Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[kingswood71]

This watoday article answers some of the earlier questions in here about the Telstra vehicle and workers lists.
Lots more of the missing detail.

Claremont trial: Telstra links ran cold after telco didn't send accused’s vehicle in police request

The 'Telstra lead' was being chased within days of the Macro Taskforce - which went on to become the longest and most expensive murder investigation in Australian history – being formed in 1996.

www.watoday.com.au

Claremont trial: Telstra links ran cold after telco didn't send accused’s vehicle in police request
By Heather McNeill
December 3, 2019 — 3.03pm











What a complete balls up by Telstra and WAPOL.
How many external reviews, and they could not even pick something like this up.

"By this stage, detectives had also received at least two tip-offs in relation to the Claremont murders about women reporting a man in a Telstra vehicle offering them a lift home when they mistook his white station wagon for a taxi ".......

 

[Catcher In The Rye]

You clearly have no sense of theatre.

It should probably come out from Annabel first in evidence in chief as she said it, Then in X examination from Trilby. I may be wrong.

 

[GreyCrow]

'Also please note that the driver’s name we have recorded may not be correct as sometimes vehicles change hands or are borrowed etc. '

As Badge said ' well get me the ******* full list of drivers pronto''

 

[kingswood71]

The Glennon's are not going to be too happy about this revelation today about the

This truly saddens me

 

[Feerits Elf]

'Also please note that the driver’s name we have recorded may not be correct as sometimes vehicles change hands or are borrowed etc. '

Perhaps Macro spent a decade searching for the elusive Edward Bradley

 

[Kurve]

.

This watoday article answers some of the earlier questions in here about the Telstra vehicle and workers lists.
Lots more of the missing detail.

Claremont trial: Telstra links ran cold after telco didn't send accused’s vehicle in police request

The 'Telstra lead' was being chased within days of the Macro Taskforce - which went on to become the longest and most expensive murder investigation in Australian history – being formed in 1996.

www.watoday.com.au

Claremont trial: Telstra links ran cold after telco didn't send accused’s vehicle in police request
By Heather McNeill
December 3, 2019 — 3.03pm











What a complete balls up by Telstra and WAPOL.
How many external reviews, and they could not even pick something like this up.

There were two Edwards names that should have been on those lists, whats the bet neither of them were on it?

 

[Chameleon75]

Always a danger in treating these blogs as accurate.

Following the HH attack he gets interviewed by two psychologists.

To the male he’s says he’s distressed because his gf has cheated. And that the social worker irritated him with how she answered his questions.

To the female he says he’s given up drinking, spends all his spare time with his gf, is under pressure to set a wedding date and is ashamed.

It seems like he’s varying his answers based on what’s likely to gain him sympathy with who’s asking the questions.

 

[BFew]

'Also please note that the driver’s name we have recorded may not be correct as sometimes vehicles change hands or are borrowed etc. '

As Badge said ' well get me the ******* full list of drivers pronto''

You'd think that there aren't too many Telstra workers who had committed assaults of women on the job with Telstra, and that the worker actually kept their job or had been on a 12 month sex offenders treatment course.

You'd hope that Telstra would have been watching and managing the accused like a hawk for his 1990 Hollywood Hospital misdemeanours.

You'd hope that any Telstra legal and Telstra HR would have been involved in any request for cars and drivers, in the CSK case, and that it would have been bought to the attention of Telstra's risk management committee, and the board members and execs that sat on it. Both by WAPOL, and within Telstra.
To manage the risk that one of their current or past workers might be a Claremont Killer.

You'd hope that Telstra would have started their own internal investigations to see what their internal prime suspects (like the accused) were doing on the nights of each of the Claremont Serial Killings, and would have volunteered information to Police on the accused and any other workers of theirs that might have possibly been the perpetrators.

One could be mistaken for thinking that Telstra back then, did not have any inclination to actually want to really help solve the CSK case and the 1995 KK rape (BRE has already pleaded guilty too). Maybe that was one of Telstra's risk mitigation strategies for managing this risk. To not be too helpful.

 

[BFew]

Maybe a few snippets of additional details in the West late today in this long article I've selected some of

Edwards’ name not given to police amid Telstra probe

On the day of the brutal Karrakatta Cemetery rape, police inquired about drivers of a particular Telstra car. A list of those drivers was given to police, but Bradley Edwards’ name was not on it.

thewest.com.au

Claremont serial killings trial: Police probed Telstra vehicle link a month after Jane Rimmer snatched

Shannon Hampton The West Australian
Tuesday, 3 December 2019 5:04PM

Police were looking into Telstra vehicles – and who was driving them – as early as July 1996, a month after Bradley Robert Edwards allegedly snatched Jane Rimmer from Claremont and before the third victim was taken, it has been revealed. During the seventh day of WA’s trial of the century today, a facsimile dated July 2, 1996, “seemingly” responding to a request by WA Police was shown to the court.

"Attached is the result of Telstra vehicle checks you requested last week”, the document, read to the court by former Telstra business analyst specialist Lynda Eldridge, said.
“Sorry for the delay I seem to recall that you mentioned the vehicle you were looking for had a Telstra logo on the side, distinct from Telecom logo and the witness was fairly definite about this.
"If this is the case then you should be aware that we only started putting Telstra logos on our vehicles from about July 1995.
“If a vehicle was sighted in February 1995, I don’t think it would be possible that it had a Telstra logo.
"Also please note that the driver’s name we have recorded may not be correct as sometimes vehicles change hands or are borrowed etc."

A list of drivers was delivered to police, but the court was told Mr Edwards’ name was not on it.

The court was told that in late 1998, or perhaps 1999, there was another request from the Macro Taskforce for Telstra to provide them with a list of “all active vehicles as of a specific date” – between January 25 and January 28, 1996.

A list of vehicles registered to Telstra were reported on December 9, 1998. Ms Eldridge agreed if a car was operational in 1996, but no longer registered to Telstra, it would not appear on the list.

 

[Kurve]

Emily's blog. Day 7. (This is really creepy)

The next witness to be called is Jane Mairead Ouvaroff (nee Woods), another one of the Telstra Living witnesses.
Ms Ouvaroff told the court that in the mid 1990s she used to live in Subiaco and frequented the Cottesloe and Claremont areas.
She told the court she remembered a night between November 1996 into January 1997 when she had been at Club Bayview with a number of friends on either a Friday or a Saturday night.
She told the court she remembered having a few drinks that night and had become tired at the end of the night.
She couldn't recall how long she was at Club Bayview for, saying it may have been a few hours when her and a friend, Will Robinson, decided to leave to head back to Will's house in Shenton Park.
She said they were walking down a path when they came across another friend, Mark, before they sat down at a nearby park.
She said they sat down in the park, which was set back from the road but ran along the road towards the Subiaco/ Shenton Park area.
When asked what happened when they got to the park, she said the boys were intent on sitting down on the grass to have a rest.
Mrs Ouvaroff said she also sat down for a little while before they got up and left the boys and walked towards the road.
Once she was at the road, she said she stayed on the same side of the park, walking along the footpath towards Subiaco, adding she didn't get very drunk.
"I was looking for taxis. at that time of night there wasn't a lot of traffic and there certainly wasn't many taxis," she said.
"I saw a car with head lights on coming towards me from the Subiaco direction, so I immediately put my hand up to hail it. As it got closers I kept my hand up. To me it looked the same shape as a taxi. And then the driver stopped for me."
When asked what sort of car it looked like before it stopped, she said: "It looked liked a Ford or Holden station wagon."
Mrs Ouvaroff told the court once it stopped she opened the passenger side door and there was a man driving the car.
She said she asked if he would give her a lift home or to Shenton Park.
"I think he nodded in agreement because I got into the car," she added.
She told the court she couldn't remember what he looked liked, adding because it was dark she couldn't see any distinguishing features.
Once she sat down and closed the door she looked at the dashboard and realised it wasn't a taxi and believed she said to the man "this isn't a taxi"
She said she doesn't recall feeling worried and the car started driving towards Cottesloe.
"I didn't feel threatened or unsafe. I stayed in the car. But something made me say to him, and the fact I left my shoes just up the road, would it be OK to stop to grab them.

"We were driving along and I signalled to where the park was and he stopped so I could get out and get my shoes."
She told the court when they stopped they had only travelled seconds.
Once she retrieved her shoes she grabbed her two male friends who were lying in the park.
Mrs Ouvaroff couldn't remember if they were awake when she got back.
She told the court the car was still waiting for her and the trio got back into the car with the boys piling into the back of the car.
Ms Barbagallo asked Mrs Ouvaroff if she could remember what the car looked liked when she first got into the car.
She said it was a light interior, with two fronts seats and a back seat adding there was no taxi metre.
When asked if she looked in the back of the car, she said she could tell it was a station wagon with a grill behind the back seat.
When asked if she noticed anything on the outside of the car, she said there was a Telecom/Telstra logo on the passenger side. She also said she remembered the car was white.
When asked if she noticed anything on the car the second time, she said the Telecom/Telstra logo.
When asked if the man said anything about her two male friends getting in the car, she said she couldn't remember any response adding "the boys would have already been in the back seat by then"
She said they then headed towards Shenton Park.
When asked if there was any conversation in the car, she said she could remember she tried to strike up a conversation but there wasn't any willingness from the driver.
When asked what the driver looked liked, she said she couldn't remember exact features but that he had dark short hair, white skin, adding that she didn't think he was a large man and aged a little older than her about mid 20s early 30s.
She said she recalled recognising tools in the boot of the car and that she could hear them rattling around in the back.
When asked what she did with her shoes, she remembered putting them on but it was quite hard because there was something in the foot well.
When asked if was the first time she saw the vehicle before it picked her up she said she couldn't be certain but believed the same car had driven past her earlier.

Mr Yovich is now cross-examining Mrs Ouvaroff.
When asked if she had a number of drinks that night, she said yes.
Mr Yovich is now taking her through her police statement in which she had described the interior as a light fawn colour.
She agreed.
She has now finished her evidence.

 

[poirot]

The court was told that in late 1998, or perhaps 1999, there was another request from the Macro Taskforce for Telstra to provide them with a list of “all active vehicles as of a specific date” – between January 25 and January 28, 1996.

A list of vehicles registered to Telstra were reported on December 9, 1998. Ms Eldridge agreed if a car was operational in 1996, but no longer registered to Telstra, it would not appear on the list.

Bombshell. An error which, on the State's case, had severe consequences.

That request was clear. I don't think it was incumbent on WAPOL to specify to Telstra to make sure it included vehicles which were operational during the 4-day period but were now no longer owned by Telstra. Telstra simply did not comply with the request.

 

[BonzaRam]

That was interesting. Why didn't Barbagallo let her finish? It's kinda left it on a knife edge.

Could someone explain why to me...I though this trail was to expose all of the witness info...bit of a new to this court stuff...Thanks in advance.

My first thought on it all were what she was about to say were the words of another person, that is HEARSAY and hearsay is not admissible in a court room (except under certain circumstances). They will have to come from the person who spoke them words, or not at all.

"A simpler way to understand the rule is that, a person (X) can only give evidence as to what they themselves saw, heard or otherwise perceived. "

What is Hearsay Evidence?

Do you need to know about hearsay evidence? It is one of the most difficult and misunderstood parts of evidence law. Keep on reading for a brief explanation.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

 

[BFew]

Here's the tone of key parts of the Australian Newspaper's coverage of today's CSK Telstra revelations.
The headline masks what lies within

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Claremont serial killings: Court told how woman was approached by man driving Telstra station wagon during killings

PAUL GARVEY
SENIOR REPORTER

5:06PM DECEMBER 3, 2019

Western Australian police investigating the Claremont serial killings were looking for information on a Telstra employee as July 1996 — more than eight months before the third of the killer’s victims was murdered.
The stunning revelations were contained in documents tendered in the WA Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The documents showed that detectives sent a request to Telstra for information on their drivers on 2 July 1996, less than six months after Sarah Spiers disappeared and less than a month after Jane Rimmer went missing. Rimmer’s body was found in August 1996, while Ciara Glennon was abducted and murdered in March 1997.

The court also saw evidence that WA police had written to Telstra again in December 1998, seeking information about Telstra vehicles in operation between 25 and 28 January, 1996 – the weekend that Spiers disappeared.
But the vehicle list sent back to WA police did not include details of the Toyota Camry station wagon that Edwards was driving at the time, given the car had been sold by Telstra in the intervening period.
The records show that police first suspected a Telstra employee could be connected to the crimes more than 20 years before Edwards was arrested.

 

[Hai_Newman]

My first thought on it all were what she was about to say were the words of another person, that is HEARSAY and hearsay is not admissible in a court room (except under certain circumstances). They will have to come from the person who spoke them words, or not at all.

"A simpler way to understand the rule is that, a person (X) can only give evidence as to what they themselves saw, heard or otherwise perceived. "

What is Hearsay Evidence?

Do you need to know about hearsay evidence? It is one of the most difficult and misunderstood parts of evidence law. Keep on reading for a brief explanation.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

Cheers mate, makes sense.

 

[Kerouacian]

That was interesting. Why didn't Barbagallo let her finish? It's kinda left it on a knife edge.

One of the blogs claim it was Yovich that stopped her from saying any more.

 

[BFew]

How do the dates for the Caporn led attention turning on Lance Williams, line up with the Telstra vehicles/driver dates info?

 

[kingswood71]

“Sorry for the delay I seem to recall that you mentioned the vehicle you were looking for had a Telstra logo on the side, distinct from Telecom logo and the witness was fairly definite about this. If this is the case then you should be aware that we only started putting Telstra logos on our vehicles from about July 1995. If a vehicle was sighted in February 1995, I don’t think it would be possible that it had a Telstra logo."
The security guard from KK specifically said "telecom"....

 

[BFew]

How do the dates for the Caporn led attention turning on Lance Williams, line up with the Telstra vehicles/driver dates info?

Lance was already under investigation from sometime in 1997.

Can we fairly assume that the Macro Task Force enthusiasm and resources provided for the finer details of the info requested and provided from Telstra about Telstra vehicles and Telstra drivers (for many years from 1997 onwards), was tempered by the false belief that Lance was their CSK.

 

[kingswood71]

"A simpler way to understand the rule is that, a person (X) can only give evidence as to what they themselves saw, heard or otherwise perceived. "

What is Hearsay Evidence?

Do you need to know about hearsay evidence? It is one of the most difficult and misunderstood parts of evidence law. Keep on reading for a brief explanation.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

"Heard"?....

 

[BonzaRam]

Lance was already under investigation from sometime in 1997.

Can we fairly assume that the Macro Task Force enthusiasm and resources provided for the finer details of the info requested and provided from Telstra about Telstra vehicles and Telstra drivers (for many years from 1997 onwards), was tempered by the false belief that Lance was their CSK.

and we have the Schramm review 2004 pointing out that the Telstra connection should be followed up more...

 

[BonzaRam]

"Heard"?....

My understanding is that what she heard from the driver is admissible, what she heard from anyone not on trial is not.

 

[Chameleon75]

Lance was already under investigation from sometime in 1997.

Can we fairly assume that the Macro Task Force enthusiasm and resources provided for the finer details of the info requested and provided from Telstra about Telstra vehicles and Telstra drivers (for many years from 1997 onwards), was tempered by the false belief that Lance was their CSK.

Not discounting tunnel vision.

However police have requested from telstra a list of drivers and vehicles, telstra have provided an incomplete list. Once police have checked out the names they were provided with, and it’s lead them no where , they’re going to move on to the next line of enquiry.

What I find frustrating are the mistakes made before the killings began, for the attacks he’s already plead guilty to. There was an opportunity to catch him then.

 

[poirot]

My understanding is that what she heard from the driver is admissible, what she heard from anyone not on trial is not.

the prohibition against 'hearsay' evidence is where the person seeks to rely on it as proof of the truth of the statement, eg. "he told me that he had picked up a girl who looked just like the deceased". There are a number of exceptions but the main thing to note is that the rule doesn't apply where evidence is simply that statements were made, eg. "as I got into the car I asked him for a lift to Subiaco and he said sure"

 

[BonzaRam]

Not discounting tunnel vision.

However police have requested from telstra a list of drivers and vehicles, telstra have provided an incomplete list. Once police have checked out the names they were provided with, and it’s lead them no where , they’re going to move on to the next line of enquiry.

What I find frustrating are the mistakes made before the killings began, for the attacks he’s already plead guilty to. There was an opportunity to catch him then.

I keep pondering this and the only thing i can come up with is that it was all occurring during a Technology Revolution transition period and things were muddled up over the place that affected the investigation in negative way.

 

[BonzaRam]

the prohibition against 'hearsay' evidence is where the person seeks to rely on it as proof of the truth of the statement, eg. "he told me that he had picked up a girl who looked just like the deceased". There are a number of exceptions but the main thing to note is that the rule doesn't apply where evidence is simply that statements were made, eg. "as I got into the car I asked him for a lift to Subiaco and he said sure"

yes but she was about to say what her friend had told her, not what he had told her.