew how to turn it off, he manipulated his way around it.
Gerard gave Allison his phone to check but just deleted the calls to his mistress. “
Fuller is discussing Allison’s body and talking about the jumper wound around her head.
Fuller, “Allison’s walking attire isn’t her normal attire for walking, by the way. Allison still had her rings on, whoever killed her did not want to remove her wedding rings. Allison didn’t have an ID, nor money, nor a phone.
Two possible injuries to Allison, a bruise on her chest and a chip on her tooth. Gerard had not seen a chip on Allison’s tooth. Decomposition was consistent with death ten or eleven days earlier.”
Fuller, “Let us look at the overdose.
Experts say that the level of drug is not consistent with her death. The levels in her stomach are not consistent with having ingested any before death. Death from Sertraline toxicity is almost unheard of.
The defence suggested that she took an antidepressant, became disorientated, somehow made it 13km then dived or fell. Allison had been on sertraline for a line time, nearly nine years. Her usage was closely monitored by her psychiatrist Dr Tom George.
The defence said that she had upped her dose to 100mg and developed seratonin syndrome. Allison’s prescription had been increased seven months earlier without trouble.
On 19th March, 2012, Allison went to her G, it wasn’t about her mental health, it was for a Pap smear. While she was there, she asked for a script for sertraline. She had done that regularly. Once you have a diagnosis, people can use it against you, no matter how you have adjusted.
The 19th March appointment was not about the return of a major depressive illness, it was about a Pap smear.”
Court – Photograph of the box of Allison’s sertraline, found in the console of the Captiva.
Fuller, “Gerard told police that he knew nothing about Allison’s sertraline, that he had been searching the house for it. Police found the sertraline in the Captiva, a foil inside. Ten tablets, all empty, does that scream an overdose?
She doesn’t take the tablets with her, no suggestion of that. The box contained 30 tablets, she’d had the box for over 30 days. You might think she had taken the last tablet close to the 19th of April. There wasn’t a sudden change in her script from 50 to 100mg.
Allison had been supervised throughout her time using the sertraline.
The real key to Allison’s mental health was that she didn’t go back to Dr George. Dr George was the man who fixed her. The alcohol in Allison’s system is consistent with decomposition. There isn’t any evidence that Allison went on a bender, nothing around the house.
We are now excluding jumping, falling, death from an overdose and drowning. Allison ticked “transient suicidal thoughts” back in 2003 during her first appointment with Dr George.
There haven’t been any concerns since.
Allison’s best friend Kerry-Anne Walker describe her as “fantastic” in 2012. Allison was involved in the school community, she was working. She was not socially isolated.
The night before Allison put her girls to bed, she sings one of them to sleep. She was engaged in the business. On 19th April, after hearing of the birth of the nephew, Allison tells Olivia she was “thrilled”.
She has “survived” the disclosure of her husband’s affair. Up until then she had just been putting up with her husband not loving her and wanting to leave.
Dr Bourke doesn’t refer to Allison’s depression. He just says she was upset from problems in her marriage. Allison was “over the moon that Gerard had finally decided to engage” when they went to see the counsellor.
Going to the counsellor showed the efforts she was making again to save their marriage. Allison was excited about going to the conference. She’d made plans about it.
Allison wasn’t depressed, she wasn’t suicidal. She was busy making plans. Allison was not affected by drugs, she didn’t drown, she didn’t fall. She did not die from natural causes.
Allison was dumped at Kholo Creek after she was dead. This means that someone had killed her.
(Notice lack of Fishbone Fern and Crepe Myrtles?)
Was she strangled or smothered? She wasn’t shot or stabbed.
We now turn to who did it.
Gerard was doing business as usual that night. He sent out group work texts. Gerard claimed that he got up after 6:00am and found that she was missing.
In the house that night, no-one hears anything, including the children.
Court – Photograph of the house, showing the girls’ bedrooms.
Fuller, “Both girls’ bedrooms at the front of the house had controls for an air conditioner. “
Court – Photography of Allison and Gerard’s bedroom.
Gerard claimed that noise travelled quickly through the house, but the bedside table had a baby monitor on it. Why do you need a baby monitor if noise travels well through the house?
A woman gave evidence of her daughter screaming down the street, those screams weren’t heard in the Baden-Clay house.
Evidence from the youngest girl was that mum (Allison) came back in to check on her. She was asked, how do you know? She said that she knew, as she promised that she would. One of the girls was asked what her mum was wearing that night. She said that she can’t remember. The girl said that she thought her mum was wearing a sloppy jumper and pyjama pants. The girl was positive that it wasn’t her work clothes. Is it conceivable that she had on the clothes she was found in?”
Fuller will talk about where her death occurred.
Fuller, “Allison’s body tells us one more thing. That is the leaves.”
Court – Photograph of the leaves and twigs found in Allison’s hair.
Fuller, “They inexplicably link Allison Baden-Clay to the house and her death to the house. The leaves were found in and around her hair and her jumper.
Botanist Dr Gordon Guymer had to physically disentangle the leaves from her hair. What is the possibility that all six were deposited by the creek and no other types of foliage?
What is going to be in the creek? The plants growing around the creek? None of those ended up in her hair.
Could this man be so unlucky? Of those six plants, only two are located in the area. Not the vicinity, in the area. It is not like she’d be lying underneath a Chinese Elm. Seven crepe myrtle leaves were in her hair.
There wasn’t any Crepe Mytle found at the creek. At her house there is a Crepe Myrtle at the front of the house, next to the carport, next to the driveway, and the back of the house.
Court – Photograph of Crepe Myrtle leaves covering the back patio area.
(Have a look at the back window, can you,if you look for a while, see a large female face, seemingly etched in the glass?). Very sad.
It is not just that they were there, they were there in the highest proportion. Seven found in her hair. They inextricably link Allison Baden-Clay to the house, and her death to the house.”
Fuller is talking about the Cat’s Claw Creeper that was found in and around the carport of the house.
LUNCH UNTIL 2:30PM
Fuller continues to speak about the leaves in Allison’s hair.
Fuller, “Eucalyptus was found in Allison’s hair. There was a fair amount of litter in the backyard. Chinese Elm was found at Kholo Creek but also one at the house. One leaf was found on Allison. The Fishbone Fern grew to 90cm.
Think about where your head would be to come into contact with a 90cm plant.” Fuller gestures like he is holding something.
Court – Photograph of the leaf litter over the back patio.
Fuller, “There isn’t Lillipilly at Kholo Creek, there is one in the front of the Baden-Clay yard.
One Lillypilly, one Chinese Elm, lots of Crepe Myrtle, lots of Fishbone Fern, lots of Cat’s Claw Creeper.
The combination of all six plants are at the house. All six are in her hair. Then we get to the creek where there is a Eucalyptus and a Chinese Elm.
The only conclusion you can draw is that her head came into full contact with the lea litter at the Brookfield house. Was there a struggle? Was she dragged? Does that explain the Cat’s Claw Creeper leaves detaching into her hair? Otherwise, they have all fallen from somewhere else, and have ended up in the creek at the same time, and come into contact with Allison. Otherwise, they have fallen into the creek somewhere else at different times and somehow all ended up on Allison.
This is what connects her to the house, ladies and gentleman.
I will now speak about the Captiva.
There are three rows of seats in the Captiva.
Court – photograph of the middle row.
When the police find the Captiva, the back row of seats are down, baskets of toys have been put in the back.
Several police looked at the car during the day and didn’t notice any blood in the back. That is because it was next to the footwell, which was covered by the rear row of seats when they were folded down. The blood was hidden from view unless the seats were folded up.
If you didn’t know it was there, would you see it? They only had the car since 25th February, 2012. No-one was aware of any reason for the blood to be there, or of any previous injuries. There wasn’t a blood trail in or out of the car. Gerard did not take his Prado when looking for Allison that morning. If you are alarmed that your wife is missing, why haven’t you taken the first vehicle you come to?
He, instead, reversed the Captiva out. The roads he takes are the perimeter of where the police later triangulate her phone. We know Allison took the children to school the day before in the Captiva. They put their bags in the back, no toys.
Allison was at the hairdressers until late. It is unlikely that she would then have put the toys in the car when she returned home. Allison’s blood, in the car, supports the Crown’s theory that some violence was done to her.”
Fuller talks about the scratches.
Fuller, “Where the scratches an indelible mark left on Gerard’s face by his wife? The defence’s claim was that he didn’t try to hide the scratches, that it is another one of his virtues.
Gerard told his nine year old daughter he had cut himself with a blunt razor. What a terrible thing that on this one morning, when he was in a hurry, he does his, “shit, shower, shave” in the wrong order. One of the girls said that her dad shaved before his shower that morning.
Gerard said that he was rushed. If you have to do the same two things, is it any quicker to do them in the reverse order?
Nigel asked his son what the marks on his face were. The police also asked.
Court – Photo of Gerard with the scratches visible on his cheek.
When the next police arrived, he volunteered the information. They asked one question. Same with the next lot of police. One police officer suggested that the marks didn’t look consistent with shaving cuts. Gerard repeated his story. Gerard wasn’t pushed, or challenged or interrogated.
Priscilla Dickie noticed the scratches, so did Kerry-Anne Walker. There wasn’t any mention of the other injuries at that time.
Court – Photograph. Fuller is pointing out the smaller marks at the bottom of the larger marks.
When it is suggested that he didn’t try to cover the marks on his face, they should look at the smaller cuts on the bottom. Gerard knew he would have to explain the cuts. He made up the false explanation and started by telling his children.
The next day he went to see the doctor. That doctor didn’t make any mention of the smaller cuts. You might think that they had healed. Gerard told the doctor that he had made the cuts in one motion. He told others in three motions.
He then, of course, gave the doctor his business card.
Gerard’s visit to the doctor later that day revealed all his other injuries, including the one near his shoulder. The marks by his shoulder were never explained. They are consistent with someone pulling on his clothing.”
Fuller shows another photo of the cuts on Gerard’s face. “He is starting to grow a beard ladies and gentleman.
The pictures are taken on 21st April. Gerard didn’t shave again. Gerard explained that day that he had been startled while shaving, rather than rushed.
Gerard’s evidence on the stand was that he stopped, then went again.
The second GP was of a view that Gerard’s razor was not consistent with causing marks on his face. Dr Griffiths saw him two days later. A forensic specialist. Dr Griffiths described the scratches as irregular, not straight as yu’d expect from a razor. Dr Griffiths thought they “could not” have been caused by the razor. Three experts were given the photographs of the scratches to look at. All three saw it the same way, all used the same language.
Dr Hoskins said, “typical of fingernail marks”. Raggedy and parallel. The smaller scratches down the bottom appeared to have been caused by a razor.
Dr Stark calls the marks abrasions. Dr Star also said “consistent with fingernail injuries”. Dr Stark did not consider the marks typical of shaving injuries.
The evidence from Dr Wells was that the first thing that came to mind was fingernails or a canine claw. Dr Wells could not see a mechanism whereby they could be caused by the razor. The marks occurred after his children went to sleep and before they got up. After they last saw their mother and before they got up to find her missing. They can’t say whose DNA was under her fingernails but there was a possible second contributor.
There was a struggle. Allison had left her mark upon Gerard. One of the things the jury must find is intention.
This is close quarters, close up violence. They were in arms reach of each other. The only injury she could do to him was the scratch to his face. She was unable to raise the alarm. She was unable to cause any injury to him other than the face.
Does that not speak of the mechanism that was used? If it was efficient and effective, what is in the mind of the person inflicting the violence? Is it such a virtue that Gerard lied about the scratches and tried to cover them up?
How was he going to hide them from the people he had to deal with that day?
How long was that going to be a secret?”
Fuller mentions the phone, placed on charge at 1:48am.
“The only person to back that Allison had his phone all night is Gerard.
Would Allison have gone around the side of the bed to Gerard’s side to plug it in?
Fuller is talking about the pressures on Gerard at the time.
Fuller, “Gerard had pressures from business, pressures from his wife and pressures from his mistress.
It isn’t about Allison and her state. It is about Gerard. Gerard had the ability to recall his travels and his honeymoon while on the stand. What level of detail did he have when describing his conversations with Toni? What is more important, is that hose conversations he recalls from when Lady Di died.
It was more important to Gerard to play up his wife’s battle with depression. Gerard took it upon himself to “help you out” with details of Allison’s illness.
Gerard was caught out with the testimony of Ms Nutting, counsellor, who said Gerard didn’t believe in depression.
Toni wasn’t a “flash in the pan, oh I need sex”, he was with her for three years.
Gerard throws in that the medication made Allison put on weight. That it affected her libido.Gerard tried to turn his affair with Toni into a virtue. He was counselling her over relationship problems.
Gerard resumed with Toni after Allison found out. The ground rules had changed then, this was done by Allison, who was no longer putting up with Gerard’s behaviour.
The emails between Gerard and Toni were much more than him placating her. As early as 2009 he told Allison that he didn’t love her and wanted to leave.
The ultimate insult was telling staff that he still loved Toni after Allison found out about the affair. It is a matter for the jury to consider Carmel Ritchie’s testimony about Gerard not being keen on her advice.
Gerard claimed that there was no financial pressure. His call to Sue Heath had him in tears, saying that he would go bankrupt.
On 1st May, it wasn’t just a call to the insurance to advise them of the death. He made inquiries about making a claim.
There had to be strains in the marriage from at least 2009.
So supportive of Allison’s depression was Gerard, that he had an affair with Michelle Hammond.
He had been in a relationship with Toni for a year when he and Allison went to see Dr George. When Gerard and Toni got together, she was still living with her partner of 17 years.
There is a contrast between Gerard and Toni in that Toni separated from her partner.
Is Gerard the perfect dad by coming home to his children each night? He said that afterwards he would meet his mistress.
Not everything was content with his relationship with Toni, as we’ve heard about Jackie Crane. They planned for Jackie to stay with him at the conference.
In 2009, Dr George said that Allison was symptom free, despite she and her husband living separate lives.
Another psychologist wanted Allison to come and work for him once she’d finished her studies.
In 2010 Allison confides to her best friend that Gerard said that he didn’t love her anymore. Allison didn’t confide in her best friend about the affair. She protected him, she was loyal.
Court – Allison’s journal. “I have a loving marriage with a wonderful relationship and great sex.”
Allison speaks of her daily disciplines. Exercise, supplements, listening to a CD, and drinking water.
Court – Allison’s gratitude list. One reference is to her husband, with A woman who is scared to drive?
One reference with regard to a loving text that she had received from him.
Another page – “The flash car I was able to drive today” on the gratitude list. A woman who is too scared to drive?
Allison’s mention of Gerard “being a gadget person”.
Allison was grateful for “Snowy the Prado” which is mentioned in her journal.
In 2010 Allison consults with Dr Lumsden, psychologist, as she wants the doctor to speak to Gerard.
In August, 2010, Allison writes that she is the happiest when she is with her family and friends.
Journal: I wish my marriage was like it was before the ceremony.
Journal: I would give anything if my partner would make love to me.
Journal: If my relationship ends it will be because Gerard has had enough and doesn’t love me anymore and all the crap I have dished…
Fuller, “This is an insight into Allison.
Journal: I would give anything if my partner would love me and make love to me.
Journal: If my relationship ends it will be because I didn’t work hard enough.
Journal: Maybe I am still harbouring regrets about getting married and whether I made the right decision.
Fuller, “You might think that Allison’s harshest critic was Allison. She wasn’t afraid to look at herself in the mirror and ask what she could do to make things better. Allison knew Gerard didn’t love her. Her best friend suggested he might be having an affair. There wasn’t any return to depression. The new Allison gave her husband an ultimatum.
Allison said that, ” it is her or me”. She told him that Toni would no longer work for them.
Allison was the one who tried to share his goals, his passions, by joining the business. How did Gerard repay her? He phoned and emailed Toni. Of course, after telling other staff he still loved Toni.
Gerard claimed that he wanted to do anything to help Allison. Really? He didn’t believe depression was an illness.
Allison wanted to pick up her marriage and make it work despite everything that had happened. Allison had flashbacks of seeing Toni’s car. How would she react to seeing her at the conference?
It is Gerard, not Toni, who resumes the relationship. Gerard made the decision to go back. They now had brief windows of contact.”
Court – Email between Toni and Gerard. Toni is telling how she feels about being the “other woman.”
The next email Toni recovered, they were planning a life together.
Email Gerard to Toni – “I have given you a commitment and I intend to stick to it. I will be separated by 1st July.”
Fuller, “Gerard was in love with Toni. This man wanted to be with Toni McHugh. However, he was straddling the fence. He didn’t have the courage to stay, he didn’t have the courage to go.
Email Gerard to Toni – “This is agony for me too. I love you,..Leave things to me now…I love you..”
Fuller, “Leave things to me – does that mean leave me alone? This is at an end? It is still a relationship, it is still ongoing, it just has taken a different form because now he is under a tighter leash. While Toni is discussing rental properties for them, Allison is speaking of their marriage counsellor.
Toni had told Gerard that if he had to make a choice and his choice was his wife, that’s OK.
Toni fell for the Baden-Clay product and fell hard.
The jury will retire this week to consider their verdict
OUR REPORTS ARE IN DETAIL, UPDATED AS IT HAPPENS, FROM OTHER DIRECT SOURCES
Court resumes today with the Crown and Defence giving Closing Arguments along with Justice John Byrne giving his summation,
with specific instructions on howthe jury should reach a verdict.
The jury, of five women and seven men, will deliberate.
“I just wanted sex” – Gerard Baden-Clay
“I didn’t love my mistress” – Gerard Baden-Clay
“Murder Claims are absurd” – Gerard Baden-Clay
CLOSING ARGUMENT – MICHAEL BYRNE, QC, DEFENCE.
Byrne, “I have prepared some powerpoints to assist the jury.”
01. The jury might think it has been a who dunnit play, a media circus or a soap opera, it is not so. The jury shouldn’t be caught up in media hype. GBC has been charged with murder, the most serious crime one can be charged with. He has been charged with murdering his wife of 14 years, the person he had three daughters with. GBC is accused of somehow violently ending her life in the home he shared with her and their three daughters.
GBC has not ever been seen to be violent or argue with his wife. One of the first witnesses, a police sergeant, regarded Gerard as one of the nicest guys in the world. The jury has seen what GBC has done in the community. This case is about the evidence, not about what the media has said. GBC was confronted by an angry and abusive Toni McHugh, he didn’t become angry or violent on that occasion. Once the jury has carefully considered all the evidence, they should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not about feeling sorry for anyone, it’s about looking at the evidence. In every trial, the prosecution must prove a number of things beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove Allison is deceased, that Gerard killed her. The first point is not in contention, the second point is.
A third element – intent must be proved to be satisfied of murder. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove GBC’s guilt. That means Gerard has nothing to prove, he does not need to give evidence or call evidence. He does not have to prove anything to you, particularly his innocence. He is, as is anyone, presumed to be innocent. The burden is on the prosecution, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If the jury has reasonable doubt, their duty is to acquit.
The prosecution case is a circumstantial one. That means that isn’t any direct evidence that Gerard Baden-Clay killed Allison. There aren’t any eye witnesses, no admissions. The case relies on circumstances.
An example is that GBC was the last person to see Allison alive. Does that mean he killed her? No.
COURT – Slide being shown. Slide states, “Jury has to believe Crown case is only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstances.”
Byrne, “A jury has to believe there is real and substantial evidence linking the aspects of the circumstantial case. One fact is that Allison’s blood was found in the car. The jury has to believe that the only rational reason for it being there is GBC transporting Allison’s body.
There wasn’t any blood found anywhere else in the carport, garage, side of the house, back patio, inside the house. The blood in the car cannot be aged.
The jury’s task is complex and important.
COURT – Slide of the end of GBC’s cross examination where he was asked if he killed his wife.
Byrne is highlighting certain words that the prosecution used, such as, “either” and “perhaps”.
Byrne, “It is not on the balance of probabilities, you have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
We will now work through aspects of the evidence.
How did Gerard kill his wife? How did she die? What caused her death?
How can the Crown say that Allison was violently murdered? Does the evidence even reveal how she in fact died?
The jury should think of the evidence of pathologist Dr Nathan Milne.
The pathologist examined Allison’s brain, organs, and could not establish a cause of death. A precision 3D CT scan was conducted and could find no definite injuries to Allison’s body. It is alleged that there was a violent intentional murder. No injuries were found. Dr Milne went over Allison’s clothing. Her singlet, her bra, pants all properly in place. Jumper over her head. The sneakers tied up, over the socks, everything in place.
There wasn’t any evidence of fractures, there wasn’t any injuries to the larynx, hyoid bone. There isn’t any evidence of crushing fractures, that is the uncontradicted evidence from the pathologist. There was something on the ribs on the left hand side that was a possible bruise. Dr Milne had seen thousands of CT scans and could see no defects. He called a radiologist who could not see anything. Allison was 43, with a history of asthma and a long term diagnosis of depression. Allison had alcohol in her system, at least half, possibly all, due to decomposition.
Neither the pathologist nor associated experts could come up with a cause of death. The pathologist looked at causes that could not be excluded. Alcohol, and medication were one, although unlikely. Drowning, a fall, could not be excluded, although unlikely. The pathologist could not determine a place of death. They couldn’t exclude the body being moved after death, by tide or person.”
Byrne points to Gerard.
“This person is facing the murder of that woman. We don’t have a cause of death. I remind you again that you need to make your decision, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Allison had a chip on her tooth which couldn’t be aged. No other injuries, no cracking to the tooth, no damage to the jaw. The prosecution has to prove murderous intent – there aren’t any detectable injuries, there isn’t anything whatsoever. The prosecution has to exclude all other reasonable explanations.
The causes of death left open are alcohol, sertraline toxicity, drowning, and falling from a height.
The body was located under a bridge.
The judge is giving the jury periodic breaks to help their concentratiion on closing arguments. The judge advised the jury to return when they feel comfortable.
Byrne, “There wasn’t a crime scene at the house. I will take you through the police’s evidence.
01. First response officer Constable Ash saw marks on Gerard’s face and thought perhaps domestic violence. Constable Ash was doing his job. The officer looked around the house, he didn’t find any sign of a struggle. He didn’t find any blood. At 8am, Constable Ash didn’t find any signs of violence. What was alleged was that a violent killing had occurred in the house. The police didn’t find anything. They searched the carport, there wasn’t anything to look like blood.
Police completed chemical screening for blood in the carport and garage areas, they didn’t find anything. It is one thing to say that there was blood in the Captiva, therefore it was used. There wasn’t blood anywhere else.
A crime scene warrant was taken out. It is an important tool for the police. This allowed the police to seize possession of the house and land, 20th April, 2012. The warrant lasted seven days. The police had seven days to thoroughly examine and search the house and property. Police had the SES conducting a shoulder to shoulder search of the grounds of the property.
The only thing they found was a black NAB pen, that is how carefully they searched.
Do not look at media grabs or sensational headlines, look at the evidence.
EVIDENCE OF SENIOR SERGEANT EWEN TAYLOR, forensic co-ordinator.
There were scientific examinations o the house and vehicle. No blood was found in the residence. There wasn’t any obvious indication of a clean-up inside the house. The Crown allege that there was a violent killing, with the body driven to the creek. There isn’t any mess or blood, there isn’t any damage, nothing has been found.
Gerard is an accountant working as a real estate agent, he doesn’t know how to clean up a murder scene.
Edit – oh rubbish, remember, GBC claimed he did up to 90% of the work and that he cleans up rental properties, the defence went too far with the above comment.
Gerard and Allison aren’t alone in the house, they had their three young children with them. You, the jurors, have been through the house, you have walked through it. The girls had called out through the house, they would have heard it. The house isn’t sound proofed in any way.
Edit – except he may have killed her in the Captiva.
The three girls were taken by police on 20th April and asked what they heard. The eldest said the last time she saw her mum was the night before, she said it was like any other night. The eldest awoke to get a glass of water. Her mother was on the couch in her pyjamas.
Edit – Where are the pyjamas?
The eldest girl was asked whether mum and dad had been having any fights, she said no. The eldest girl asked if she heard anything, any car noises, she said no.
The Crown will say she had cross country, would have been tired and slept through it. If they say it really quickly, it might make sense.
INTERVIEW WITH SECOND DAUGHTER.
Girl is asked whether mum and dad are good friends. She said yes, and when asked why, she said that they “never fight”. These are the words of an innocent. Friends and employees never heard a fight. They’re just not that kind of couple.
The second girl was asked whether her mum and dad had had a fight the night before. The girl shakes her head.”
Byrne, “From the mouths of babes.”
Byrne, “The second girl also was asked about car noises. She didn’t hear anything. That is not one child tired from cross country, that is two now. The youngest daughter said the same. No fighting, no car noises.
Again, it is important not to take grabs, or headlines. Take all the evidence. From three girls, there is no argument. Nobody heard a car start up in the carport. The scream evidence just vanished into thin air, with the evidence of Stephanie Apps.
Mrs Apps gave her evidence that her daughter screamed when she ran into a spiderweb. The evidence just falls away. Mrs Apps watched the six o’clock news about screams in the night and came forward.
The Crown theory must be that the killing occurred some time after 9pm, it is equally critical that after Gerard violently killed his wife, he transported her body to Kholo Creek.
If the evidence doesn’t prove that, the Crown case starts to collapse. It does collapse here. The Crown case is that after he somehow caused her death, leaving no signs in the house or carport, he loads the body. He then takes the body to Kholo Creek and dumps her under the bridge. Is that what the evidence shows? We knew Allison is seen by her daughter on the couch watching TV.
Somewhere between 9pm 19th April and when the body was found, we had a change from pyjamas to walking gear.
Byrne, “How does that happen? Is the Crown theory that Gerard somehow dresses a dead body? Have you ever had to dress and undress a child who has fallen asleep? Allison was not a child.
Had Gerard thought to put a jumper on a dead body because it was cold in April? Perhaps the Crown believes he waited until morning, killed her and drove of before the children woke up.
Do any of these theories completely satisfy a jury of being the only way that it could have happened?
There wasn’t any blood in the carport area. There wasn’t any blood in the house. There was only blood in the car. Sure, it is Allison’s blood in the ar. It can’t be aged.”
Edit – car was a few months old.
Byrne, “If the body was dragged or carried through the foliage, where are the leaves in the car? Only crepe myrtle was in the car, it is very common in Brisbane.”
Edit – ONLY IF PLANTED .
Byrne, “How does all this movement go undetected by the three girls? The girls would have been left alone for up to 40 minutes while Gerard disposed unceremoniously of the body of his wife.
The Crown case is that Gerard got the body out of the back of the car, carried or dragged it through the grass. Gerard climbs back up, through the grass and mud and drives home.
Do you, the jury, think such a scenario is even possible, let alone one they are satisfied of, beyond a reasonable doubt? The jury has ventured down that ridge.
PHOTOGRAPH – Kholo Creek bridge area. The mud and grass areas can be seen.
Byrne, “Bear in mind how police described it. One officer said he tried to touch down after being winched but the mud was thick.”
Edit – we had torrential rain AFTER ALLISON DISAPPEARED, not when she disappeared, i.e. the area wasn’t soaked at that time.
Byrne, “One officer said that the mud was at the top of his gum boots when he tried to stand.
Byrne, “When the jury visited the creek, it was a dry day, the clay still stuck to your shoes. When we went to the house afterwards, mud was tracked onto the carpet. The interior of the Captiva was examined for evidence of clean ups. There wasn’t any obviousclean ups.
How do you carry a body down an embankment at night when a police officer had trouble during the day? How was there not any mud anywhere? This is a circumstantial case alleging murder. The evidence clearly shows the transporting/dumping of the body did not happen.
It is the absence of those things which loom large in this. Some earlier unremarkable incident caused Allison’s blood to be in the car.”
Edit – what is it then?
Byrne, “The evidence is key. You do not ignore evidence. You do not make excuses for the absence of any link between Kholo Creek and the house. The jury cannot make excuses because Allison is dead and someone should pay.
Gerard gave police access to the house and cars, his conduct was consistent with a man who wanted his wife found. It is completely at odds with a man attempting to conceal a crime scene. This is because there was no crime scene at the house. The jury should not have sympathy for Gerard, for Allison or her family or for Gerard’s family. They should dispassionately look at the evidence. Gerard and Allison had been married for 14 years, their life had been unmarked by any signs of violence.”
edit – yes reported violence.
Byrne, “Together they had gone through years of Allison’ depressive illness. It was not a passionate relationship, there had not been any intimacy for years. All relationships are different, nothing wrong with that. The sexual passion was gone, they had a companionable relationship. One or more of the jury might find it abhorrent that someone in a marriage is unfaithful.
Some of the jury might think less of Gerard because he was not faithful to Allison. Gerard was unfaithful not once, but more than once. Maybe the jury will find his morals despicable. That is a fair cry though from labelling him a murderer. The Crown alleged motive – he wanted to leave his wife and be with Toni. Like the screams and bumps in the night, the Crown worded it as a circumstance.
When the jury scrutinises the evidence, they will see that wasn’t the case. Gerard did not want to be with Toni. Even Toni knew in her heart that that was not the case. Toni agreed that her relationship with Gerard was up and down all the time year after year.
Toni was convinced their relationship was over after Allison found out. Gerard contacted Toni again after three months. Whatever the jury thinks of Gerard’s morals, they can’t convict him on his morals. Gerard made promises to Toni, but in Toni’s words, “again nothing happened.” Gerard’s affair didn’t occur on the weekends, he’s married, he was with his family. It was a pattern of promises, no action. It had been going on for years, Toni agreed with that. Toni said that Gerard was good at making promises, nothing ever came of them.
Gerard wasn’t even faithful to Toni. To be brutal, he was not sexually faithful. Toni wasn’t the only woman Gerard was going to leave his wife and children for. Gerard gave Toni a date when he would leave his wife, his wife’s birthday. This does not mean he is guilty of murder. Toni did not believe this date. If Toni didn’t believe, why should the jury?
Gerard’s email to Toni, “Leave things to me now.” Toni always left things to Gerard, nothing ever happened. Gerard and Toni would communicate during the week, on 19th April they spoke of the conference the next day. Gerard did not hide the fact that Allison would be at the same conference as Toni. Toni described it as “I just felt like I was being played again.”
Byrne, “Gerard didn’t have any intention of leaving his wife and children for Toni McHugh, there wasn’t any reason to.
Does he kill his wife to be with Toni McHugh? Not likely. On 20th April, Toni asked him what happened. Had their been an argument? Gerard said no. Gerard told Toni to tell the truth. Gerard was not hiding anything, he was trying to find his wife.
When the three year affair was revealed, Gerard confessed. If there was going to be a trigger, an explosion, it would have been when Allison found out. There were tears, without raised voices. It was talked about calmly. Gerard was not one to explode. He went to see Toni and told her it was over. Gerard didn’t lose his temper, he went to work, called if staff individually and told them what had happened.
That is the type of temperament that the evidence shows you that Gerard Baden-Clay has.
Todd Fuller vigorously put questions to Gerard and he still remained calm. The only emotion was when he was “reliving” parts of his life with Allison and the shock o her going missing. They might think premeditated murder is absurd on the evidence presented. They might think spontaneous murder with a background of t he Footy Show is just as unbelievable.
Is financial pressure a reason for killing your wife of 14 years? Gerard is an accountant with accountant mates. They don’t say this was financial pressure “bearing down on him”.”
Byrne is discussing GBC’s finances and shows a table of Gerards financial balance sheet. Gerard’s finances were structured personal versus business., Byrne claims the figures are healthy as the assets exceed the liabilities.”
Edit – what assets?
Byrne, “Gerard had substantial personal assets at the time. Gerard had confidence that he could find the money to pay for the rental side of the business. If you look at the evidence, Gerard wasn’t under financial pressure.
Gerard’s accountant friend Rob Cheesman went through the business accounts, along with two other friends. The friends believed Gerard was optimistic about how the business was going. There really was a positive balance of about half a million dollars.
The friends testified that Gerard could have let those businesses go broke and walk away, there wasn’t any personal risk to Gerard. This was the opinion of Gerard’s close friend Rob Cheesman. Gerard’s other friend Stuart Christ also went through the financial records. The third friend was Peter Cranna. All three were happy to lend money to Gerard after going through his documentation.
Adjourning for lunch until 2.30pm
Byrne is discussing Sue Heath’s evidence.
Byrne, “Gerard spoke, distressed to Sue, saying that he needed money from her friend, Bruce Flegg. Dr Flegg’s evidence was that when he spoke with Gerard, Gerard had “moved on’. Gerard was by then speaking to other people about sourcing money and was ‘confident’ about that.”
Byrne is now discussing the insurance policies. Both Gerard and Allison both had policies.
Byrne, “I would like to remind the jury of the evidence of Nigel Baden-Clay, who has a background in the insurance injury. It was only prudent that they had two policies in place, being a young family with young children. there was contact with the insurer after the discovery of Allison’s body. Nigel arranged Allison’s life insurance policy, he had a background in the insurance industry. Nigel told Gerard it was his obligation to notify the insurance company of Allison’s death, following the discovery of the body. Nigel filled out the paperwork on behalf of his son and Gerard signed it. There isn’t anything untoward, you might think, about that approach.”
Toni McHugh new Nigel and he had suggested she take out life insurance. Byrne said the claim on the lie insurance should not sway the jury.
Byrne is talking about the plants and leaves found on Allisn’s body and whether they link her death to the house. The leaves were not in the Captiva. Byrne is discussing the evidence of the botanist, who went to the creek, walked the streets and surveyed plants growing in the area. One of the plants found in Allison’s hair was a Cat’s Claw Creeper. Byrne said it is a pest and found everywhere.
Edit, I haven’t seen this in our area, or on acreage in our street:
Fishbone fern – was a mixture of fallen and fresh leaves, same with the Cat’s Claw Creeper. Byrne asked the botanist whether the plants and leaves float down rivers. The botanist agreed.
Edit: Allison wasn’t in the water. Torrential rain fell just before her body was found.
Baden-Clay – back of home. Notice the Fishbone fern underneath the Crepe Myrtle – come on, the defence really is pushing it:
Byrne said that the botanist, Dr Gordon Guymer, didn’t do a study on how much debris was moving up and down the creek.
Byrne, “It is one thing to say you went to Kholo Creek and you didn’t see certain types of plants. The jury needs to look at the catchment area of the creek and the tidal flows. The real and perhaps only explanation on how fresh and old leaves were found on the body ten days later is from the water.
Some of Allison’s family leave the courtroom while photographs of her body are shown to the jury by the defence.
Byrne, “This is Allison’s hair where he says leaves could have been caught up. It pains me to say it but just bear that image in mind.
COURT – Time lapse video of the tidal flows in Kholo Creek again.
Byrne points to the area where, “You might think that the body probably was here. Watch how much water rose to that level.”
Byrne plays the footage again and points out the areas where debris are deposited on the bank and taken away again.
Byrne, “The pathologist described the plant material ass being stuck within Allison’s hair. Initially, police at the scene, talked about getting to Allison’s body before the tide rose.”
Byrne is referring to evidence from an engineer who looked at the tide charts. The engineer said that he couldn’t tell if the body was below the high tide mark.
Byrne, “The best evidence is what the jury can see for themselves.”
Byrne, “Gerard didn’t give any other explanation except the marks on his face were shaving cuts. Gerard called the police to his home that day and the marks where there for all to see. Gerard told everyone what happened to his face in an open and candid fashion. Even when the police said that they don’t look like shaving cuts, he didn’t change his story. Clearly Gerard Baden-Clay was not concerned about those marks.
Gerard even demonstrated to the jury using a highlighter to demonstrate how he cut himself.”
Edit – oh pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase.
Byrne, “If they are not shaving scrapes, what is their significance in this trial?”
Byrne discusses the forensic experts who looked at the scratches on Gerard’s face.
Byrne, talking to the jury, he isn’t going to go through the statements again, “You have the transcripts.”
Byrne, “The first expert, Dr Margaret Stark, could not 100% say the marks were caused by fingernails. I don’t shirk from the fact that Dr Stark said that she believed that the scratches are from fingernails. It is important to remember that there were limitations on just looking at photographs.
THE JURY HAS BEEN SENT OUT FOR A SHORT BREAK
The judge wants the jury to have short breaks every 45 minutes to help them concentrate.
Byrne is discussing Dr Margaret Stark’s evidence.
Byrne, “Dr Stark was careful in her report not to say that they were fingernail scratches, just that they were typical of them. Dr Stark said that there could be another explanation, although it is difficult to interpret just from the photos.:
Byrne is now discussing evidence of the GP, Dr Candice Beaven.
Dr Beaven consulted with Gerard and examined his injuries when he attended her clinic. Dr Beaven had experience with shave biopsies and said that they look similar.
Byrne is discussing evidence from Dr Renu Kumar, a GP who consulted with Gerard.
Dr Kumar was not 100% sure what caused the injuries, Gerard told her it was a “rushed jjob”.
Byrne, “The jury should use common sense as much as science when assessing the evidence. “
Byrne is now discussing evidence from Dr Robert Hoskins.
Dr Hoskins said it is impossible to say the marks were caused by fingers.
Byrne, “Dr Hoskins said the marks were consistent with fingernails and that is as far as he would go.”
Byrne is discussing evidence from Dr Leslie Griffiths.
Dr Griffiths agreed that any sharp object dragged across skin could cause marks. Dr Griffiths also believed that they were fingernail scratches; however, he agreed that interpretation of photographs is imprecise.
Byrne is discussing Dr David Wells, who examined the photographs of the scratches.
Byrne said that Dr Wells said that he had “considerable difficulty” reconciling scratches from a razor.
Byrne, “Dr Wells believed it could have been fingernails, that it could have been a number of other different things. Gerard told the doctor that he was in a rush, his wife was missing, that he was shaving in an agitated state.
Byrne is now giving a summary from Scratch Experts.
Byrne, “Dr Stark said the only person who knows how the injuries are caused are the people who were present. Tragically, we only have one person to tell us. Gerard has told us under oath how the scratches were caused. The jury might think the injuries were caused by something other than a razor blade. That is not your roll.”
Edit: One lie, always lies.
Byrne, “The Crown has to exclude the razor and they cannot. The jury must bear in mind that the scratches themselves do not convict Gerard. You cannot leave out that there isn’t any supporting evidence as to how he could have killed her. You cannot forget the lack of evidence in dressing Allison, transporting her body, and leaving the children alone.
The experts could not agree on what the marks on Gerard’s chest were. Some said bruises, others said abrasions.”
Byrne is now discussing the evidence on mental health issues.
Byrne, “This is not done to demean Allison and the seriousness of her condition. It is very important factual background. The defence is that he does not know what happened to Allison. Allison was in her pyjamas watching the Footy Show when Gerard went to bed that night. Allison’s illness went on for a long time and kept coming back. Stress and pregnancy triggers kept bringing the depression back.”
Byrne is discussing evidence from Dr Tom George.
Allison consulted with him for anxiety and panic attacks.
Byrne, “In September, 2005, Allison reported guilt, anxiety and worry, teariness and low moods. I’m not here to criticise her.
Michael Byrne, QC
Byrne,”Dr George first consulted with Allison when she was 26 weeks pregnant and had a two year old daughter. Dr George said that she had a reduced sense of worth, negative view of the future, prone to transient suicidal thoughts at that time.
When put in context, sure, she did have a strong maternal attachment, but that doesn’t mean she could control her illness. The anxiety returned with Allison’s third pregnancy. Dr George said Gerard contacted him during Allison’s third pregnancy as they were having a girl. Gerard contacted the doctor as he was worried that Allison would be disappointed that they were having another girl. People can hide suicidal thoughts, even from professionals. They do not and cannot say what happened to Allison that night. It is important that the jury listen to the assessments of various professionals on her mental state.
Byrne is now discussing evidence from Dr Nicholas Bourke
Byrne, “Dr Bourke’s patient notes show Allison was suffering from bad pre-menstrual mood swings and her Zoloft dose was increased.”
Byrne discussing evidence from Dr Rosemund Nutting.
Allison told the doctor that she was a bad wife, that she was struggling with three children. Allison discussed “flashbacks’ with Dr Nutting of “Gerard’s girlfriend’s car at the gym’.
Byrne, “Dr Nutting didn’t want to discuss flashbacks with Allison and Gerard together, as she thought it would be bad for her.”
Byrne is talking about evidence of Relationship’s Australia consellor Carmel Ritchie.
Ms Ritchie described Allison as a conflict avoider. Ms Ritchie didn’t make enquiries about any diagnosis that Allison had. Ms Ritchie didn’t make enquiries with regard to Allison having a major, recurring depressive disorder.
Edit – lies..
Ms Ritchie didn’t make any enquiries with regard to medication, or flashbacks. Allison defined her problem with Gerard as feeling ‘inadequate’ and ‘not good enough’. Against that background, she recommended that Gerard and Allison speak for 10 to 15 minutes every second night. Ms Ritchie said Gerard’s role should have been to listen and listen only. Ms Ritchie said that she did not see it as a question and answer session. Ms Ritchie did not think it would be helpful ‘in the early stages’ for Allison to question Gerard re intimate details. Ms Ritchie said it would have been extremely uncomfortable for Allison to hear intimate details of the affair. Medical, psychological and psychiatric evidence showed that Allison was a conflict avoider, her meds had been increased. This is t he picture of where Allison was, at least psychologically. Gerard Baden-Clay told you how much Allison wanted a male child to continue the family name. He specifically contacted Dr George to point out his fear of Allison’s disappointment.
The “venting” session turned into a question and answer about the affair. After the question and answer session on 18th April, Gerard and Allison return home to news that Gerard’s brother has had a baby son. Gerard, Allison, Nigel and Elaine, who’d been looking after the children, discussed the birth and Allison went to bed. The next day Allison had a hair appointment. The hairdresser said that Allison was “a bit stressed” when she sat down.
Edit, the people at work said that Allison was fine. Perhaps Allison was a bit irritated as she had to return quite a few times to get her hair right.
The hairdresser asked whether Allison was still sick. Allison said she was and it wasn’t going away.
Byrne is discussing evidence given about sertraline, an antidepressant, which itself can cause anxiety.
Byrne is discussing the Seratonin Syndrome, where the body has to deal with a different amount of the chemical in the brain.
The defence has no onus of proof. They can ask a jury to consider possibilities.
Byrne, “Please consider the evidence from Allison’s mother, Gerard and Nigel Baden-Clay that she always wanted a son. Gerard’s brother’s newborn son was the first male grandson. Allison, after finding out about the birth, shortly after, went to bed. Allison was able to take up to 100mg of Zoloft a day if she was feeling down. The medication kicks in after about six hours. When she was at the hairdressers she was ‘slumped’. The hair appointment clashed with a parent teacher interview. Why would a mother do that?
Edit – scum.
Byrne, “After leaving Allison on the couch watching the Footy Show, we don’t know what happened. It is possible that she stayed up thinking about what had happened between her and Gerard, the rawness had been opened up.”
Byrne is reading from Allison’s journal.
“I don’t want to be alone”. He said that she is up late, thinkng.
“Byrne, “What if she decides to go for a walk to clear her head. What if she decides to take a Zoloft?
She leaves the house, after first placing Gerard’s phone on the charger. What if she goes on her normal walk, decides to walk a bit further. Maybe the Zoloft is absorbed, maybe we have Seratonin syndrome. Maybe, somehow, she ends up in the river. Could have rendered her unconscious, maybe she drowned in the river (edit – not possible according to Autopsy).
That is just one scenario. The jury may reject it. You could reject that Gerard, for no apparent reason, with no apparent means, violently killed his wife.
OUR REPORTS ARE IN DETAIL, UPDATED AS IT HAPPENS, FROM OTHER DIRECT SOURCES
Wednesday, 2nd July, 2014.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF GERARD BADEN-CLAY TODAY
“I just wanted sex” – Gerard Baden-Clay
“I didn’t love my mistress” – Gerard Baden-Clay
GBC is in the witness box, waiting for the jury.
A short delay for legal discussion. Jury is entering court.
GBC is being asked about contact between Allison and Toni and if Allison had his phone each night (The Crown is trying to rattle….yeah).
Fuller, “It was not an option for Toni to not go to the real estate conference on the 20th. You didn’t tell police you had spoken to Toni the afternoon before you reported Allison missing.”
GBC “It didn’t enter my mind to tell police about my conversations with Toni, I just wanted to find Allison.”
Fuller, “You had set rules with Toni to make sure Allison didn’t know you were communicating. At no stage after you dealt with police on the morning of the 20th did you disclose to your family about Toni McHugh.”
GBC, “I told my family after someone in the media said that they were running a story on my affair. I told police about the affair, I didn’t anticipate they would tell the media, but they did. I can’t remember if I spoke to police after they’d spoken to Toni. I answered every question the police asked.”
Fuller, “You refused to give them a statement.”
GBC, “I answered that question. They asked me to provide a statement, my answer was n.” I believe I spoke to homicide. I didn’t know what CIB meant, I didn’t know what a crime scene was.”
Edit – GBC is answering the same today as he did yesterday. Please, he doesn’t know what a “crime scene” is? That WILL HAVE to go against him.
GBC, “I was thankful to police who were dealing with the investigation, they seriously committed resources to it. Police probably kept in contact every day and were at first very responsive.”
Fuller, “I suggest that police were in contact with you every day.”
GBC, “Once a day wasn’t enough, I was desperate for information from the police.”
Edit – and yes we know why……
GBC, “There wasn’t anything to stop me from talking to the police, other than the advice of my lawyer. I met with my lawyer on that first night.”
Fuller, “Your first call to Allison was at 6.32am on the morning she went missing. Your first call to your parents’ address was at 6:44am. Concerned enough to call your parents?”
GBC, “That is correct.”
Fuller, “Which of Allison’s friends did you call at that time of the morning?”
GBC, “None. Her best friend lived beyond walking distance, it was a possibility she had walked to my parents at Kenmore.”
Edit – rubbish, another furphy – they are too far away, much too far away for a walk, especially for someone who walks 1/2 kilometre up the road on a flat surface, then turns around again. What rubbish!
Fuller, “Why did you take the Captiva instead of your own Prado, which was in the way and parked in an easier spot?”
GBC, “The Prado is a bigger car, and had been in an accident.
Edit – so his wife is missing, and the above ding stopped him rushing into the easiest car, to get her in case she had fallen and hurt herself. Really?
Fuller, “There wasn’t significant damage to the Prado, you’d been driving it since the incident. I suggest that the Captiva had been reversed in when you took it.”
GBC, “That isn’t true. I first noticed the toys in the back of the Captiva on Friday morning when I took it to look for Allison.”
PHOTOGRAPH – Prado with panel damage, it is part blocking the driveway.
GBC agrees tha there was nothing stopping him from driving the Prado.
Fuller, “Did you place the toys in the back of the Prado to make it look normal?”
GBC, “They would be unusual items to put in there to look normal.”
Edit – surely he is irritating the jury?
Fuller, “Why didn’t you call Allison’s parents when she went missing?”
GBC, “I called them later on, I thought she’d gone for a walk.”
Fuller, “You didn’t call them at 9.30am.”
GBC, “Yes, after I had been interrogated by the police for a couple of hours.”
Fuller, “You called your own friends first before calling Allison’s friends.”
GBC agreed that he was not prevented from making any calls when he was speaking with police that morning.
Fuller, “You took work calls that morning while speaking to police. As the morning progressed you became more concerned about the nature of the police questions.”
GBC, “No. My father and sister became concerned about the questions, but I wasn’t.”
Fuller, “Why didn’t you let her parents know as the questioning continued?”
GBC, “I didn’t that is when I phoned them.”
Fuller, “Did you think to call Toni to see if she had contacted Allison?”
GBC, “I didn’t even think about it. That morning seemed to travel very quickly.”
Fuller, “Police were called at 7.15am. Police arrived at 8.00am, Allision was more than an hour overdue.”
GBC, “I can’t remember what time Allison was supposed to leave for work, it was 7:00 or 7:30am.”
Fuller, “For Allisoon to not have come home, was significant. She was normally very punctual. Police had been at the house for an hour and a half before you called Allison’s parents. Why did you ring your friends ahead of her friends?”
GBC, “I honestly can’t remember the thought process. I called the Christs because the children were having a sleepover. I wanted them to know she was missing.”
Edit, the above doesn’t sit with me as true.
Fuller, “You had no anticipation that she wasn’t coming home, did you?”
GBC, “If she was found and was in hospital, I needed to let them know.”
Fuller, “So you were planning ahead?”
GBC, “I rang the Cheesmans as I was supposed to go around the prepare for their open house that day.”
Fuller, “So that was about managing the business?”
GBC, “I was concerned about Allison, but had to manage a business too.”
Fuller, “Why did you phone the Crannas?”
GBC, “I don’t know, possibly because he was close by.”
Edit – GBC wanted an audience to full sorry with him.
Fuller is asking about the couple’s insurance and superannuation policies as there were discussions on reducing them.
Fuller is asking GBC about phoning Allison’s life insurance on 1st May, the day she was found.
Fuller, “How did you find out a body had been found?”
GBC, “I was at the office and a media report came through. I called my lawyer when I heard, we met in the city and police came to my barrister’s office. Police confirmed to me that the body was Allison’s.”
Fuller, “You are confident that police confirmed it was Allison? Didn’t they tell you that it possibly was Allison or likely Allison?”
GBC, “I was told definitely”.
Fuller, “When you visited the doctor for your scratches, why didn’t you show her the rest of the injuries?”
GBC, “Maybe the second doctor asked me if I had any other concerns.”
Edit – He doesn’t answer anything directly, what a sleaze.
Fuller, “The first photos police took were of just your face. Why didn’t you tell the police about the scratches on your chest?”
GBC, “They were self inflicted, it just didn’t seem relevant.”
Fuller, “You went to a second doctor that afternoon and showed her the injuries on your chest, as the direction of the lawyer.”
GBC, “I did give my business card to the first doctor I visited to help her find a new house.”
Fuller is asking GBC about the money he owed and the interest he had to pay.
Fuller, “Allison had taken the role of someone you had been paying $100,000.00.”
GBC, “I was not paying Allison a salary.”
Fuller, “A separation with Allison would have had a significant financial impact on you and the business.”
GBC, “Yes. You are asking a lot of hypothetical questions, I have not ever thought about in detail.”
Fuller, “You had told Toni you would separate.”
GBC, “Yes and I told you that was a lie.”
Edit – one lie many lies – that is a liar!
Fuller, “As of 19th April, you were indeed under a number of pressures.
Fuller, “You were under pressures from your wife?”
GBC, “How do you mean? I want to clarify with regard to the conditions that Allison had placed on me. The tracking app was my idea”.
Fuller, “You know how to turn the tracking app off.”
GBC, “Both Allison and I knew how to turn it off. Allison went through a period of nine years with hardly an intimacy. There were a number of people he went to for sex and we’ve talked about some of them. I spoke to Allison about Toni, but not about any of the other women I had a relationship with.”
Fuller, “That is what the start of 2012 was all about – You and Toni organising to be together.”
GBC, “That is not true. We wanted to put the past behind us, with regard to counselling.”
(Rattling chains :D)
Fuller, “You wanted to put the past behind you. You were living a double life, weren’t you?”
GBC, “No, I did not believe I was living a double life at that stage.”
Fuller, “The facade that was Gerard Baden-Clay would fall if Toni McHugh had confronted Allison at the conference. If Allison had found out that you had been seeing, and emailing Toni, you would be exposed.”
GBC, “Sorry is there a question there?”
Edit – what a &^%O
Fuller, “You had sought Allison’s forgiveness, made promises to her, and then gone and done it again with the same woman. You had attended counselling, made promises, but your behaviour hadn’t changed at all.
GBC, “I had.”
Fuller, “Your business was failing, all things were coming together. You killed your wife Mr Baden-Clay.”
GBC, “No I did not.”
Fuller, “You killed her, probably smothered her and she lashed out with her fingernails. She grabbed your clothing, that is why you had the injury under your left shoulder. You overpowered her very quickly, didn’t you?”
GBC, “I never overpowered her”.
Fuller, “Did her jumper come up as you struggled or when you dumped her in the creek?”
GBC, “Your suppositions are absurd. I can’t answer them.
Fuller, “You put her body in the garden, in the leaves, you put her in the car.”
GBC, “I had nothing to do with anything”.
Fuller, “You dumped her body unceremoniously.”
GBC, “The suggestion I would leave my children alone for any time in the middle of the night is absurd, little alone to do the dastardly things you are suggesting.”
Fuller, “You loaded the toys in the back of the car, then cut yourself with a shaver at the bottom edges of the scratches. You let police search the house because you knew there would be nothing they’d find. You put on the facade of a worried husband then called a lawyer.”
Fuller, “Are you certain that you never told Allison she was going to run into Toni the next day? Despite the flashbacks Allison had from seeing Toni?”
CROSS EXAMINATION HAS FINISHED. BYRNE QC TALKS TO GBC.
GBC, “I was never violent with my wife.”
TIME FOR PRACTISED SPINNING:
GBC, “I had only been in an altercation twice. Once as a ten year old standing up for a friend. The second time was defending another friend from a bully when I was 12. I hadn’t ever thrown a punch. Allison and I argued like any couple but never raised voices. Allison and I didn’t ever argue in front of the children.
PHOTOGRAPH – Floor plan of house.
GBC is discussing how sound travels. If the girls made a sound, we could hear it clearly through the house. GBC is talking about the age of the house and the building materials used. One of the girls got up the night of 19th April after they had put them to bed. Allison was on the couch. I did not hear any noises that night.
Byrne, “Please clarify what you meant when you admitted that you had deceived Allison for four years.”
GBC, “I deceived her and my family and friends by not telling them about my infidelities. Deception is a strong word, rather I protected Allison by not telling people about her depression.
GBC, “I deceived Toni by making her think that we had a future together. I have no knowledge of criminal behaviour, or how police operate. I just wanted police to be told the truth. This is why I called Toni and asked her about talking to police, I told her to tell them the truth. I had a number of infidelities over the years. The difference was with Toni and I we worked together. It wasn’t who I was brought up to be and I am very ashamed.
That is when I was relieved when things ended with Toni. I had no intention of telling Allison about the other women. I didn’t want to jeopardise things. I was with some of the other women for an extended period of time, many of them concurrent.
I answered a lot of Allison’s questions but there were times when I questioned her about the necessity. The counsellor later explained that it was important for Allison to talk about it. I could see it wasn’t helpful. I liked Carmel Ritchie’s structure of the 15 minute sessions.”
GBC denies that Toni stayed at his house. He said she visited and they had physical relations.
“I gave Toni a separation date I wouldn’t keep because I was worried about her mental strength.”
Edit, so it is fine to have “many, numerous affairs” and to run down these women, yet, GBC says he worries about their mental state? Which is it?
GBC, “I wanted Toni to put me out of her life. Some of the things I said and did were pretty naive and pretty stupid. I had some hope Toni could move on and we’d have some sort of friendship in the distant future. I’ve known Allison for 17 years, Toni for five. I wasn’t worried about them both being at the conference as Allison was non-confrontational. Allison could have been expecting Toni to be there anyway.
———— Edit – Yet – Allison confronted GBC on his affairs———
GBC, “Toni did have a volatile nature but in a public environment was always able to control herself. I really had no concern at all. I had been given Allison’s journal.”
Photograph – Page of Allison’s journal.
GBC is being asked what a series of numbers mean. He said that he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know how long Allison had the journal, although some dates were a couple of years prior. He said he doesn’t know where it was kept.
GBC HAS FINISHED GIVING EVIDENCE
ADJOURNED UNTIL 11:50AM
Defence witness Ashton Ward, managing director of Khemistry has taken the stand.
Mr Ward takes time lapse footage. He placed a camera at Kholo Creek which was retrieved on 20th June, 2014. Mr Ward is explaining how time lapse footage works.
FOOTAGE – Time lapse footage of the creek which shows the tide rising and falling. Logs, leaves and other debris can be seen moving along the creek.
Fuller is asking about the timing of the time lapse footage. Fuller says one second of the footage equals 75 minutes. Fuller commented that Mr Ward had no idea what the area looked like in 2012 and there aren’t any markings on the footage to indicate where the body was.
Dr Michael Roberston, a forensic toxicologist has taken the stand.
Dr Robertson reviewed file documents from Allison’s post mortem. Dr Robertson is talking about Sertralin, also known as Zoloft. Seratonin is a mood altering chemical in the brain, Sertraline increases the levels of seratonin in the brain. The levels of sertraline in Allison’s blood, stomach and liver are being discussed. The average levels of Sertraline for someone taking the drug would be .03 to .05mg per kg in the blood.
Dr Robertson said that “relative to clinical numbers” Allison’s reading was high at .059.
The judge is asking what the point of this comparison is, comparing Allison’s result with someone who is alive. Mr Robertson said that the drug concentrations can both increase and decrease after death. Drug concentrations redistribute. Studies have shown areas like legs are less susceptible to redistribution. Studies show that Sertraline doesn’t move much 24 to 48 hours after death. Allison’s higher reading could be from redistribution or taking more of the drug. The side effects from taking Sertraline could include anxiety, agitation, confusion, thermoregulation.
Another Seratonin Syndrome is unusual behaviour and elevation of body temperature. Suicidal ideation is another side effect that has cropped up from time to time. Seratonin Syndrome happens when your seratonin levels are too high. This can lead to increased agitation, unusual behaviours, confusion, problems with muscle control. Studies show people on anti depressants have a higher risk of suicide.
DR ROBERTSON IS NOW BEING QUESTIONED BY THE CROWN
Dr Robertson agreed that there were only trace levels of Sertraline in Allison’s stomach. Dr Robertson agreed that due to the redistribution of the drug after death, it was possible that there wasn’t any Sertraline in Allison’s stomach at all.
Dr Robertson is discussing redistribution of the concentration of the drug after death. Concentrations will increase in the central region of the body more so than peripheral that is the legs. The study doesn’t mention how long people have been deceased.
Edit – this guy doesn’t seem to be very thorough….
Dr Robertson agreed it would be affected by how long the person had been dead and the position of their body. Another study dealt with people who had been dead 24 to 48 hours. Dr Robertson agreed that the people in the study had 20 fold concentrations in liver after 24 to 48 hours. Allison’s liver was 10 fold.
Dr Robertson, “Broadly speaking, Sertraline is considered low toxicity. The Sertraline in Allison’s liver is not consistent with an acute overdose leading to death. I can’t completely explain the elevated levels of the drug in some parts of Allison’s body.”
Dr Robertson agreed that the levels in Allison’s body were not consistent with Sertraline related deaths. Allison’s stomach contents were inconsistent with ingesting significant quantities of Sertraline before death.
Dr Mark Schramm has been called to the stand.
Dr Schramm is a psychiatrist with 20 years experience, a lot of his work is forensic psychology.
Dr Schramm has prepared a report based on Allison’s psychiatric and medical records.
Schramm, “My report was proof read and approved by a professor in psychology who specialises in suicide. I have seen consultation notes, Allison’s GP file, psychiatrist notes, counsellor notes, autopsy report. I have seen Dr George’s testimony as well as Ms Richie’s. I don’t know whether Allison’ reaction to the anti-malaria medication is a red herring. Allison seemed to complain of a depressed mood, self doubt, lack of confidence and anxiety. Anyone can have panic attacks, anyone with anxiety is prone to them.”
Dr Schramm, “One study shows that 3.4% of people suffering from major depression will take their lives.”
Edit – ALLISON WASN’T SUFFERING FROM DEPRESSION AT THIS TIME, THAT WAS 12 YEARS AGO. This guy has no shame – $$$$$$$$$
Schramm, “It is not universal to leave a suicide note. More than half do not. Unfortunately suicide is a surprise, even in retrospect it is impossible to predict. You should not assume that experts have the answers. It is very much with psychiatry, people will assume we have a much greater power than we do to predict. It is foolish to be completely confident that someone with a history of depression isn’t going to take their life.”
Edit -I don’t like this paid witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DANNY BOYLE
“Dr Scam” agrees that none of the remarks he gave about depression and suicide relate to Allison, they are just general assessments.
Dr Scam is being asked about maternal attachment, if that would count against a suicide risk.
Dr Scam said if there was not a triggering event, that would also count against risk of suicide.
Dr Scam agreed that a person making short and long term plans would also be at lower risk of suicide, if the person making the plans had not yet made the decision to commit suicide.
Danny Boyle, “What if the person has been proactive in the past about seeking assistance?”
Dr Scam, “In general it lowers risk. I did get a sense of Allison’s maternal attachment but I can’t recall where it was said.”
Dr Mark Schramm agrees that symptoms of depression can become worse during pregnancy. Allison never reported any side effects from the anti depressants. There was a sense that sometimes it took several months for Allison to respond to the medication. She seemed to benefit from the antidepressants.
After 2003, suicide was never raised by any psychiatrists, psychologists or counsellors who consulted with Allison.
Dr Schramm said that he hasn’t interviewed Allison or anyone else.
Dr Schramm said Allison suffered from major depression which is a major risk factor of suicide. “One could imagine” the stresses in the marriage could have put Allison at risk of suicide. He said that he has “no idea” but going on the Relationships Australia, this could have made things raw.
Edit – coulda, woulda, shoulda…….
Dr Schramm said that it could also have given her hope. Dr Schramm said that of course depression is a factor for suicide.
Dr Schramm has finished.
Edit – Don’t let the door hit you on the way out (sorry everyone).
MICHAEL BYRNE QC SAYS THAT IS THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.
Justice John Byrne said that means all the evidence has been given.
The Real Estate Expert blog is your timely update on Brisbane property news, views and issues as seen through the eyes of someone who is living it, breathing it and selling it every day. This is the information you won’t find in any newspaper and which you should have to make sound decisions about buying and selling …
27.11.08 The past week I have been trying to do my best impersonation of my dear wife – and struggling!
Allison turned the big “four-o” earlier this year and to mark the occasion she and her best friend have taken a week off at the Golden Door health spa.
Whilst she has been enjoying the rest and quietude, I have been trying to manage the house and transport my three girls to all of their activities – and I am knackered!
It’s a bit of a cliché that most men have no idea how hard it is to run a household, and I thought that I was pretty in tune with the day-to-day routine, but I can honestly say that this week has given me a real insight into the challenges of managing a family. Waking up, getting dressed, having breakfast, making lunches, getting to school, collecting from school, bath, cook dinner, eat dinner, homework, teeth, bed! And that doesn’t include any extracurricular activities like ballet, swimming and music! And, I haven’t done any vacuuming, dusting, cleaning or a single load of washing!
In amongst all of this “domestic duty”, I’ve also been trying to squeeze in some work and assistance with running this business – look out for the two new properties coming to the market this week and the successful sales from last weekend too!
Despite these challenges (and the associated exhaustion!), I have enjoyed some wonderful times with my children both individually and collectively. Whether it be a few minutes playing in the park, a snatched moment whilst getting them ready for bed, or just the simple pleasure of talking about life whilst driving to and from school, kindy and a host of other activities!
The startling revelation personally, has been the realisation that I am NOT superman after all!
Yes, I think that I have managed (alright, “coped” is probably more accurate!) rather well this week (and I have only put the TV on once for “assistance”!), but it would be remiss of me not to mention the terrific support of my sister and friends who have been able to look after Ella (aged 2) during the day so that I can still work during school hours.
So, what’s the upshot of this week? Well, I certainly have a renewed respect for all of the hard work that goes into being a “homemaker”, and the pleasure of being able to spend some more quality time with my three beautiful girls. I’ll certainly be more understanding in the future when I come home from work and find that dinner isn’t on the table with my foot spa pre-warmed! Until next week…. Gerard Baden-Clay