Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt3 - The Verdict

[Kurve]

Here is
- Claremont Murders - Part One and Part Two
- Media
- The Bunker
- Hey Bret? Stalking Claremont the book.
- Justice Hall's Decision 619 pgs

 

[javaguice]

The moon was 21 degrees below the horizon at 2pm...

Jezz - you've finally lost your mind mate.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Jezz - you've finally lost your mind mate.

It took you this long to notice?

 

[ms finch]

Thanks Jezza, so we (I) can only assume the Judge decided it was not important enough to attempt to have the charges changed and just went for the easiest way out by sending BRE on sex offenders course.

Judges do not habitually challenge prosecutors and police on charges. There may be a discussion about what is happening with the charges that leads to an amendment but for a judge to actually overtly pressure a prosecutor to change charges in open court would be unheard of. Any charges that are to be amended in consultation with the judge (and defence) would be done so at a very early stage and for a particular variety of reasons that would not be applicable here.

Judges have a lot of scope to run their courtroom but there are boundaries necessary for the integrity of the legal system. They certainly do not look at cases with an idea of, “What charge do I think is best here?”

If a person is charged with the wrong thing and it goes to trial, they will be acquitted. A judge doesn’t just merely sit there and go, “Oh well I really think this person should have been charged with this now that I’ve heard the evidence so I’m going to change it.” Sometimes there is scope to find a person guilty of a lesser equivalent offence (but this is specified beforehand). But a judge can’t up a charge or just change it after the fact.

In the case of a plea, the accused goes into court with the expectation of pleading to one offence. If the charge is subsequently amended then they have to be given another opportunity to consider the new charges, which requires them being given the opportunity to seek legal advice. It is extremely rare in these circumstances for a judge to intervene and query the charges and there would have to be a significant difference in the charges and the information laid out in front of them. It is also usual in the case of a plea that the charge is less than what the evidence suggests it could be.

Bear in mind that in the case of a plea the judge is given a brief prepared for them by the police or prosecution. They will do any analysis based on that brief. So if this was a plea, unless the brief included something extreme like, “Sexually penetrated her”, the judge is not likely to query a common assault charge based on the circumstances laid out. Even then it would be rare for a query, if it was a plea.

We absolutely cannot assume that there was something in the police brief that would have caught the judge’s attention to such a significant degree as to result in them querying anything, given the stakes of doing so. And we absolutely cannot assume that even if there was something significant in that brief that the judge saw anything untoward in a common assault plea, the argument being that by pleading to something Edwards is not wasting the court’s time, is accepting responsibility etc etc.

If it was a trial, the judge’s hands are tied.

I can see why, on the evidence, the judge may have ordered a sex offenders course. IF Wendy’s version of events was included in the brief then it makes some sense. I don’t think it would be that uncommon, actually, as a preventative measure in cases like that. However, if he had access to juvenile records then it makes even more sense as a preventative measure. But it would have been utterly shocking if the judge had challenged the police/prosecutor in this instance.

 

[Port Adel Proud]

Judges do not habitually challenge prosecutors and police on charges. There may be a discussion about what is happening with the charges that leads to an amendment but for a judge to actually overtly pressure a prosecutor to change charges in open court would be unheard of. Any charges that are to be amended in consultation with the judge (and defence) would be done so at a very early stage and for a particular variety of reasons that would not be applicable here.

Judges have a lot of scope to run their courtroom but there are boundaries necessary for the integrity of the legal system. They certainly do not look at cases with an idea of, “What charge do I think is best here?”

If a person is charged with the wrong thing and it goes to trial, they will be acquitted. A judge doesn’t just merely sit there and go, “Oh well I really think this person should have been charged with this now that I’ve heard the evidence so I’m going to change it.” Sometimes there is scope to find a person guilty of a lesser equivalent offence (but this is specified beforehand). But a judge can’t up a charge or just change it after the fact.

In the case of a plea, the accused goes into court with the expectation of pleading to one offence. If the charge is subsequently amended then they have to be given another opportunity to consider the new charges, which requires them being given the opportunity to seek legal advice. It is extremely rare in these circumstances for a judge to intervene and query the charges and there would have to be a significant difference in the charges and the information laid out in front of them. It is also usual in the case of a plea that the charge is less than what the evidence suggests it could be.

Bear in mind that in the case of a plea the judge is given a brief prepared for them by the police or prosecution. They will do any analysis based on that brief. So if this was a plea, unless the brief included something extreme like, “Sexually penetrated her”, the judge is not likely to query a common assault charge based on the circumstances laid out. Even then it would be rare for a query, if it was a plea.

We absolutely cannot assume that there was something in the police brief that would have caught the judge’s attention to such a significant degree as to result in them querying anything, given the stakes of doing so. And we absolutely cannot assume that even if there was something significant in that brief that the judge saw anything untoward in a common assault plea, the argument being that by pleading to something Edwards is not wasting the court’s time, is accepting responsibility etc etc.

If it was a trial, the judge’s hands are tied.

I can see why, on the evidence, the judge may have ordered a sex offenders course. IF Wendy’s version of events was included in the brief then it makes some sense. I don’t think it would be that uncommon, actually, as a preventative measure in cases like that. However, if he had access to juvenile records then it makes even more sense as a preventative measure. But it would have been utterly shocking if the judge had challenged the police/prosecutor in this instance.

The magistrate would have had a copy of his juvenile record (if any).

 

[JezzaPerth]

Judges do not habitually challenge prosecutors and police on charges. There may be a discussion about what is happening with the charges that leads to an amendment but for a judge to actually overtly pressure a prosecutor to change charges in open court would be unheard of. Any charges that are to be amended in consultation with the judge (and defence) would be done so at a very early stage and for a particular variety of reasons that would not be applicable here.

Judges have a lot of scope to run their courtroom but there are boundaries necessary for the integrity of the legal system. They certainly do not look at cases with an idea of, “What charge do I think is best here?”

If a person is charged with the wrong thing and it goes to trial, they will be acquitted. A judge doesn’t just merely sit there and go, “Oh well I really think this person should have been charged with this now that I’ve heard the evidence so I’m going to change it.” Sometimes there is scope to find a person guilty of a lesser equivalent offence (but this is specified beforehand). But a judge can’t up a charge or just change it after the fact.

In the case of a plea, the accused goes into court with the expectation of pleading to one offence. If the charge is subsequently amended then they have to be given another opportunity to consider the new charges, which requires them being given the opportunity to seek legal advice. It is extremely rare in these circumstances for a judge to intervene and query the charges and there would have to be a significant difference in the charges and the information laid out in front of them. It is also usual in the case of a plea that the charge is less than what the evidence suggests it could be.

Bear in mind that in the case of a plea the judge is given a brief prepared for them by the police or prosecution. They will do any analysis based on that brief. So if this was a plea, unless the brief included something extreme like, “Sexually penetrated her”, the judge is not likely to query a common assault charge based on the circumstances laid out. Even then it would be rare for a query, if it was a plea.

We absolutely cannot assume that there was something in the police brief that would have caught the judge’s attention to such a significant degree as to result in them querying anything, given the stakes of doing so. And we absolutely cannot assume that even if there was something significant in that brief that the judge saw anything untoward in a common assault plea, the argument being that by pleading to something Edwards is not wasting the court’s time, is accepting responsibility etc etc.

If it was a trial, the judge’s hands are tied.

I can see why, on the evidence, the judge may have ordered a sex offenders course. IF Wendy’s version of events was included in the brief then it makes some sense. I don’t think it would be that uncommon, actually, as a preventative measure in cases like that. However, if he had access to juvenile records then it makes even more sense as a preventative measure. But it would have been utterly shocking if the judge had challenged the police/prosecutor in this instance.

In magistrates court more serious dealings the judge will have got a prosecution brief some time before. The judge won't challenge during the hearing but I'm pretty sure there is some discussion before trial. I assume BRE was charged but only appeared in court some weeks or months later. I also assume he had a brief provided by his dad.

 

[ms finch]

In magistrates court more serious dealings the judge will have got a prosecution brief some time before. The judge won't challenge during the hearing but I'm pretty sure there is some discussion before trial. I assume BRE was charged but only appeared in court some weeks or months later. I also assume he had a brief provided by his dad.

Obviously my comment was not an exhaustive explanation of everything that goes on in courtrooms. But judges do not have ongoing discussions about what the charges should be in cases. They do not read through the briefs of evidence in advance of any trial or plea and offer up their opinions on what the accused should be charged with. That would be a case of the judge making a judgement on the case before the facts of the case are in evidence.

 

[Port Adel Proud]

In magistrates court more serious dealings the judge will have got a prosecution brief some time before. The judge won't challenge during the hearing but I'm pretty sure there is some discussion before trial. I assume BRE was charged but only appeared in court some weeks or months later. I also assume he had a brief provided by his dad.

With respect, Ms Finch is correct. Even in complex cases (such as BRE's) where there is, very likely, much pre trial skirmishing (directions hearings) it would be extraordinary to think that a judge would give tip(s) to the prosecution; thereby entering into an adversarial system to favour one side. Having said that, lesser judges than the likes of Hall J., do similar things to their eternal discredit.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Obviously my comment was not an exhaustive explanation of everything that goes on in courtrooms. But judges do not have ongoing discussions about what the charges should be in cases. They do not read through the briefs of evidence in advance of any trial or plea and offer up their opinions on what the accused should be charged with. That would be a case of the judge making a judgement on the case before the facts of the case are in evidence.

We know Justice Hall has had extensive non documented interactions with both teams all through the trial. When I say non documented I mean not publically reported; including for instance all the written submissions, and also the day-to-day arrangements of business.

I don't say he advised on changes of charges but he I think he will have given feedback on the process openly and equally to both parties.

 

[JezzaPerth]

We know Justice Hall has had extensive non documented interactions with both teams all through the trial. When I say non documented I mean not publically reported; including for instance all the written submissions, and also the day-to-day arrangements of business.

I don't say he advised on changes of charges but he I think he will have given feedback on the process openly and equally to both parties.

And if you read the final judgement you'll find 'it is suggested' sprinkled all the way through. That's a reference to submissions from the parties which we haven't seen. The mentions are the only way we can guess what was submitted. They probably aren't suggestions he read on big footy

 

[the dark knight]

And if you read the final judgement you'll find 'it is suggested' sprinkled all the way through. That's a reference to submissions from the parties which we haven't seen. The mentions are the only way we can guess what was submitted. They probably aren't suggestions he read on big footy

And here I thought he was , kidding.

 

[ms finch]

We know Justice Hall has had extensive non documented interactions with both teams all through the trial. When I say non documented I mean not publically reported; including for instance all the written submissions, and also the day-to-day arrangements of business.

I don't say he advised on changes of charges but he I think he will have given feedback on the process openly and equally to both parties.

Under no circumstances would what you have suggested, that in any way went to the substance of the charges, the evidence, the submissions, the rulings or the outcome, have occurred. You are, whether you intend to or not, calling in to question Hall’s integrity.

 

[the dark knight]

Just listened to the last few podcast (still listening to today’s), Does anyone agree with Tom Percy that the prosecution may appeal the not guilty verdict on SS count? Personally, I’d say not. Unless some bomb shell is there that we don’t know about. I think they’d wait for a body before re-visiting the SS case.

 

[Port Adel Proud]

Just listened to the last few podcast (still listening to today’s), Does anyone agree with Tom Percy that the prosecution may appeal the not guilty verdict on SS count? Personally, I’d say not. Unless some bomb shell is there that we don’t know about. I think they’d wait for a body before re-visiting the SS case.

A prosecution appeal against the acquittal, of course, is not available after a jury finding but is available after a judge alone trial; as occurred in the Rayney case.
The prosecution will, no doubt, consider the judge's reasons in the hope of identifying appealable error by him.
So what TF Percy QC says is correct, but shallow- and that is entirely consistent with his commentary style.

 

[the dark knight]

A prosecution appeal against the acquittal, of course, is not available after a jury finding but is available after a judge alone trial; as occurred in the Rayney case.
The prosecution will, no doubt, consider the judge's reasons in the hope of identifying appealable error by him.
So what TF Percy QC says is correct, but shallow- and that is entirely consistent with his commentary style.

Yeah I knew that they could appeal with the judge only trial.
The propensity evidence is solid, But not enough to reach the guilty verdict as Justice Hall has seen.

Still waiting for Telstra to do “Please Explain”.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

This certainly shows to me that BRE had absolutely no remorse for what he had done! One of his first thoughts was about losing his job, disgusting!

"Confronted by a security guard, one of Edwards’ first comments was: “Does this mean I’ll lose my job?”

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Telstra owned the first 4 floors of the building. I wonder if BRE ever took those stairs and had seen the photos.

LOL he probably put the posters there himself so he and everyone else could admire his work every day.

 

[javaguice]

This certainly shows to me that BRE had absolutely no remorse for what he had done! One of his first thoughts was about losing his job, disgusting!

"Confronted by a security guard, one of Edwards’ first comments was: “Does this mean I’ll lose my job?”

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Are you trying to get me to subscribe?

Whats the gyst of the article GND?

But yeah I agree - first thought = how it will impact him.

 

[Kurve]

Still waiting for Telstra to do “Please Explain”.

It might be on the government of the day rather than Telstra as it is now. We had a long discussion about Telstra's responsibility in the earlier thread and looked into when the first tranche was sold off for example. This was before the trial even started.

The shares would have been worth nothing if we knew then what we know now.

 

[BFew]

Whats the gyst of the article GND?

Here's a quick summary of a very long article.

Bradley Robert Edwards and the Claremont killings: Why did it take so long?
2:00AM September 26, 2020
... there were clues and leads from the very earliest days of the investigation that could have pointed police towards Edwards.
... Dawson said investigators had pursued the “Telstra element” over many years, describing it as a very significant part in the end.
... police only turned to Telstra leads years after going down other blind alleys while the trail was fresh.
...“Police were misled by people outside the police force, and it caused them to make errors.”

(Brett from the Post Newspaper) Christian said the fixation on a few suspects had a detrimental knock-on effect. “I got calls from women who had themselves been abducted in Claremont but didn’t report it because they’d been told the police knew who the Claremont serial killer was and were keeping an eye on him,” he said. “ They had this false sense of security. I think that’s one of the things that contributed to so much time elapsing. “The police didn’t trust the public with the information they had. If they had involved the public, and been more upfront straight away about descriptions of vehicles and witness evidence, they would have got good information. And while memories were fresh.”

High-profile former homicide detective Gary Jubelin says it is easy to criticise investigations with the benefit of hindsight.

The final judgment, however, should go to Glennon’s father, Denis ... Speaking to the media on Friday, he had only praise for the work of police.

 

[BFew]

Today's West Claremont Podcast is out, and it's a surprise interview with the 1990 Hollywood Hospital victim.

The Hollywood Hospital Victim: In Her Own Words - CLAREMONT: The Trial

May 7, 1990 was the day that changed Wendy Davis’ life. A social worker at Hollywood Hospital, she was going about her day when Telstra worker and now convicted killer Bradley Edwards attacked her, grabbing her from behind and dragged her back towards some toilets. But she fought him off, and...

omny.fm

Claremont podcast: Hollywood victim in her own words

Bradley Edwards’ Hollywood Hospital attack victim Wendy Davis describes her shocking experience to Natalie Bonjolo and Tim Clarke, explaining why she wants an apology from Telstra.

thewest.com.au

Wendy said telling her story had been therapeutic.
She said she even started jotting down her thoughts into a book, which she admitted may not actually see the light of day, but detailed her experiences with the attack and the resurgence of trauma.

 

[javaguice]

(Brett from the Post Newspaper) Christian said the fixation on a few suspects had a detrimental knock-on effect. “I got calls from women who had themselves been abducted in Claremont but didn’t report it because they’d been told the police knew who the Claremont serial killer was and were keeping an eye on him,”

Oh my!! I hope they all appeared during the trial.....

 

[BFew]

(Brett from the Post Newspaper) Christian said the fixation on a few suspects had a detrimental knock-on effect. “I got calls from women who had themselves been abducted in Claremont but didn’t report it because they’d been told the police knew who the Claremont serial killer was and were keeping an eye on him,”

This alleged behavior by some of the Force at the time, had nothing to do with old technology or lack of resources. It was all to do with unprofessional and reckless police work and what was possibly a breach of their training and professional standards, if true.

IMO, these mistakes are unforgivable.
That no Yom Kippur or Catholic confessional etc etc can make up for.

Those that took part in them, ordered them, knew of them and did or said nothing, or defend them with a blind loyalty to the Force or Government/Authority in general, should hang their heads in shame.

 

[Kurve]

I can see why, on the evidence, the judge may have ordered a sex offenders course. IF Wendy’s version of events was included in the brief then it makes some sense. I don’t think it would be that uncommon, actually, as a preventative measure in cases like that. However, if he had access to juvenile records then it makes even more sense as a preventative measure. But it would have been utterly shocking if the judge had challenged the police/prosecutor in this instance.

The judge also ordered pre-sentencing reports from two iirc psychologists. We haven't seen them but it was suggested in one that the psychologist suspected he wasn't getting the whole story from BRE as to why he attacked the social worker.

It may have been the combination of Wendy's statement and that particular report that had the judge ordering him to do the course. I still will be very surprised if his juvenile record is clean.

 

[BFew]

We haven't seen them but it was suggested in one that the psychologist suspected he wasn't getting the whole story from BRE as to why he attacked the social worker.

He's hardly likely to tell the psychs, that when he went to the loo, he found that he had ran out of sandwich bags, and could not wait to get back to his van and drive off to a quiet nearby street, park or Cemetery to finish the job.

 

[javaguice]

This alleged behavior by some of the Force at the time, had nothing to do with old technology or lack of resources. It was all to do with unprofessional and reckless police work and what was possibly a breach of their training and professional standards, if true.

IMO, these mistakes are unforgivable.
That no Yom Kippur or Catholic confessional etc etc can make up for.

Those that took part in them, ordered them, knew of them and did or said nothing, or defend them with a blind loyalty to the Force or Government/Authority in general, should hang there heads in shame.

They were so F'ing arrogant...."you dont know what we know, but we wont tell you anything"

Going through everything....this bloke should never have got to the point of becoming a murderer. He should have been locked up in 1990 after the coppers linked HH attack to Huntingdale.

Telstra aided BRE in getting a lenient sentence then let him use company cars to abduct and murder girls.

Every opportunity they had to assist, they ****ed up.

CG's old man was forgiving of the police and blamed media. I'd blame ******* Telstra before the media - all they did was keep it in the public eye.

Would love to see the Telstra employees held accountable for allowing BRE to murder (at least) 3 young girls. I hope they are having sleepless nights due to their inaction and allowing a serial killer to develop.

One of the reasons im with iinet

Then the coppers come out saying "someone out there knows something" - probably, but nobody knew what to report