Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt2

[Kurve]

Here is Claremont Murders - Part One
- Media
- The Bunker
- Hey Bret ...? Unexplained trial mysteries & CSK Supreme Court cliffhangers

 

[Port Adel Proud]

They can easily rename it to Enigma of What the DFark: The Claremont Killer(s) is still out there

This 'enigma of the dark' sh*ts me. Why would Alf have said that in a judge alone trial. No crowd to play to inside the court; she should have kept her eyes on the road. Only good manners would have prevented Hall J. from chipping her for it.

 

[BFew]

This 'enigma of the dark' sh*ts me. Why would Alf have said that in a judge alone trial. No crowd to play to inside the court; she should have kept her eyes on the road.

Here's the Day 1 of the CSK trial reference to the 'enigma'.

'Enigma of the dark': Mystery of Claremont killings finally begins to unravel

After more than two decades, the mystery surrounding how three young women were snatched off the streets of Claremont in Perth's western suburbs has finally begun to unravel.

www.watoday.com.au

Lead state prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo, during her opening address .... laid bare the profound impact the abductions of the women had on an entire generation. ... “The very things that the killer preyed upon to effectively and efficiently abduct and murder three young women were the very things they – like many other young people – looked forward to doing; going out in Claremont to have an enjoyable night out with a few drinks in the company of friends and then making their way home safely, no matter how they chose to get home, or the darkness of the hour,” she said.
“That fear was caused by an enigma of the dark.
The state over the coming months will demystify that enigma and will prove beyond reasonable doubt ... that there was one killer, and that killer is Bradley Robert Edwards.”

 

[ms finch]

I don’t think that much would have to be changed regardless of the verdict. The circumstances back when it happened remain the same; the investigation still played out the same; and the trial itself can still be discussed. It’s just the ultimate outcome.

In the event of a not guilty verdict any discussion about BRE would need to be assessed, but there are plenty of books that delve into the history of a person and paint a picture even when they are found not guilty. BRE has still plead guilty to a violent rape and an assault so there is definite scope to include background. I would suspect just minor edits to that.

In my view, the biggest challenge with a not guilty verdict is how to frame the conclusion. Do you paint a picture that implies something to the reader, do you focus on potential failings in the investigation that may mean it is never resolved, or do you take the approach that it means the killer is still out there and may he found.

Regardless of the verdict it’s still a mammoth story, and lots of things that have been unknown to the public for 20+ years can be revealed. Personally, though, I feel it may be a bit rushed from the conclusion of the trial, unless the author has obtained interviews with others and can include information we didn’t hear as part of the trial. I think there will be so many people with things to say once it’s over, who have waited patiently to do so. I am chafing at the bit to hear their stories.

 

[JezzaPerth]

I don’t think that much would have to be changed regardless of the verdict. The circumstances back when it happened remain the same; the investigation still played out the same; and the trial itself can still be discussed. It’s just the ultimate outcome.

In the event of a not guilty verdict any discussion about BRE would need to be assessed, but there are plenty of books that delve into the history of a person and paint a picture even when they are found not guilty. BRE has still plead guilty to a violent rape and an assault so there is definite scope to include background. I would suspect just minor edits to that.

In my view, the biggest challenge with a not guilty verdict is how to frame the conclusion. Do you paint a picture that implies something to the reader, do you focus on potential failings in the investigation that may mean it is never resolved, or do you take the approach that it means the killer is still out there and may he found.

Regardless of the verdict it’s still a mammoth story, and lots of things that have been unknown to the public for 20+ years can be revealed. Personally, though, I feel it may be a bit rushed from the conclusion of the trial, unless the author has obtained interviews with others and can include information we didn’t hear as part of the trial. I think there will be so many people with things to say once it’s over, who have waited patiently to do so. I am chafing at the bit to hear their stories.

I realise I'm a biased observer (I hope distinct from a prejudiced observer). But the key element of the Ciara Glennon DNA evidence has not been seriously challenged.

There has never been any attempt to suggest it was staged (i.e. the evidence was planted). The defence has been quite clear that they do not suggest that.

The defence has raised quite fairly the possibility of contamination of the samples. The evidence of Jonathan Whitaker is that contamination is "extremely unlikely". Interpreting the lingo of DNA experts that means 'NO!'. This has not been challenged by the defence either in rhetoric or by producing an expert who disagrees.

The only conclusion is that BRE DNA was on Ciara Glennon as a result of an attack on her resulting in her death.

Justice Hall will inevitably conclude BRE killed Ciara Glennon. He will very likely find he killed Jane Rimmer. Sadly he will probably find there is an insufficient link to the death of Sarah Spiers to convict him of her murder.

 

[ms finch]

I realise I'm a biased observer (I hope distinct from a prejudiced observer). But the key element of the Ciara Glennon DNA evidence has not been seriously challenged.

There has never been any attempt to suggest it was staged (i.e. the evidence was planted). The defence has been quite clear that they do not suggest that.

The defence has raised quite fairly the possibility of contamination of the samples. The evidence of Jonathan Whitaker is that contamination is "extremely unlikely". Interpreting the lingo of DNA experts that means 'NO!'. This has not been challenged by the defence either in rhetoric or by producing an expert who disagrees.

The only conclusion is that BRE DNA was on Ciara Glennon as a result of an attack on her resulting in her death.

Justice Hall will inevitably conclude BRE killed Ciara Glennon. He will very likely find he killed Jane Rimmer. Sadly he will probably find there is an insufficient link to the death of Sarah Spiers to convict him of her murder.

Did you pop into my head and check my thoughts? That is pretty much exactly how it is in my head. I was really just commenting on the basis of What Ifs.

I thought Whitaker was an excellent witness, particularly the way he categorised on a spectrum how remote the possibility was of various things. I liked that - it made certain things clearly improbable without having to say impossible, which they can’t do.

When the trial began I wondered why the defence wasn’t going to call another expert to speak about contamination, but as the evidence unfolded it became clear to me that that would have been difficult. I cannot see where there would be disagreements amongst experts in what was said about how remote the possibility given the circumstances.

The fact that AW40 was never opened made the DNA evidence extremely difficult to challenge. I could see that the defence was quite limited in their scope to do so, and the strategy they employed made sense to me because of that. The only slight quirk in my mind is the scratches/smudges on the sample container, and the lack of explanation for how they got there. But I do not see that as substantial.

I didn’t regard the fibre evidence alone as enough to link JR, but with the injuries and dumping and positioning of the bodies I think it’s a different ballgame.

As for SS, I think it’s close, but it hinges on being convinced it was SS screaming in the car at Mosman Park and believing that the witness who ran outside gave an accurate enough description of the car. Difficult because he identified a particular model and the prosecution had to argue another model had the same features. Believing it was her and reaching the required threshold are two very different things, of course. It’s always hard to get a conviction without a body AND absent other clear evidence.

I was initially in two minds about them adding charges related to SS to this, but I have come around to the perspective that after such an extensive investigation they really felt this was the best shot they were going to get. Yes, her remains could be found tomorrow, but they also might never be found.

 

[JezzaPerth]

The only slight quirk in my mind is the scratches/smudges on the sample container, and the lack of explanation for how they got there. But I do not see that as substantial.

That was addressed during the trial and the scratches were described as smear marks from the swab collecting the DNA. I seem to remember Justice Hall agreed, and more importantly he has the physical evidence to check.

Independently I saw the images of the container in high detail and I also think they are just smudges from a swab.

 

[Krusty Crab]

verdict day is fast approaching now, but what will happen on a verdict for SS? i see there as being only 2 x possible ways to get a guilty verdict:

1. prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was involved in the death of SS - i dont feel this happened in the trial
2. show that the disappearance of SS was part of a series of murders that include JR and CG, and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the murders of JR and CG, which by association renders the accused guilty of SS - personally i dont feel this happened either. there wasn't enough evidence led to conclude that SS was definitely included in this group. the only link was the location of the disappearance.

As such i dont think a guilty verdict on SS. whats others thoughts?

 

[ms finch]

That was addressed during the trial and the scratches were described as smear marks from the swab collecting the DNA. I seem to remember Justice Hall agreed, and more importantly he has the physical evidence to check.

Independently I saw the images of the container in high detail and I also think they are just smudges from a swab.

Thanks for that confirmation from your own viewing. I remember they were referred to as scratches and then towards the end of the trial Hall actually had a look and made the comment then that he thought they looked like smudges. I had no idea how a scratch and a smudge could be confused like that in the first place, but obviously I wasn’t there to see it.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Thanks for that confirmation from your own viewing. I remember they were referred to as scratches and then towards the end of the trial Hall actually had a look and made the comment then that he thought they looked like smudges. I had no idea how a scratch and a smudge could be confused like that in the first place, but obviously I wasn’t there to see it.

Hard to say if it was an attempt by the defence to suggest it was scratches or if it was an oblique 'officer of the court' effort to show they weren't scratches. On balance I think it might be the latter.

 

[the dark knight]

verdict day is fast approaching now, but what will happen on a verdict for SS? i see there as being only 2 x possible ways to get a guilty verdict:

1. prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was involved in the death of SS - i dont feel this happened in the trial
2. show that the disappearance of SS was part of a series of murders that include JR and CG, and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the murders of JR and CG, which by association renders the accused guilty of SS - personally i dont feel this happened either. there wasn't enough evidence led to conclude that SS was definitely included in this group. the only link was the location of the disappearance.

As such i dont think a guilty verdict on SS. whats others thoughts?

Sadly I think the murder charge in relation to SS will return a not guilty verdict. No body and no physical evidence. We have propensity but that’s about it. But saying “he did it, Isn’t enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. I hope he comes to his senses and grows a pair and finally acts with some form of humanity for the family and tell police where SS is.

 

[zedx]

verdict day is fast approaching now, but what will happen on a verdict for SS? i see there as being only 2 x possible ways to get a guilty verdict:

1. prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was involved in the death of SS - i dont feel this happened in the trial
2. show that the disappearance of SS was part of a series of murders that include JR and CG, and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the murders of JR and CG, which by association renders the accused guilty of SS - personally i dont feel this happened either. there wasn't enough evidence led to conclude that SS was definitely included in this group. the only link was the location of the disappearance.

As such i dont think a guilty verdict on SS. whats others thoughts?

I don't believe there is any chance BRE will be found guilty on SS. As you say there is absolutely no evidence to connect him to her disappearance, except that she went missing in the same area as CG & JR. Even finding a guilty verdict on CG & JR is going to be difficult enough with the limited amount of evidence put forward. In fact I would not be overly surprised if Hall comes back with not guilty on 3 counts!
Could Hall call a 'mis-trial on the 3 murder charges due to lack of evidence? I know that sounds a bit far fetched, but I want to see more evidence! Where is it?????

 

[Port Adel Proud]

Did you pop into my head and check my thoughts? That is pretty much exactly how it is in my head. I was really just commenting on the basis of What Ifs.

I thought Whitaker was an excellent witness, particularly the way he categorised on a spectrum how remote the possibility was of various things. I liked that - it made certain things clearly improbable without having to say impossible, which they can’t do.

When the trial began I wondered why the defence wasn’t going to call another expert to speak about contamination, but as the evidence unfolded it became clear to me that that would have been difficult. I cannot see where there would be disagreements amongst experts in what was said about how remote the possibility given the circumstances.

The fact that AW40 was never opened made the DNA evidence extremely difficult to challenge. I could see that the defence was quite limited in their scope to do so, and the strategy they employed made sense to me because of that. The only slight quirk in my mind is the scratches/smudges on the sample container, and the lack of explanation for how they got there. But I do not see that as substantial.

I didn’t regard the fibre evidence alone as enough to link JR, but with the injuries and dumping and positioning of the bodies I think it’s a different ballgame.

As for SS, I think it’s close, but it hinges on being convinced it was SS screaming in the car at Mosman Park and believing that the witness who ran outside gave an accurate enough description of the car. Difficult because he identified a particular model and the prosecution had to argue another model had the same features. Believing it was her and reaching the required threshold are two very different things, of course. It’s always hard to get a conviction without a body AND absent other clear evidence.

I was initially in two minds about them adding charges related to SS to this, but I have come around to the perspective that after such an extensive investigation they really felt this was the best shot they were going to get. Yes, her remains could be found tomorrow, but they also might never be found.

Also, if BRE were charged with the SS count prior to his, in effect, opting for trial by judge alone, then that charge would have allayed any misplaced speculation by a prospective jury that the police thought there might be another possible and alternative offender.

 

[Eaglette01]

Channel 9 have been working on the "tv event" for about 6 months:

I'm wondering if they are classing the one that got away as the Lakeway Drive In attack in Swanbourne (unreported to WAPOL).

Or, indeed if it is the HD victim, or the HH victim, or the KK victim.
Or, the lady in the Claremont park who accepted a lift and returned to get her shoes and 2 male friends. (probs the latter)

 

[Deva]

Channel 9 have been working on the "tv event" for about 6 months:

I'm wondering if they are classing the one that got away as the Lakeway Drive In attack in Swanbourne (unreported to WAPOL).

Or, indeed if it is the HD victim, or the HH victim, or the KK victim.
Or, the lady in the Claremont park who accepted a lift and returned to get her shoes and 2 male friends. (probs the latter)

One of many that will come forward now i think, just the tip of the iceburg.

 

[one eyed spy]

Channel 9 have been working on the "tv event" for about 6 months:

I'm wondering if they are classing the one that got away as the Lakeway Drive In attack in Swanbourne (unreported to WAPOL).

Or, indeed if it is the HD victim, or the HH victim, or the KK victim.
Or, the lady in the Claremont park who accepted a lift and returned to get her shoes and 2 male friends. (probs the latter)

Lakeway was reported by the Post early in 2015 & although said she hadn't been to police at the time of the attack, I doubt she didn't speak to them at least by the time the article was published. He reported she was telling her story "publically" for the first time.

If the promo isn't just headline grabbing BS without substance, it has to be a known victim of his. They can't just connect him to a crime & states he's responsible if he hasnt been charged with it, or at the least, investigated and named as a suspect.

 

[zedx]

Lakeway was reported by the Post early in 2015 & although said she hadn't been to police at the time of the attack, I doubt she didn't speak to them at least by the time the article was published. He reported she was telling her story "publically" for the first time.

If the promo isn't just headline grabbing BS without substance, it has to be a known victim of his. They can't just connect him to a crime & states he's responsible if he hasnt been charged with it, or at the least, investigated and named as a suspect.

So the one that got away may be in reference to KK?

 

[Deva]

Interesting to hear that Alison Fan is working with their lawyers on an affidavit to get the video of BRE's arrest released, so i'm thinking here comes a channel 7 show too with her as presenter. Her words were that the public need to see the the demeanour of BRE at that time and how calmly he handled it all in that situation. Which to be honest i was too.

 

[Kurve]

Please continue to Claremont Murders Part 3 The Verdict