Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[FeelingThroaty]

I am closing in on where I think SS might be. Going over an area is crappy work. As well as a spot re Evita Mitchell as well. No good in winter as it is all wet as. I think I might have come across Ivitas shoes. Up to 5 yrs ago. But, but could have been just a dump site. Even just a crap area.

 

[Sorbet Bliss]

A follow on fromBlueE post #2,011
and also Brown cow's link to the online version. Post #2,063.
I thought some may be interested in seeing the print version in its entirety from today's edition of The West Australian, especially for those who live outside of WA or for those who haven't seen it.

Front page;


Pages 2-3


Pages 4-5


Pages 6-7

 

[Sorbet Bliss]

Third attempt at attaching The West Aust paper clipping images, for some thoroughly annoying reason they become blurry once posted.
Hopefully these close ups Provide a more legible version.

Pages 2-3

 

[Sorbet Bliss]

Pages 4-5



Pages 6-7

 

[one eyed spy]

Revealed for the first time, no further details known is marked with an *

Huntingdale Prowler evidence is relevant to charges 3 to 8. * (Unlawfully detaining KK victim and wilful murder of Ciara)

Women’s clothing evidence is relevant to charges 3 to 8.* (Unlawfully detaining KK victim and wilful murder of Ciara)

Hollywood hospital* is relevant.

So it's revealed for the first time that Huntingdale prowler evidence is relevant to how the KK rape victim was detained and in the wilful murder of CG.

Also that the woman's clothing evidence is relevant to how the KK rape victim was detained and in the wilful murder of CG

Also revealed for the first time that some incident or evidence from Hollywood Hospital is relevant.

Re: Asterisk, thats not how I was seeing it originally because shes been lazy & inconsistent with the placement.

To me, placing it at the end of 2 lines of info ending in numbers representing known charges, denoted the asterisks applied to both lines.
Then Hollywood Hospital* was the explanation of the asterisk which she used further to indicate we hadn't known about it before.

Instead your saying it should have been:
- Huntingdale Prowler* is relevant to....
- Womans
Clothing* is relevant to...
- Hollywood Hospital* is.......
& the explanation of * is previously unknown info.
Ok I see that, thanks.

Not sure what your explanation is re: individual charges though if 3-8 denotes all charges aside from 1-2 which is Huntingdale?

 

[one eyed spy]

Huntingdale prowler evidence will be kimono? 8. Ciara dna connection to kimono? And possible wrist binding?

Woman's clothing KK/Ciara? KK fled naked. 8. Ciara partially dressed. Was the clothing Ciara's?

Im not understanding why you & BlueE are singling out 2 crimes only, what about all the others it says it refers to? 3 to 8?

They're talking about the argument of propensity evidence relating to incidences of prowling around Huntingdale and presumably the theft of Womens clothing whilst prowling the area & indicative of the charges they laid in relation to the Huntingdale crime being relevant to all the other crimes together.

Not specific items of clothing recovered that can be proved to connect 2 different crimes ie. Taken from one to another.

 

[GreyCrow]

To be fair, the rape of one woman and the murder of three others might have dented his reputation a bit too

Alleged

 

[Beatnicked]

I think it may be either Yovich or someone who has prepared the brief has stuffed up regarding the movie, in that the correct movie is not identified.

No reporter has actually ''quoted'' the year the film was made and that makes me consider there had been a bit of googling by all concerned with guesses as to which edition the movie is.

Could Yovich be using this year/edition anomaly to his advantage and wait until Justice Hall has viewed it and perhaps admit it as propensity then Yovich will argue its inadmissability due to the confussion.

Bret as we all know is very good at getting inside information.

 

[BlueE]

Well someone's f***** up then because Tim Clarke at The West refers to "the 2002 extreme pr0n film 'Forced Entry'" and says that Edwards's lawyers argue the film is inadmissible "with the fact the film was not even made until six years after the last of the Claremont killings a potential turning point".

Never mind the fact that the last of the Claremont killings occurred five years prior to Forced Entry being made ...

Agree, it confusing and seem they are talking about two different films.

Even though the 2002 "Forced Entry" film was referred to as extreme pr0n, there are words to describe it as Wiki gives a rundown. Prosecutor was adamant "there are no words to describe it" when insisting the judge needed to watch it.

 

[Beatnicked]

Agree, it confusing and seem they are talking about two different films.

Even though the 2002 "Forced Entry" film was referred to as extreme pr0n, there are words to describe it as Wiki gives a rundown. Prosecutor was adamant "there are no words to describe it" when insisting the judge needed to watch it.

Of course Barbagallo has viewed video therefore would be speaking to Hall from a female perspective.

 

[GreyCrow]

Let me clarify for myself

Charges 1-2 Huntingdale
Charges 3-5 Karakatta
Charges 6-8 Claremont Killings

 

[BlueE]

Im not understanding why you & BlueE are singling out 2 crimes only, what about all the others it says it refers to? 3 to 8?

They're talking about the argument of propensity evidence relating to incidences of prowling around Huntingdale and presumably the theft of Womens clothing whilst prowling the area & indicative of the charges they laid in relation to the Huntingdale crime being relevant to all the other crimes together.

Not specific items of clothing recovered that can be proved to connect 2 different crimes ie. Taken from one to another.

I'm not sure if I was reading it correctly. I was only looking at two of the charges where it did say Huntindale prowler and womens clothing evidence could be related to all (3 to 8).

https://thewest.com.au/news/claremo...aces-by-bradley-robert-edwards-ng-b881106173z

Huntingdale prowler evidence sounds like they want to include alot more than just the one charge they have. No real idea about the woman's clothing evidence, but the Hollywood hospital evidence seems separate and new and the West is promoting it as something that may change the case ...so I'm not sure??

 

[BlueE]

A media lady came out after chatting to x ray and metal detector staff who told other media people; the lady was a nobody. How she was not detained has got me. I thought she may have been a bit odd. But not going on a psycho rant like she did. We all just looked at each other in disbelief. Floral dress or skirt. Wavy blondish /brown hair, 54 years in age approx. I chatted to the media as said. Bret Christian was there. I said gidday. You may see me covering my face later on.

Hahaha. Is this the media lady giving the finger to the media Throaty?

 

[Beatnicked]

Let me clarify for myself

Charges 1-2 Huntingdale
Charges 3-5 Karakatta
Charges 6-8 Claremont Killings

Correct. I have now noted wording of charges 7 and 8 indicates these victims were allegedly murdered at the individual discovery scenes.


7. Charged that, on 9 June 1996 and 3 August 1996 at Wellard, you wilfully murdered Jane Louise Rimmer

8. You’re also charged that, between 15 March 1997 and 3 April 1997 at Eglinton, you wilfully murdered Ciara Eilish Glennon.

NB charge 7 wording incorrect in media. should read between 9 June.

I also now note the allegation regarding charge 8 indicates Ciara was murdered on Saturday 15 March not Friday 14.

 

[Chameleon75]

I'm not sure if I was reading it correctly. I was only looking at two of the charges where it did say Huntindale prowler and womens clothing evidence could be related to all (3 to 8).

https://thewest.com.au/news/claremo...aces-by-bradley-robert-edwards-ng-b881106173z

Huntingdale prowler evidence sounds like they want to include alot more than just the one charge they have. No real idea about the woman's clothing evidence, but the Hollywood hospital evidence seems separate and new and the West is promoting it as something that may change the case ...so I'm not sure??

Snowdropping?

 

[Beatnicked]

Snowdropping?

You must prowl to snowdrop...yes?

Snowdrop is not a legal definition as far as I am aware.

 

[FeelingThroaty]

View attachment 620179
Hahaha. Is this the media lady giving the finger to the media Throaty?

No, and the person isn't giving the media the finger,lol

 

[one eyed spy]

I'm not sure if I was reading it correctly. I was only looking at two of the charges where it did say Huntindale prowler and womens clothing evidence could be related to all (3 to 8).

https://thewest.com.au/news/claremo...aces-by-bradley-robert-edwards-ng-b881106173z

Huntingdale prowler evidence sounds like they want to include alot more than just the one charge they have. No real idea about the woman's clothing evidence, but the Hollywood hospital evidence seems separate and new and the West is promoting it as something that may change the case ...so I'm not sure??

I think its an unreliable article in general but it is referencing the propensity value of the evidence relating to specific charges (either 1-2 or 3-8) being able to be used against the other. Hence the prosecution wants all charges heard together, the defence wants to split Huntingdale(1-2) & hear them separately.

Prosecution arguing they want to allow the propensity evidence of the Huntingdale Prowler & Womans clothing be allowed to not only apply to the Huntingdale charges (1-2) but to all the others also (3-8). He's already been charged with breaking into victims house, he hasn't been charged with prowling or stealing clothing which will be inferred that these incidences culminated in the dropping of the kimono in the victims house allegedly containing his DNA.

The Telstra living witness is also new, yes? Then why no astericks denoting "new info" there also?

Thats why I assumed the asterisks placed only against 2 of 3 new "details" indicated that the Hollywood Incident tied in with the prowling and clothing evidence only. Im not sure what they're attempting to say otherwise so probably should be ignored as its misleading.
If I have read it correctly the Telstra witness is tied to evidence for the KK & murder charges & the argument there will be that it also relates to Huntingdale.

 

[Melsy]

20 additional statements

 

[Melsy]

You must prowl to snowdrop...yes?

Snowdrop is not a legal definition as far as I am aware.

This sounds like propensity to premeditate, stalk, and other associated prowling activities.

"the Huntingdale Prowler"

 

[one eyed spy]

This sounds like propensity to premeditate, stalk, and other associated prowling activities.

"the Huntingdale Prowler"

Yep & in the process possibly stealing women's clothing which Im sure they'll have witnesses to testify their items went missing. Hence the "stolen kimono" allegedly in his possession & containing his DNA left in victims house, tying in with the KK & murder victims who also had clothing taken.

 

[Kurve]

Yep & in the process possibly stealing women's clothing which Im sure they'll have witnesses to testify their items went missing. Hence the "stolen kimono" allegedly in his possession & containing his DNA left in victims house, tying in with the KK & murder victims who also had clothing taken.

I hope we find out where that kimono came from, who's line it was stolen from because the press on it led me initially to believe that it had been strongly linked to Victoria Clarke's murder in Victoria Park.

 

[Kurve]

1. Charged on 15 February 1988 at Huntingdale, you broke and entered without consent at night into the dwelling house of xxxxxxxxxx , with the intent to commit an offence therein.
2. Charged on 15 February 1988 at Huntingdale, you unlawfully detained xxxxxxxxxx. .

The indecent assault charge on Huntingdale has been withdrawn. So, what sort of DNA have they got off the kimono if he didn't complete the mission? Was he naked and actually wearing the thing?

 

[one eyed spy]

I hope we find out where that kimono came from, who's line it was stolen from because the press on it led me initially to believe that it had been strongly linked to Victoria Clarke's murder in Victoria Park.

Certainly was conjecture on that. I wasn't in that camp in regards to interpretation but anything's possible.
If that turns out to be the case it opens up some worms for Masters case Id imagine. Never could work out how there was substantial crime scene forensic evidence, DNA samples used to exclude some of the people investigated ie. American sailors shes was with prior, yet the person eventually found guilty was investigated originally too & cleared. Doesnt add up to me. Did they not clear him via DNA as well?

 

[Kurve]

Certainly was conjecture on that. I wasn't in that camp in regards to interpretation but anything's possible.
If that turns out to be the case it opens up some worms for Masters case Id imagine. Never could work out how there was substantial crime scene forensic evidence, DNA samples used to exclude some of the people investigated ie. American sailors shes was with prior, yet the person eventually found guilty was investigated originally too & cleared. Doesnt add up to me. Did they not clear him via DNA as well?

If I can find the old article I'll post, must be in here somewhere. Police are holding up with bare hands what we hope is A white kimono not THE kimono and suggesting it was a clue to the murder of Victoria Clarke.

We might get more info on that Monday.