Current Claremont Murders - The Bunker

Is Bradley Edwards the Mystery Man in the CCTV?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 82.4%
  • No

    Votes: 6 17.6%

  • Total voters
    34

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Likeamystery

All Australian
Aug 11, 2019
990
2,761
AFL Club
West Coast
There is a dispute about whether Edwards and Murray Cook came to work together. John Travis, who kept meticulous records, recorded Edwards as starting work at 8am and Murray starting at work at 10am. There is also the issue that Murray’s wife recalled Edwards being there and assisting with fixing an air conditioner due to it being a very hot day, but the weather report didn’t support that so the conclusion was that she was likely confused about that date.

Having said that if someone else gave Edwards a lift or he got to work other than in his car, he would have had to be back in Perth earlier than 8am.

It did occur to me after I posted that if it was pre-meditated he could have taken a change of uniform with him, or even if not, he may have kept one in his car anyway. I should also say that he may not have worn his uniform that night, but he still had to get in to one for work somehow or at least clean or change his clothes before work the next day if they were not required to wear uniforms while working on weekends.

In the Admissions section of the judgement, there are statements about when Edwards’ parents were overseas. My assumption is that they would have canvassed all of those for the period relevant to January 26 1996 - 14 March 1997, because one of the ones in the admissions doesn’t have anything to do with the dates of the crimes. That IS an assumption, but I think a reasonable one. Based on that, his parents were not overseas for Australia Day 1996.

However, that does raise another possibility I didn’t immediately think of: if they had gone to the Madora Bay house that weekend, then it’s the Gay St house that is empty and where Edwards would, in my view, have gone, which changes things.

I’d still start with Madora Bay as the location he headed towards, though. It fits with where Jane is; in fact, if he took the main highway - the fastest route, it’s literally just a quick couple of turn offs. He’s just killed a young woman, likely for the first time at least in a while; whether it was planned or not, he’s going to be a bit pumped and nervy and not completely calm. He heads somewhere safe to clean up and starts thinking of places to dump the body on the way - a Telstra infrastructure site he was aware of on the way is exactly the sort of thing I think would pop in to his head. Or he’s planned to kill her and he needs somewhere to do it on the way to cleaning himself up. Again, a Telstra site would surely be something he considered.
Perhaps within Mrs Cook’s diary were brief notes that Murray worked, and she had recalled the more specific details, but mistakenly recalled the wrong day - that makes sense. BRE probably drove himself to work which would explain why MC and BRE arrived at different times. Also, why MC left work before BRE – because BRE drove himself home.

They probably weren’t required to wear a uniform whilst working overtime on weekends. PPE wasn’t big, back then. My thoughts are BRE kept a change of clothes in his vehicle. I’d think prior to prowling, he would leave home in a work uniform, giving the impression he was going to work then change clothing on-route. He was organized.

Evidently most of those Telstra exchanges have a toilet and wash basin, and some of the bigger ones have a shower. He may have cleaned up at one of the exchanges. That time of night, minimal chance of someone attending for a break-down.

BRE probably knew where the break-downs were occurring, through Telstra’s communication - perhaps BRE was one of the back-up technicians on call.

BRE might have been able to tune into the Telstra jobs and knew where break-downs were occurring (i.e. KK victim thought he’d spoken to someone). Perhaps he’d spoken to the breakdown coordinator via a two-way radio or the like.

Perhaps that particular piece of machinery resembled what’s in a taxi.
 

zedx

Club Legend
Feb 23, 2019
1,286
4,551
AFL Club
Fremantle
It was Mrs Cook who made the point that it was a very hot day and that is why the airconditioner needed fixing. With Edwards arriving at work at 8am, that doesn’t appear to be something you would schedule in advance due to it being generally hot; that’s more the kind of thing you would ask when someone turned up. Why wouldn’t you have asked after work on the Saturday if it was a known problem rather than at 7:30am or so on a Sunday morning?
She may have been expecting it to be another hot day. Also the temp is and feels different in different suburbs in WA, to her personally it may have felt like a hot day. Maybe that was the only time BRE could do it? Maybe it just suddenly packed up? maybe he said -'I'm coming over in the morning, I'll yake the filters off for you and give them a clean before we leave, it only take a few minutes.' If that was what was in her diary I'd tend to believe her. Why would she lie?
 

Eaglette01

Team Captain
Dec 31, 2016
349
7,167
The Wild Wild West
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Leicester City FC, Dallas Cowboys
She may have been expecting it to be another hot day. Also the temp is and feels different in different suburbs in WA, to her personally it may have felt like a hot day. Maybe that was the only time BRE could do it? Maybe it just suddenly packed up? maybe he said -'I'm coming over in the morning, I'll yake the filters off for you and give them a clean before we leave, it only take a few minutes.' If that was what was in her diary I'd tend to believe her. Why would she lie?

I was in Court for Murray Cook and Mrs Cooks evidence - both good witnesses. Yovich was a cuunnt that day being demeaning to Mr Cook speaking down to him saying "yes" Mrs Cook has had a lot of birthdays !! no wonder you can't recall (also because she was older than Mr Cook)........ "we won't mention it to Mrs Cook" chuckle chuckle.
Mrs Cook was outside waiting to come in !! to give her evidence.
I believed both Mr & Mrs Cook evidence

TBH: Mr Travis with Telstra @ Dumas house was probably "cooking the books" and claiming extra overtime with Govt Telecom - a rort Govt workers I know did.

PICTURE IT: Mr Cook with MS - and BRE terrorising the whole of Perth !!! And Yovich prancing around like a Fairy.

Life is not fair.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,791
AFL Club
St Kilda
She may have been expecting it to be another hot day. Also the temp is and feels different in different suburbs in WA, to her personally it may have felt like a hot day. Maybe that was the only time BRE could do it? Maybe it just suddenly packed up? maybe he said -'I'm coming over in the morning, I'll yake the filters off for you and give them a clean before we leave, it only take a few minutes.' If that was what was in her diary I'd tend to believe her. Why would she lie?
I don’t think Mrs Cook intended to lie. But faced with a choice between a person who didn’t keep meticulous records (Mrs Cook) and who was talking about the casual possibility of someone fixing an aircon vs Mr Travis who kept meticulous records and had a professional reason for doing so, I’m accepting Mr Travis’s evidence. They can’t both be right.

Perhaps Mrs Cook had placed it in her diary in advance to be fixed that day and never got around to changing it if things changed. I still don’t understand why you would happen upon someone to fix an airconditioner first thing in the morning when they have arrived for a lift to work. How do they have time to do it? I also don’t understand why you would make a diary entry about that. To me diary entry says it was scheduled. Who schedules an air conditioning fix with a friend for 7am on a Saturday before they have a long work day? Because even if Mr Travis is wrong about when Edwards arrived, 8am was his scheduled arrival time and would have been worked around for anything that was done beforehand.

If Mr Travis is wrong, the only way that can be the case that I can see is that Edwards turned up early before work having been asked in advance to fix the air conditioner, thinking he was starting at 10am at the same time as Mr Cook. That knocks a chunk off the 10am time if we presume that the airconditioning required two people to fix (because Mr Cook couldn’t do it). Edwards then has to be back in Perth about 9am, and only has an extra hour or so at most.

So I’m also not sure that it materially changes anything. If Mrs Cook is correct then either Mr Cook went to work earlier than recorded (unlikely) or Edwards went to work later than recorded (more likely). At most he has an extra hour or so to manage what he does with Sarah, which isn’t a whole lot of time. Also, I think he is more constrained by the light than anything else here. He’s not going to want to be fumbling around in the bush or exposed to the outside world covered in filth anywhere after dawn. Too much risk of being seen. Sunrise was 5:36am that morning.
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,791
AFL Club
St Kilda
I was in Court for Murray Cook and Mrs Cooks evidence - both good witnesses. Yovich was a ***** that day being demeaning to Mr Cook speaking down to him saying "yes" Mrs Cook has had a lot of birthdays !! no wonder you can't recall (also because she was older than Mr Cook)........ "we won't mention it to Mrs Cook" chuckle chuckle.
Mrs Cook was outside waiting to come in !! to give her evidence.
I believed both Mr & Mrs Cook evidence

TBH: Mr Travis with Telstra @ Dumas house was probably "cooking the books" and claiming extra overtime with Govt Telecom - a rort Govt workers I know did.

PICTURE IT: Mr Cook with MS - and BRE terrorising the whole of Perth !!! And Yovich prancing around like a Fairy.

Life is not fair.
Edwards did not get overtime for 27 January so what would be the point of cooking the books?
 

Likeamystery

All Australian
Aug 11, 2019
990
2,761
AFL Club
West Coast
She may have been expecting it to be another hot day. Also the temp is and feels different in different suburbs in WA, to her personally it may have felt like a hot day. Maybe that was the only time BRE could do it? Maybe it just suddenly packed up? maybe he said -'I'm coming over in the morning, I'll yake the filters off for you and give them a clean before we leave, it only take a few minutes.' If that was what was in her diary I'd tend to believe her. Why would she lie?
Good points, it's not that Mrs Cook told fibs though. Most of us, make notes in our diary which don't contain specific detail. It might be a case that Mrs Cook made brief notes, but from memory had recalled the actions of another day.

What's odd is that BRE and MC left for work together but arrived at different times. Also, after work MC left work earlier than BRE.

Was there any mention, word-for-word what Mrs Cook had written in her diary?
 
Jan 21, 2019
1,021
2,855
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
East Perth
Just pointing something out here

Mr Cook said he arrived at Dumas House at 8am with BRE, he didn't say he started work at 8am.
" He said that he arrived at Dumas House with the accused but could not recall which car they had taken "

Mr Travis records said he started at 10am, He also said he doesn't know what car BRE arrived in because he didn't see it arrive. So he doesn't know if Mr Cook was at the site at 8am and waited or went off elsewhere and did something else until 10am to start on the job.
" Mr Travis could not recall what car the accused arrived in on 27 January 1996 or what type of car he drove at that time. He did not see the accused arrive but said that those starting at 8.00am would have gathered outside and would have entered the building together as he had the keys."
( For a meticulous record keeper he gives a 30 minute window for when Mr Cook knocked off that day - 6.15 or 6.45pm, so when exactly did he finish?)

It was Mr Yovich that suggested Mr Cook claimed to start at 8am when he did not actually say that.
" It was put to Mr Travis in cross-examination that Mr Cook had given evidence that he started at 8.00am and finished at 4.00pm, an eight hour period "
 
Jan 21, 2019
1,021
2,855
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
East Perth
Good points, it's not that Mrs Cook told fibs though. Most of us, make notes in our diary which don't contain specific detail. It might be a case that Mrs Cook made brief notes, but from memory had recalled the actions of another day.

What's odd is that BRE and MC left for work together but arrived at different times. Also, after work MC left work earlier than BRE.

Was there any mention, word-for-word what Mrs Cook had written in her diary?
Yes
" Ms Cook has kept a diary since 1994. She was initially asked to recall what had occurred during this time period without refreshing her memory from the diary. She was later shown some pages from her diary and asked to explain what some of her notes meant. Before she was shown her diary she said she did not 'write down the movie' but did make a note of Mr Cook's overtime. When shown the relevant page she confirmed that on 27January 1996 she had made the note 'video night Lez & Shez' and 'Muz working OT "
 
Jan 21, 2019
1,021
2,855
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
East Perth
Just pointing something out here

Mr Cook said he arrived at Dumas House at 8am with BRE, he didn't say he started work at 8am.
" He said that he arrived at Dumas House with the accused but could not recall which car they had taken "

Mr Travis records said he started at 10am, He also said he doesn't know what car BRE arrived in because he didn't see it arrive. So he doesn't know if Mr Cook was at the site at 8am and waited or went off elsewhere and did something else until 10am to start on the job.
" Mr Travis could not recall what car the accused arrived in on 27 January 1996 or what type of car he drove at that time. He did not see the accused arrive but said that those starting at 8.00am would have gathered outside and would have entered the building together as he had the keys."
( For a meticulous record keeper he gives a 30 minute window for when Mr Cook knocked off that day - 6.15 or 6.45pm, so when exactly did he finish?)

It was Mr Yovich that suggested Mr Cook claimed to start at 8am when he did not actually say that.
" It was put to Mr Travis in cross-examination that Mr Cook had given evidence that he started at 8.00am and finished at 4.00pm, an eight hour period "
To add to this


Mrs Cook is the only person who made a statement about he car they took that day, the rest couldn't remember what car they took. Now if they did take the Cook's car then BRE had to be there at 8am to start so Mr Cook would have been there at 8am to drop BRE off. After that he could have done anything for the next 2 hours before starting work.

" The accused and Mr Cook went to work together on that day and took their only car, a grey Ford Fairmont. The accused did not leave a car at the Cooks' house."
How BRE got home is any ones guess.
 

zedx

Club Legend
Feb 23, 2019
1,286
4,551
AFL Club
Fremantle
Good points, it's not that Mrs Cook told fibs though. Most of us, make notes in our diary which don't contain specific detail. It might be a case that Mrs Cook made brief notes, but from memory had recalled the actions of another day.

What's odd is that BRE and MC left for work together but arrived at different times. Also, after work MC left work earlier than BRE.

Was there any mention, word-for-word what Mrs Cook had written in her diary?
Its not totally clear what happened that day, I'm thinking there might have been a little bit of overtime wroughting going on! which was very common back then. As to me it really doesn't make sense then going to work together if they have a 2 hours start time difference. I mean why would you? Unless he did run errands
or some such thing.
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,791
AFL Club
St Kilda
Just pointing something out here

Mr Cook said he arrived at Dumas House at 8am with BRE, he didn't say he started work at 8am.
" He said that he arrived at Dumas House with the accused but could not recall which car they had taken "

Mr Travis records said he started at 10am, He also said he doesn't know what car BRE arrived in because he didn't see it arrive. So he doesn't know if Mr Cook was at the site at 8am and waited or went off elsewhere and did something else until 10am to start on the job.
" Mr Travis could not recall what car the accused arrived in on 27 January 1996 or what type of car he drove at that time. He did not see the accused arrive but said that those starting at 8.00am would have gathered outside and would have entered the building together as he had the keys."
( For a meticulous record keeper he gives a 30 minute window for when Mr Cook knocked off that day - 6.15 or 6.45pm, so when exactly did he finish?)

It was Mr Yovich that suggested Mr Cook claimed to start at 8am when he did not actually say that.
" It was put to Mr Travis in cross-examination that Mr Cook had given evidence that he started at 8.00am and finished at 4.00pm, an eight hour period "
Yes
" Ms Cook has kept a diary since 1994. She was initially asked to recall what had occurred during this time period without refreshing her memory from the diary. She was later shown some pages from her diary and asked to explain what some of her notes meant. Before she was shown her diary she said she did not 'write down the movie' but did make a note of Mr Cook's overtime. When shown the relevant page she confirmed that on 27January 1996 she had made the note 'video night Lez & Shez' and 'Muz working OT "
To add to this


Mrs Cook is the only person who made a statement about he car they took that day, the rest couldn't remember what car they took. Now if they did take the Cook's car then BRE had to be there at 8am to start so Mr Cook would have been there at 8am to drop BRE off. After that he could have done anything for the next 2 hours before starting work.

" The accused and Mr Cook went to work together on that day and took their only car, a grey Ford Fairmont. The accused did not leave a car at the Cooks' house."
How BRE got home is any ones guess.
Just to clarify - meticulous record keeping to me means making notes of things as they happen, or at the earliest convenience, to the greatest degree of accuracy possible. The fact that Mr Travis noted a timeframe actually supports this in my view because he has realized when he did his notes that he can’t be sure of the exact time and so has given a frame he can be sure of. If he was busy doing things he may not have gotten things to the minute, but he made a point of recording that fact.

Mrs Cook’s diary is one for personal use, and there is no reason for her to attempt to be accurate about specific details such as time etc or to amend it as things change.

There are numerous problems with the Cooks’ evidence about the 27 January.

Mrs Cook states in her evidence that her husband was being picked up at 7:30am because he had to start work at 8am. Clearly not. Even if he went in with Edwards he didn’t have to start work until 10am. If he had erroneously turned up at 8am, why would they make him wait for 2 hours? By Mr Cook’s own evidence, he had been told they were short of people. If his actual start time was 8am, why would it be recorded as 10am? But crucially, Mrs Cook recalls that her husband was scheduled to start work at 8am. He wasn’t.

Mrs Cook has an apparent excellent recollection of her husband and Edwards leaving in their grey Fairmont. Now, as per the Cooks’ other evidence, the reason Mr Cook and Edwards car pooled is because Mr Cook no longer had a work vehicle due to a permanent position at the RPH. So Edwards turned up either sans car or with a car but they didn’t take it, and there was no discussion about this even though for them not to take Edwards’ work vehicle would have been decidedly odd.

Although it was implied that the air conditioning matter was in the diary, now that I have read through all the relevant parts of the judgement, it actually isn’t. So Mrs Cook is working entirely from memory there from what I can see. It apparently broke down that morning and they decided to try to fix it before going to work. I find this decidedly strange, as I detailed previously, because at that time of the morning on a Saturday you are not allowing for any unexpected scenarios before going to work. Edwards has turned up unexpectedly without his car, which would have required a change of plans as it was.

There is too much that conflicts for the Cooks’ evidence from that day to be reliable.

It doesn’t help Edwards if it is reliable. It means he turned up unusually without his car. It cuts a little off the timeframe because he had to leave his car somewhere in Perth and then get to the Cooks by 7:30am. I’m still not sure what material difference it makes because he still had time to kill and get rid of Sarah and clean himself up.
 
Mar 5, 2017
12,563
34,963
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Socceroos - Matildas
I'm thinking there might have been a little bit of overtime wroughting going on!
In the context of the evidence at trial, not that it would have changed the outcome, I'm more interested that some of the dates on the payslips might not 100% accurately reflect when BRE actually worked.

Hands up if anyone in here has worked anywhere in largish organisation in the last 20 years, where employees or contractors worked additional time to normal hours, and management agreed to let them take a day off that showed up on their timesheet and payslip (or invoice) as having worked, because they had clocked up additional hours work were a pain in the butt, to get approved, if they declared when they actually worked, or they had gone over the allowable additional hours accrued limit in a time off in lieu or 9 day fortnight arrangement?

Because I know that in some of the places I've worked you would not 100% want to rely on timesheets/payslips or contractor/temp invoices for 100% the truth on who worked what days and hours.
 

zedx

Club Legend
Feb 23, 2019
1,286
4,551
AFL Club
Fremantle
In the context of the evidence at trial, not that it would have changed the outcome, I'm more interested that some of the dates on the payslips might not 100% accurately reflect when BRE actually worked.

Hands up if anyone in here has worked anywhere in largish organisation in the last 20 years, where employees or contractors worked additional time to normal hours, and management agreed to let them take a day off that showed up on their timesheet and payslip (or invoice) as having worked, because they had clocked up additional hours work were a pain in the butt, to get approved, if they declared when they actually worked, or they had gone over the allowable additional hours accrued limit in a time off in lieu or 9 day fortnight arrangement?

Because I know that in some of the places I've worked you would not 100% want to rely on timesheets/payslips or contractor/temp invoices for 100% the truth on who worked what days and hours.
Totally agree, I knew of people who would clock on, nick off for the rest of the day then turn u in time to clock off. Siting unexpected problems caused the job to take longer than expected!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mar 21, 2016
73,866
116,794
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, White Sox
In the context of the evidence at trial, not that it would have changed the outcome, I'm more interested that some of the dates on the payslips might not 100% accurately reflect when BRE actually worked.

Hands up if anyone in here has worked anywhere in largish organisation in the last 20 years, where employees or contractors worked additional time to normal hours, and management agreed to let them take a day off that showed up on their timesheet and payslip (or invoice) as having worked, because they had clocked up additional hours work were a pain in the butt, to get approved, if they declared when they actually worked, or they had gone over the allowable additional hours accrued limit in a time off in lieu or 9 day fortnight arrangement?

Because I know that in some of the places I've worked you would not 100% want to rely on timesheets/payslips or contractor/temp invoices for 100% the truth on who worked what days and hours.
Some PS even had flexi-time built around this - you worked and your boss knew you worked extra and it was agreed and allocated as time off but paid
 
Jan 21, 2019
1,021
2,855
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
East Perth
Just to clarify - meticulous record keeping to me means making notes of things as they happen, or at the earliest convenience, to the greatest degree of accuracy possible. The fact that Mr Travis noted a timeframe actually supports this in my view because he has realized when he did his notes that he can’t be sure of the exact time and so has given a frame he can be sure of. If he was busy doing things he may not have gotten things to the minute, but he made a point of recording that fact.

Mrs Cook’s diary is one for personal use, and there is no reason for her to attempt to be accurate about specific details such as time etc or to amend it as things change.

There are numerous problems with the Cooks’ evidence about the 27 January.

Mrs Cook states in her evidence that her husband was being picked up at 7:30am because he had to start work at 8am. Clearly not. Even if he went in with Edwards he didn’t have to start work until 10am. If he had erroneously turned up at 8am, why would they make him wait for 2 hours? By Mr Cook’s own evidence, he had been told they were short of people. If his actual start time was 8am, why would it be recorded as 10am? But crucially, Mrs Cook recalls that her husband was scheduled to start work at 8am. He wasn’t.

Mrs Cook has an apparent excellent recollection of her husband and Edwards leaving in their grey Fairmont. Now, as per the Cooks’ other evidence, the reason Mr Cook and Edwards car pooled is because Mr Cook no longer had a work vehicle due to a permanent position at the RPH. So Edwards turned up either sans car or with a car but they didn’t take it, and there was no discussion about this even though for them not to take Edwards’ work vehicle would have been decidedly odd.

Although it was implied that the air conditioning matter was in the diary, now that I have read through all the relevant parts of the judgement, it actually isn’t. So Mrs Cook is working entirely from memory there from what I can see. It apparently broke down that morning and they decided to try to fix it before going to work. I find this decidedly strange, as I detailed previously, because at that time of the morning on a Saturday you are not allowing for any unexpected scenarios before going to work. Edwards has turned up unexpectedly without his car, which would have required a change of plans as it was.

There is too much that conflicts for the Cooks’ evidence from that day to be reliable.

It doesn’t help Edwards if it is reliable. It means he turned up unusually without his car. It cuts a little off the timeframe because he had to leave his car somewhere in Perth and then get to the Cooks by 7:30am. I’m still not sure what material difference it makes because he still had time to kill and get rid of Sarah and clean himself up.

Just to clarify - meticulous record keeping to me means making notes of things as they happen, or at the earliest convenience, to the greatest degree of accuracy possible. The fact that Mr Travis noted a timeframe actually supports this in my view because he has realized when he did his notes that he can’t be sure of the exact time and so has given a frame he can be sure of. If he was busy doing things he may not have gotten things to the minute, but he made a point of recording that fact.

Recording start and knock off times is standard practice. Meticulous to me means with intricate detail...


Mrs Cook’s diary is one for personal use, and there is no reason for her to attempt to be accurate about specific details such as time etc or to amend it as things change.

There are numerous problems with the Cooks’ evidence about the 27 January.

Mrs Cook states in her evidence that her husband was being picked up at 7:30am because he had to start work at 8am. Clearly not. Even if he went in with Edwards he didn’t have to start work until 10am. If he had erroneously turned up at 8am, why would they make him wait for 2 hours? By Mr Cook’s own evidence, he had been told they were short of people. If his actual start time was 8am, why would it be recorded as 10am? But crucially, Mrs Cook recalls that her husband was scheduled to start work at 8am. He wasn’t.

Who said he erroneously showed at 8am and was made to wait? If he drove BRE to work then he had to be there at 8am for BREs start time, maybe her wording could have been better.

Mrs Cook has an apparent excellent recollection of her husband and Edwards leaving in their grey Fairmont. Now, as per the Cooks’ other evidence, the reason Mr Cook and Edwards car pooled is because Mr Cook no longer had a work vehicle due to a permanent position at the RPH. So Edwards turned up either sans car or with a car but they didn’t take it, and there was no discussion about this even though for them not to take Edwards’ work vehicle would have been decidedly odd.

He used his own vehicle to get to work on any another day, why not that day? and let's not forget it was not unusual for BRE to walk to their house.

"Brigita Cook is the wife of MrCook. She met the accused when she and her husband were living in Thornlie. She recalled the accused coming to their house to play pool with her husband and that he did so regularly on a Wednesday night for a year or more. She did not see what car he drove when he came on these occasions and said that he sometimes walked to their house because it was not far."


Although it was implied that the air conditioning matter was in the diary, now that I have read through all the relevant parts of the judgement, it actually isn’t. So Mrs Cook is working entirely from memory there from what I can see. It apparently broke down that morning and they decided to try to fix it before going to work. I find this decidedly strange, as I detailed previously, because at that time of the morning on a Saturday you are not allowing for any unexpected scenarios before going to work. Edwards has turned up unexpectedly without his car, which would have required a change of plans as it was.

I am not aware of any implications that air conditioner being broken was in the diary. That was stated from memory as far as I am aware.

There is too much that conflicts for the Cooks’ evidence from that day to be reliable.

It doesn’t help Edwards if it is reliable. It means he turned up unusually without his car. It cuts a little off the timeframe because he had to leave his car somewhere in Perth and then get to the Cooks by 7:30am. I’m still not sure what material difference it makes because he still had time to kill and get rid of Sarah and clean himself up.

Why would his car be left in Perth when he lives a short distance from the Cook's?


Clean himself up? Are sure he wasn't naked when he murdered the ladies? All that is required then is a bottle water and rag to rinse off any blood not covered by clothes when re-dressing.
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,791
AFL Club
St Kilda
Recording start and knock off times is standard practice. Meticulous to me means with intricate detail...
So if you are in a toilet or up a ladder and someone leaves without telling you, and you note the time you last saw them and the time you noticed that they were gone, that’s not meticulous? To me that is the very definition of meticulous. What would be not meticulous would be to then estimate the time and go with something in the middle. The timeframe provides ALL the information, not an interpretation of it.

Who said he erroneously showed at 8am and was made to wait? If he drove BRE to work then he had to be there at 8am for BREs start time, maybe her wording could have been better.
Well if Mr Travis did not clock him on until 10am and he arrived at 8am then he waited or did something for two hours rather than start at 8am. Mrs Cook’s own evidence, which is what I was commenting on, is that he had to start at 8am. Whether she could have worded it better or not doesn’t change the fact that her evidence was unclear and had issues, which was my point. In fact, if she worded it badly that goes to her evidence being unclear.

He used his own vehicle to get to work on any another day, why not that day? and let's not forget it was not unusual for BRE to walk to their house.

"Brigita Cook is the wife of MrCook. She met the accused when she and her husband were living in Thornlie. She recalled the accused coming to their house to play pool with her husband and that he did so regularly on a Wednesday night for a year or more. She did not see what car he drove when he came on these occasions and said that he sometimes walked to their house because it was not far."
That refers to him coming to hang out at their house, not work related activities, and is therefore different. It is specifically stated in evidence that when they carpooled for work, Edwards would pick Mr Cook up because Mr Cook no longer had use of a work vehicle. The logic of this is that Edwards was the one with the work vehicle. Yes he drove himself at other times - to his permanent work place at the RPH, when he was not working with Edwards, which is again distinguishable. A point was made about the fact that they used Edwards work vehicle.

I am not aware of any implications that air conditioner being broken was in the diary. That was stated from memory as far as I am aware.
So we have a different recollection of how that was portrayed. Not sure why that matters.


Why would his car be left in Perth when he lives a short distance from the Cook's?


Clean himself up? Are sure he wasn't naked when he murdered the ladies? All that is required then is a bottle water and rag to rinse off any blood not covered by clothes when re-dressing.
Perth refers to the Perth area; I didn’t mean Perth CBD. Wherever he took Sarah he had to get back to there. If, for example, he went down to Madora Bay or Wellard, he had to get back to the other part of Perth in order to get to the Cooks to car pool to Dumas House.

I think I explained, either in that post or another one, why I don’t think the cleaning up issue is trivial. I have my reasons for that and why I hold that opinion and it is as valid and reasonable as anything you might think. I am not sure why you are having a go at me for it as though I have said something outrageously ridiculous.

I do not think it is likely he killed them while naked; at the very least I do not think that that is as likely as him being clothed. I’ll hazard a guess that he wasn’t cruising around trying to pick up the women while naked. So when did he remove all his clothes? Before or after he started attacking them? And did he go tramping around in the bush butt naked to dump the bodies?

And what about the fibre evidence that demonstrated Telstra uniform fibres were on the women? I think primary and secondary transfer were canvassed during the trial although I would have to go back and read that. I think secondary transfer was considered unlikely, but even if it’s possible, what are the chances of the volume of fibres from his uniform being on multiple women if he was totally naked when he was in any way touching them?

I do not think the Cooks’ evidence about 27 January was reliable. This is the same conclusion as Hall drew. I’m not saying that to act as though it is a better conclusion, merely to point out that it can hardly be a ridiculous one as you seem to want to paint it if the judge came up with it as well.
 
Jan 21, 2019
1,021
2,855
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
East Perth
So if you are in a toilet or up a ladder and someone leaves without telling you, and you note the time you last saw them and the time you noticed that they were gone, that’s not meticulous? To me that is the very definition of meticulous. What would be not meticulous would be to then estimate the time and go with something in the middle. The timeframe provides ALL the information, not an interpretation of it.


Well if Mr Travis did not clock him on until 10am and he arrived at 8am then he waited or did something for two hours rather than start at 8am. Mrs Cook’s own evidence, which is what I was commenting on, is that he had to start at 8am. Whether she could have worded it better or not doesn’t change the fact that her evidence was unclear and had issues, which was my point. In fact, if she worded it badly that goes to her evidence being unclear.


That refers to him coming to hang out at their house, not work related activities, and is therefore different. It is specifically stated in evidence that when they carpooled for work, Edwards would pick Mr Cook up because Mr Cook no longer had use of a work vehicle. The logic of this is that Edwards was the one with the work vehicle. Yes he drove himself at other times - to his permanent work place at the RPH, when he was not working with Edwards, which is again distinguishable. A point was made about the fact that they used Edwards work vehicle.


So we have a different recollection of how that was portrayed. Not sure why that matters.


Perth refers to the Perth area; I didn’t mean Perth CBD. Wherever he took Sarah he had to get back to there. If, for example, he went down to Madora Bay or Wellard, he had to get back to the other part of Perth in order to get to the Cooks to car pool to Dumas House.

I think I explained, either in that post or another one, why I don’t think the cleaning up issue is trivial. I have my reasons for that and why I hold that opinion and it is as valid and reasonable as anything you might think. I am not sure why you are having a go at me for it as though I have said something outrageously ridiculous.

I do not think it is likely he killed them while naked; at the very least I do not think that that is as likely as him being clothed. I’ll hazard a guess that he wasn’t cruising around trying to pick up the women while naked. So when did he remove all his clothes? Before or after he started attacking them? And did he go tramping around in the bush butt naked to dump the bodies?

And what about the fibre evidence that demonstrated Telstra uniform fibres were on the women? I think primary and secondary transfer were canvassed during the trial although I would have to go back and read that. I think secondary transfer was considered unlikely, but even if it’s possible, what are the chances of the volume of fibres from his uniform being on multiple women if he was totally naked when he was in any way touching them?

I do not think the Cooks’ evidence about 27 January was reliable. This is the same conclusion as Hall drew. I’m not saying that to act as though it is a better conclusion, merely to point out that it can hardly be a ridiculous one as you seem to want to paint it if the judge came up with it as well.

"I am not sure why you are having a go at me for it as though I have said something outrageously ridiculous."

Umm why do you think I am having a go at you? Have i said something offensive?

We are just throwing ideas and concepts around. The only way for us to know if we are on track is by cross referencing known information against speculation. And i will say it now so you are aware, I am thoroughly enjoying the workings of your mind and am in no way having a go at you, or anyone for that matter. Please, keep up the good work :thumbsu:

I misunderstood what you meant by in Perth, thanks for clarifying and yes i see your point providing SS was disposed of before he went Dumas. If she wasn't then we may have a reason for him walking to the Cook's House that morning. What if she was still in the vehicle... would also increase the time frame he had to dispose of the body over at least 2 days.

The being naked on site where the bodies were found is not that far fetched if you apply sexual motives to it. We don't know how much time he spent at either site. What made me think of it was that that very practice was used in one the Death Wish movies where the serial killer killed whilst naked to reduce the chance of leaving evidence behind. Just throwing it out there...

The fibres came from the work vehicle. So the transfer process is he was in work clothes in the vehicle for most of the time he was ever in the vehicle. Anyone who was in that vehicle would have them fibres on them. Is there reason believe he was wearing a work uniform during the abduction stage? Also alot of the fibres where from the vehicle upholstery.

I agree Mrs Cook's evidence is very inconclusive but that doesn't mean everything she said is wrong. As for the volume of the fibres you expect there to be more fibres from direct contact. This was also brought up during the trial.
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,791
AFL Club
St Kilda
"I am not sure why you are having a go at me for it as though I have said something outrageously ridiculous."

Umm why do you think I am having a go at you? Have i said something offensive?

We are just throwing ideas and concepts around. The only way for us to know if we are on track is by cross referencing known information against speculation. And i will say it now so you are aware, I am thoroughly enjoying the workings of your mind and am in no way having a go at you, or anyone for that matter. Please, keep up the good work :thumbsu:

I misunderstood what you meant by in Perth, thanks for clarifying and yes i see your point providing SS was disposed of before he went Dumas. If she wasn't then we may have a reason for him walking to the Cook's House that morning. What if she was still in the vehicle... would also increase the time frame he had to dispose of the body over at least 2 days.

The being naked on site where the bodies were found is not that far fetched if you apply sexual motives to it. We don't know how much time he spent at either site. What made me think of it was that that very practice was used in one the Death Wish movies where the serial killer killed whilst naked to reduce the chance of leaving evidence behind. Just throwing it out there...

The fibres came from the work vehicle. So the transfer process is he was in work clothes in the vehicle for most of the time he was ever in the vehicle. Anyone who was in that vehicle would have them fibres on them. Is there reason believe he was wearing a work uniform during the abduction stage? Also alot of the fibres where from the vehicle upholstery.

I agree Mrs Cook's evidence is very inconclusive but that doesn't mean everything she said is wrong. As for the volume of the fibres you expect there to be more fibres from direct contact. This was also brought up during the trial.
That was the tone that seemed to be in the reply, but if not I obviously misunderstood and it’s just a difference in expression, which I will take on board in future. I agree that speculation is important and debating it is equally important because we never know what we might stumble across. We don’t know enough about Edwards or what happened to rule much out, just educated guesses.

With regards to him having Sarah’s body beyond that night, I don’t think so, but not because I think him walking to the Cooks implied the possibility of him having the body still in the car. I just don’t think he had anywhere he could keep it, even in his car. I thought, up until the other day, that it was quite possible he kept her at his house; not as likely, in my personal opinion, but still a reasonable possibility. But then the other day I stumbled across the fact that DF was probably still living with him at that point. No WAY do I think he’s parking his car with Sarah’s body at Fountain Way with someone else having access.

I don’t think he could have kept it at his parents’. As supportive as they are, I’m not sure they would have overlooked the dead body of a woman in his bloodstained vehicle. Although who knows with them. (I don’t have much time for his parents.)

I doubt he would have left the car with a body in it somewhere random or at a friend’s place, even if they were away. There’s no control for him over that. Anyone could have stumbled across it, or an unexpected visitor could have appeared.

The only option remaining to me is Madora Bay. I think he could have left his car and the body there, but how does he make it back to the city by 8am at Dumas House or the Cooks’ by 7:30am? Sure, there might be trains, but there is a reduced schedule on a Saturday and that is making it enormously complicated, especially in the timeframe available. He could have left the body in Madora Bay and driven back, but again I see that as overly complicated. He is leaving the body unattended in a house that technically isn’t his; his parents or siblings could have gone down there to stay overnight. He is also creating more mess for himself to clean up.

If we presume that the Cooks’ evidence is accurate then he likely left the car nearby because it was dirty and walked over. Maybe at Fountain Way, maybe not. I think that’s the obvious suggestion (unless we are discussing that he isn’t responsible for what happened to Sarah). Also possible that he had cleaned it but was nervous about someone being in it until he had checked it thoroughly.

The only difference this makes in my view is that he may have had slightly more time to dispose of the body. But not much. Any time he lost cleaning his car and driving straight to Dumas House for 8am is offset by having to park the car elsewhere and walk to the Cooks’ by 7:30am. One requires him to be ready to go at 8am; the other around 7:15am. Which is why I don’t think the Cooks’ evidence makes any material difference to what he might have done that night. They do agree that it was an 8am start time as in, they think that Mr Cook also started at 8am.

While I agree the sexual motive could imply nakedness, I don’t think that’s what happens in practice. As far as I know, most rapists (the drag a stranger into the bush kind) just pull down their pants. I don’t think he was naked with KK. I think the vulnerability for someone like him would be too great, especially exposed outside. But I also think he would have wanted to properly clean himself to show up to work, because he was trying to avoid suspicion. A twig in his hair would be something potentially noticed and remembered.

As for the fibres, I’ve had a look at the judgement. I did not go through it with a fine tooth comb because that part is enormously tedious and I’m a bit tired, so I am happy to be corrected. What I got was that they couldn’t rule out secondary transfer of the uniform fibres, but thought it more likely primary due to the numbers, the level of degradation and the spread across victims.

I thought he would quite possibly wear the uniforms during the abductions as it may have helped create a sense of security for the women getting into his car. When I read the uniform fibre evidenve during the trial, the information about the likelihood of primary transfer seemed to support this possibility. That was why I included the possibility that he was wearing the uniform. I still think he would have had to change (and clean or get rid of) his clothes, whatever he was wearing at the time.

Also, from memory - and I could be wrong here because I did not check this - there were fibres from the shorts in the girls’ hair? If so, my guess is that those ended up in their hair when he was moving the bodies once they were dead. If he picked them up under their armpits and dragged them (which seems to make sense from what we know of the sites and how you might efficiently drag someone), their heads would have been right near his shorts, banging in to his legs. I may be confusing that with the car fibres.

EDIT: There is a video of the Madora Bay house search in this article. I can’t see a garage, or place where one could be. So I don’t think he could easily have gotten a body into that house or cleaned out the car. He may have had to wait to clean the car until he had a private opportunity at Fountain Way.
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2019
1,021
2,855
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
East Perth
That was the tone that seemed to be in the reply, but if not I obviously misunderstood and it’s just a difference in expression, which I will take on board in future. I agree that speculation is important and debating it is equally important because we never know what we might stumble across. We don’t know enough about Edwards or what happened to rule much out, just educated guesses.

With regards to him having Sarah’s body beyond that night, I don’t think so, but not because I think him walking to the Cooks implied the possibility of him having the body still in the car. I just don’t think he had anywhere he could keep it, even in his car. I thought, up until the other day, that it was quite possible he kept her at his house; not as likely, in my personal opinion, but still a reasonable possibility. But then the other day I stumbled across the fact that DF was probably still living with him at that point. No WAY do I think he’s parking his car with Sarah’s body at Fountain Way with someone else having access.

I don’t think he could have kept it at his parents’. As supportive as they are, I’m not sure they would have overlooked the dead body of a woman in his bloodstained vehicle. Although who knows with them. (I don’t have much time for his parents.)

I doubt he would have left the car with a body in it somewhere random or at a friend’s place, even if they were away. There’s no control for him over that. Anyone could have stumbled across it, or an unexpected visitor could have appeared.

The only option remaining to me is Madora Bay. I think he could have left his car and the body there, but how does he make it back to the city by 8am at Dumas House or the Cooks’ by 7:30am? Sure, there might be trains, but there is a reduced schedule on a Saturday and that is making it enormously complicated, especially in the timeframe available. He could have left the body in Madora Bay and driven back, but again I see that as overly complicated. He is leaving the body unattended in a house that technically isn’t his; his parents or siblings could have gone down there to stay overnight. He is also creating more mess for himself to clean up.

If we presume that the Cooks’ evidence is accurate then he likely left the car nearby because it was dirty and walked over. Maybe at Fountain Way, maybe not. I think that’s the obvious suggestion (unless we are discussing that he isn’t responsible for what happened to Sarah). Also possible that he had cleaned it but was nervous about someone being in it until he had checked it thoroughly.

The only difference this makes in my view is that he may have had slightly more time to dispose of the body. But not much. Any time he lost cleaning his car and driving straight to Dumas House for 8am is offset by having to park the car elsewhere and walk to the Cooks’ by 7:30am. One requires him to be ready to go at 8am; the other around 7:15am. Which is why I don’t think the Cooks’ evidence makes any material difference to what he might have done that night. They do agree that it was an 8am start time as in, they think that Mr Cook also started at 8am.

While I agree the sexual motive could imply nakedness, I don’t think that’s what happens in practice. As far as I know, most rapists (the drag a stranger into the bush kind) just pull down their pants. I don’t think he was naked with KK. I think the vulnerability for someone like him would be too great, especially exposed outside. But I also think he would have wanted to properly clean himself to show up to work, because he was trying to avoid suspicion. A twig in his hair would be something potentially noticed and remembered.

As for the fibres, I’ve had a look at the judgement. I did not go through it with a fine tooth comb because that part is enormously tedious and I’m a bit tired, so I am happy to be corrected. What I got was that they couldn’t rule out secondary transfer of the uniform fibres, but thought it more likely primary due to the numbers, the level of degradation and the spread across victims.

I thought he would quite possibly wear the uniforms during the abductions as it may have helped create a sense of security for the women getting into his car. When I read the uniform fibre evidenve during the trial, the information about the likelihood of primary transfer seemed to support this possibility. That was why I included the possibility that he was wearing the uniform. I still think he would have had to change (and clean or get rid of) his clothes, whatever he was wearing at the time.

Also, from memory - and I could be wrong here because I did not check this - there were fibres from the shorts in the girls’ hair? If so, my guess is that those ended up in their hair when he was moving the bodies once they were dead. If he picked them up under their armpits and dragged them (which seems to make sense from what we know of the sites and how you might efficiently drag someone), their heads would have been right near his shorts, banging in to his legs. I may be confusing that with the car fibres.

EDIT: There is a video of the Madora Bay house search in this article. I can’t see a garage, or place where one could be. So I don’t think he could easily have gotten a body into that house or cleaned out the car. He may have had to wait to clean the car until he had a private opportunity at Fountain Way.

I think SS was killed where the screams were heard in Mosman Park going on the way they were described as very high pitched, blood curdling and horrific then ended abruptly, and taking into account BREs previous failed attempts due to the victims screaming (Huntingdale and HH) he wasn't going to fail again...

I have no reason believe he used a knife or drew blood. I think he panicked when SS screamed and strangled her. The knife could have been added in future crimes because he realised just how hard it is to strangle someone...

Hypothetical scenario - BRE is driving towards where SS lives, sees the phone box and creates an excuse to use it, or even check it is working, so pulls over pretending to do so. His real intent is to incapcitate her, uses the phonebox to get ties and gag etc in hand and ready maybe?. SS realises where she is and climbs out of the car and she tells BRE she will walk home from there. He is not having that happen, he is not missing out this time and tries to restrain her, the sceams occur then and he panics and shuts her up as quickly as he can. He goes straight for the throat. Two doors are heard slamming closed, one is the back compartment door where he put the body and the other the drivers door as he gets in the vehicle. From there he has a lockable garage that he can put the car in until he can get back to it. Even gets some sleep before work.
- after work... he has the next day off so can do whatever that night or the next day.
 
Last edited:

Fortune Cookie

Debutant
Feb 19, 2019
74
206
AFL Club
Fremantle
Nice work Bonza... I whole-heartedly agree, its an entirely plausible scenario.

I'm still undecided about if he went to work the next day though.
 

Fortune Cookie

Debutant
Feb 19, 2019
74
206
AFL Club
Fremantle
You mean the Saturday at Dumas House?
Yes... there's too much confusion re: who did what, who drove where, who started when, which car was taken, was it overtime and he simply called in sick? Which would explain Mr Cooke starting at 10am, maybe he tried to fix the a/c before he went to work and Mrs Cooke was confused cause Bradley said he'd take a look at it sometime and she was worried it was going to get hot that day. It's always hotter in the Perth foothills due to the Easterlies. That would also explain why Mr Cooke took his own car that day as well.
 

ms finch

All Australian
Aug 26, 2020
668
1,791
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think SS was killed where the screams were heard in Mosman Park going on the way they were described as very high pitched, blood curdling and horrific then ended abruptly, and taking into account BREs previous failed attempts due to the victims screaming (Huntingdale and HH) he wasn't going to fail again...

I have no reason believe he used a knife or drew blood. I think he panicked when SS screamed and strangled her. The knife could have been added in future crimes because he realised just how hard it is to strangle someone...

Hypothetical scenario - BRE is driving towards where SS lives, sees the phone box and creates an excuse to use it, or even check it is working, so pulls over pretending to do so. His real intent is to incapcitate her, uses the phonebox to get ties and gag etc in hand and ready maybe?. SS realises where she is and climbs out of the car and she tells BRE she will walk home from there. He is not having that happen, he is not missing out this time and tries to restrain her, the sceams occur then and he panics and shuts her up as quickly as he can. He goes straight for the throat. Two doors are heard slamming closed, one is the back compartment door where he put the body and the other the drivers door as he gets in the vehicle. From there he has a lockable garage that he can put the car in until he can get back to it. Even gets some sleep before work.
- after work... he has the next day off so can do whatever that night or the next day.
I agree Sarah was almost certainly killed at Mosman Park or at least badly incapacitated. Always thought that once I heard the evidence of screams in Mosman Park. I think it’s 50/50 whether this killing was planned in advance or occurred due to an escalation in events at the time.

I agree your theory makes perfect sense as to what transpired. I particularly like your reason for them being near the phone box, which I have kept thinking is relevant but couldn’t figure out why.

I have a slightly different version of what happened. I think she tried to get out of the car so the door was open and he stopped her before she made it. The reason I think this is because if she made it out of the car she would have had a chance to run and he would have had to chase her and I think the noise would have been different. I think the altercation occurred in the front seat. Strangulation is definitely possible, and it’s a good possibility in my view given the circumstances and shutting someone up fast, but I’m not sure. He may have punched her or had a weapon. I think he then got out of the car and went around and slammed the door then went back around to his side and got back in and drove off.

I don’t think he could use his garage because DF was living at his house. (I actually seem to recall an old discussion elsewhere where someone had evidence Fountain Way didn’t have a garage back then, but I might be going mad.)

But also I don’t think he would have wanted to hang on to the body. Too much risk. I don’t think he was as confident then as he became later on, because this was earlier and quite possibly his first. I think he would have wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible somewhere he felt confident doing so, and that he would have wanted to remove all the evidence that connected her to him from his immediate vicinity. High chance if he did strangle her that there was mess because most people soil themselves when that happens so there may have been that to clean.
 
Jan 21, 2019
1,021
2,855
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
East Perth
That was the tone that seemed to be in the reply, but if not I obviously misunderstood and it’s just a difference in expression, which I will take on board in future. I agree that speculation is important and debating it is equally important because we never know what we might stumble across. We don’t know enough about Edwards or what happened to rule much out, just educated guesses.

With regards to him having Sarah’s body beyond that night, I don’t think so, but not because I think him walking to the Cooks implied the possibility of him having the body still in the car. I just don’t think he had anywhere he could keep it, even in his car. I thought, up until the other day, that it was quite possible he kept her at his house; not as likely, in my personal opinion, but still a reasonable possibility. But then the other day I stumbled across the fact that DF was probably still living with him at that point. No WAY do I think he’s parking his car with Sarah’s body at Fountain Way with someone else having access.

I don’t think he could have kept it at his parents’. As supportive as they are, I’m not sure they would have overlooked the dead body of a woman in his bloodstained vehicle. Although who knows with them. (I don’t have much time for his parents.)

I doubt he would have left the car with a body in it somewhere random or at a friend’s place, even if they were away. There’s no control for him over that. Anyone could have stumbled across it, or an unexpected visitor could have appeared.

The only option remaining to me is Madora Bay. I think he could have left his car and the body there, but how does he make it back to the city by 8am at Dumas House or the Cooks’ by 7:30am? Sure, there might be trains, but there is a reduced schedule on a Saturday and that is making it enormously complicated, especially in the timeframe available. He could have left the body in Madora Bay and driven back, but again I see that as overly complicated. He is leaving the body unattended in a house that technically isn’t his; his parents or siblings could have gone down there to stay overnight. He is also creating more mess for himself to clean up.

If we presume that the Cooks’ evidence is accurate then he likely left the car nearby because it was dirty and walked over. Maybe at Fountain Way, maybe not. I think that’s the obvious suggestion (unless we are discussing that he isn’t responsible for what happened to Sarah). Also possible that he had cleaned it but was nervous about someone being in it until he had checked it thoroughly.

The only difference this makes in my view is that he may have had slightly more time to dispose of the body. But not much. Any time he lost cleaning his car and driving straight to Dumas House for 8am is offset by having to park the car elsewhere and walk to the Cooks’ by 7:30am. One requires him to be ready to go at 8am; the other around 7:15am. Which is why I don’t think the Cooks’ evidence makes any material difference to what he might have done that night. They do agree that it was an 8am start time as in, they think that Mr Cook also started at 8am.

While I agree the sexual motive could imply nakedness, I don’t think that’s what happens in practice. As far as I know, most rapists (the drag a stranger into the bush kind) just pull down their pants. I don’t think he was naked with KK. I think the vulnerability for someone like him would be too great, especially exposed outside. But I also think he would have wanted to properly clean himself to show up to work, because he was trying to avoid suspicion. A twig in his hair would be something potentially noticed and remembered.

As for the fibres, I’ve had a look at the judgement. I did not go through it with a fine tooth comb because that part is enormously tedious and I’m a bit tired, so I am happy to be corrected. What I got was that they couldn’t rule out secondary transfer of the uniform fibres, but thought it more likely primary due to the numbers, the level of degradation and the spread across victims.

I thought he would quite possibly wear the uniforms during the abductions as it may have helped create a sense of security for the women getting into his car. When I read the uniform fibre evidenve during the trial, the information about the likelihood of primary transfer seemed to support this possibility. That was why I included the possibility that he was wearing the uniform. I still think he would have had to change (and clean or get rid of) his clothes, whatever he was wearing at the time.

Also, from memory - and I could be wrong here because I did not check this - there were fibres from the shorts in the girls’ hair? If so, my guess is that those ended up in their hair when he was moving the bodies once they were dead. If he picked them up under their armpits and dragged them (which seems to make sense from what we know of the sites and how you might efficiently drag someone), their heads would have been right near his shorts, banging in to his legs. I may be confusing that with the car fibres.

EDIT: There is a video of the Madora Bay house search in this article. I can’t see a garage, or place where one could be. So I don’t think he could easily have gotten a body into that house or cleaned out the car. He may have had to wait to clean the car until he had a private opportunity at Fountain Way.
Yeah i know how tedious it is going through the fibre evidence in the Verdict. It was the same during trial. Below are summaries taken from the Verdict.
You are right about there being a lot telstra clothing fibres in CGs hair. Could that be due to a shorter exposure time? or different hair type perhaps?

KJG –collection and history of critical fibres
Two critical clothing fibres are associated with KJG. They are both blue polyester fibres that were recovered from the shorts she was wearing when she was assaulted by the accused. The shorts were given the exhibit reference AJM2. At least 301 fibres were recovered from tape lifts taken from the shorts. The two critical fibres were referenced as fibre 191 (taken from the front of the shorts) and fibre 280 (taken from the rear of the shorts). These fibres are said to correspond to Telstra clothing.

Jane Rimmer –collection and history of critical fibres
One critical clothing fibre was recovered from Ms Rimmer's hair, a blue polyester fibre said to correspond to the Telstra clothing. Twenty one critical vehicle fibres were also located in Ms Rimmer's hair. The 20 grey polyester fibres and one blue-grey polypropylene fibre are said to correspond to the fibres from a VS series I Holden Commodore station wagon with 25i trim

Ciara Glennon –collection and history of critical fibres
Eleven critical clothing fibres were recovered by the t-shirt of Ms Glennon and 39 critical clothing fibres were recovered from her hair. All of these were blue polyester fibres said to correspond to the Telstra clothing, with the exception of six from the hair, which were blue non-delustered rayon fibres, also said to correspond to the Telstra clothing. In addition a total of 11 critical vehicle fibres were recovered from the hair of MsGlennon. Of these three were grey polyester fibres, seven were light grey polypropylene fibres and one was a dark grey polypropylene fibre. All of these fibres were said to correspond to fibres from a VS series I Holden Commodore station wagon with 25i trim.
 
Mar 5, 2017
12,563
34,963
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Socceroos - Matildas
I'm still undecided about if he went to work the next day though.

Questions and some of my answers and further questions from the below CSK trial verdict 619 page document p104-105 John Travis – evidence summary
1. Did John Travis appear at the trial for cross examination?
Yes on 6 Dec 2019.
"The next witness to be called is John Travis. The 66-year-old"
"He is now talking about the pager number he had written down at the time for Mr Edwards, which was 137."
"Mr Yovich is now cross-examining Mr Travis."
"He is being asked now if he has an individual memory for the day he worked with Mr Edwards at Dumas House, he has said no and that he is relying on his diary entries, which he wrote down to lodge employee timesheets, which was his responsibility."


"I trust my notes 100 per cent."
"The court was shown a copy of what Mr Travis said was the start communication pager list which contained the contact details of all the technicians who were working that weekend."


2. Were any witness statements able to be obtained from John Berkelaar and Lindsay Hilton who Travis claims were the other 2 workers who his hand written diary had recorded working with both himself Cook and BRE at Dumas House on the Saturday 27 January 1996 at Dumas House?
Neither Berkelaar or Hilton were witnesses in the trial.

3. What did Telstra records have for Berkelaar, Hilton, Cook & Travis for overtime worked that Saturday at Dumas House and did WAPOL/Prosecution request these records from Telstra? No idea. Nothing in the verdict docs.
(We already know that Telstra pay records provided for that fortnight for BRE, showed he was paid no overtime for Dumas House Saturday work).

4. Why wasn't Travis called back as a witness after the Telstra witness testified that Telstra pay records provided for that fortnight for BRE, showed BRE was paid no overtime for Dumas House Saturday work? Asked back to provide a possible explanation as to why there was no record at Telstra of overtime being paid for BRE for that Dumas House Saturday work. It is unclear to me whether Telstra payslips provided as evidence showed that BRE worked that Saturday.

5. Did the Admission BRE made agreeing that he had worked at Dumas House that Saturday, represent the truth?
Or did the Prosecution just try to get BRE agree to this and succeed, on the off chance that he did not work at Dumas House that Saturday, in order to then try and come up with more evidence that he did not work there that day, or already having some evidence that he did not work there this Saturday that was not tabled during the trial, all of which was designed to cleverly then possibly bring into question what else BRE might be lying about in regards to Sarah Spiers?

"John Travis – evidence summary
315 John Travis worked for Telstra as a technician from 1982 to 2013. From late 1988 through to the early 2000s he worked in the Corporate Customer Division in facility management. This meant that he was allocated to look after the internal telephone systems of large corporate customers. He had responsibility for large projects and would resource personnel from the depot to assist him on these projects. This work was generally done over long‑weekends when there were no workers in the customer's premises

316 Mr Travis met the accused sometime after 1988, because they both worked out of the Leederville depot. On some occasions when Mr Travis needed to call for volunteers to assist on large projects the accused came to work with him. One of those projects was at Dumas House, West Perth.
The work was over the Saturday and Sunday of the Australia Day long‑weekend 1996. Mr Travis worked both days, but not all others who assisted him did.

317 Mr Travis said that there were five people who worked on this project – himself, the accused, Mr Cook, John Berkelaar and Lindsay Hilton. He could not recall the hours worked but had kept a hand‑written record in his diary. He is a meticulous record keeper. According to his records the four named people came to assist him with the job on Saturday, 27 January 1996. They all started work at 8.00 am, apart from Mr Cook, who started at 10.00 am.

318 Mr Travis recorded the start and finish times, the length of time each person worked and what floor of the building they worked on. He worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 3.30 pm, on the 8th floor 3.30 pm to 9.30 pm and then on the 7th floor from 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. Mr Berkelaar worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 10.30 am, on 8th floor from 10.30 am to 7.30 pm and then on the 7th floor from 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm. Mr Hilton worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 11.00 am and then on the 8th floor from 11.00 am to 8.00 pm. Mr Cook did not work on the 9th floor; he commenced on the 8th floor at 10.00 am and worked on that floor for 7 hours and 45 minutes (the end time is not recorded). Mr Cook would have finished work at 6.15 or 6.45 pm (depending on whether he took one or two meal breaks). The accused worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am until 10.30 am and on the 8th floor from 10.30 am to 9.45 pm. Allowing for meal breaks, the accused worked a total of 12 hours 45 minutes on 27 January 1996. On the following day, Sunday 28 January 1996, only Mr Travis and Mr Hilton worked at Dumas House.

319 Mr Travis could not recall what car the accused arrived in on 27 January 1996 or what type of car he drove at that time. He did not see the accused arrive but said that those starting at 8.00 am would have gathered outside and would have entered the building together as he had the keys.

320 It was put to Mr Travis in cross‑examination that Mr Cook had given evidence that he started at 8.00 am and finished at 4.00 pm, an eight hour period. Mr Travis disagreed with those times and said that Mr Cook may have been confused with another job that he did at Dumas House, because Mr Cooke was a regular that came to assist him. He maintained that his diary is 100% accurate, and that Mr Cook must be mistaken.

321 Mr Travis said that if his vehicle had to go in for a service he could arrange to take a pool fleet vehicle. There was a register to fill in when an employee took a pool fleet vehicle. There was a person in charge of pool vehicles and that person had the key to the box in which the vehicle keys were kept."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back