Solved Malcolm McCusker will bid to clear Sharon Masons sentenced murderer in Perth WA

[Spinnaker]

So it would be fair to come to the conclusion, all other things being equal, that a body contained in two plastic bags, one of which would be heavy duty (garbage bag) would decompose at a slower rate than a body in just one, I guess.

Yes, I came to that conclusion as well Sprockets.

Although, I still think is is unlikely that SM was in that location for 9 years (from abduction) - eventually the bugs do get in and decomposition occurs. Also 9 hot summers and rain in winter. This is however my 'lay person' point of view.

 

[Beatnicked]

Centre point between PL Shop and SM site is car park at back of 616 Stirling Hwy:

PL could have parked across road, near back of 616, in preference to parking near flats (drug addicts etc), did she witness any suspicious behaviour in area?

Both PL and SM murders have question marks surrounding perp.

The proximity is a bit mind boggling.

Your approximate location of SM is way too south. Your location is approx where upper remains were discovered after being dumped from the truck and amongst builders rubble. Your marker needs to be approx 7 metres nth for the lower remains.

 

[Spinnaker]

Your approximate location of SM is way too south. Your location is approx where upper remains were discovered after being dumped from the truck and amongst builders rubble. Your marker needs to be approx 7 metres nth for the lower remains.

Thanks for the clarification BN, yes was going by location of where police appeared to be digging in photograph and also below mud map which I found online:

 

[Spinnaker]

re above map BN - was remains found in location of previous shed?

Apologies to contributors on this thread for covering old ground - I haven't managed to read all of this thread yet.

 

[Beatnicked]

re above map BN - was remains found in location of previous shed?

Apologies to contributors on this thread for covering old ground - I haven't managed to read all of this thread yet.

The 'mud map' as you refer to it, was included in to 60 minutes extra programme and the woman being interviewed in relation to it was on the Innocent Programme Project admjn support.

Shocking that she didn't know the facts. Her red blotch is behind 602 which was the hairdressers in 1983. This is the kind of cockup evident since 1992.60 Mins were made aware of this major error.

Landgate changed the joint properties to one Title after 1992 and this confused facts.

The fresh evidence verified by a forensic scene photograph discovered in recent times shows the area the lower remains had been positioned prior to actions of bobcat operation in 1992, was behind 598. The lower remains were discovered in a PILE of soil that had been gathered/scooped in the bobcat bucket. The evidence in the photograph shows where the scrape began.

The area behind 598 to 610 was also subjected to major earthworks and plumbing and drainage works in March 1987.

This photograph was not included as an exhibit photograph in any court matter aka now alleged withholding of evidence by wapol or DPP. The photograph was discovered in a bundle of scene photographs captured by wapol by a forensic officer and attributed to D Lane the head of major crime at the time in 1992! When something is 'attributed' to a particular name they are in 'ownership'.

D Lane is man on left side of upper remains location. NO GLOVES. many scene photos and video scenes show him handling prospective evidence items with bare hands. Great example the head of major crime at the time for his homicide squad members.

 

[Beatnicked]

re above map BN - was remains found in location of previous shed?

Apologies to contributors on this thread for covering old ground - I haven't managed to read all of this thread yet.

NO. See detail above re 60 Mins extra cockup. The PILE of soil had been gathered from the south eastern end of 598 yard.

Lol the black square is the supposed location of shed in 1983 according to woman ex Innocent Project. The photograph used was taken in 1975 and shows the shed as erected by the shop operator then.

What can't be seen is the top 3rd (northern part) of the shed was positioned over the boundary of 600/598. That was permitted by arrangement with 598 business operator at the time and the arrangement continued during Greer's operation of 600 in 1982/83.

The ground anchor perspective of the scene in the aerial is distorted. I explain it like a fold up card scene. The type of card that when opened fully will reveal a 3 dimensional scene. But when only partially opened the 3 dimension is distorted. The scene in aerial is not captured at 180 degrees to ground.

Wapol used an aerial captured on 23 Dec 1985 and the shed captured in that shot was not the shed that was in ownership of Greer in 1983!

 

[Spinnaker]

Thanks BN, appreciate you providing the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beatnicked]

Ý

Thanks BN, appreciate you providing the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are welcome. It gets very very complicated.

The case was prosecuted on the premis the lower remains when discovered were wedged tightly in undisturbed compacted soil in a HOLE in the undisturbed ground. This is now known to be totally false.

A recently discovered statement made out in 1992 by the cadet forensics officer who was charged with removal of the lower remains, showed he had stated he removed the remains from a PILE of soil. His attendance at scene was never known until his statement was discovered. He attended with Karen Margolius (RiP) patholigist and D Lane! Margolius was charged with upper remains. However she did state in her scene report she had observed lower remains in a MOUND of soil. Not even whilst testifying did she mention the cadets attendance.

In fact NOT ONE officer or workman witnessing the scene on the discovery day gave mention of who removed the lower remains. What was the big secret! The great stitch up in progress. Don't let the truth get in the way under any circumstance. Do and say what ever it takes. 26 years!

The red haired cadet is to right of Lane (as viewed) in scene photo you posted above! It was his 1st attendance at a crime scene. He had rremained silent. He is no longer connected to wapol.

 

[Beatnicked]

(Very) abbreviated and abridged background regarding works.

Person 1 testified he was the property owner during the 1983 and 1985 periods, however as it turned out, he didn't become the property owner until after his aunt (person 2) died in January 1992. Person 2 was actually the Trustee of the said properties. If defense counsels had been informed of the Trust and the true ownership details, the defense would have had the opportunity to explore the true scope of the massive carpark and drainage and plumbing works undertaken in 1987 (not in 1985 as person 1 had testified when he had no connection to the said properties). False and misleading evidence. Withholding of evidence.

Person 1 and 3 testified regarding the scope of the mythical 1985 works and their individual descriptions totally minimalized what had actually occurred in 1987.

These 2 full colour snips were taken from full colour video footage shot by person 1 who had purported to be the property owner (588-604) in 1983, and during the time of the mythical carpark works in 1985 and in mid 1991 when this video was captured. See anomaly in 1st paragraph. The contractor (person 3) at the time of the mythical 1985 works had a familial connection to person 1, in that person 3's wife was person 1 sister.

Person 3 subcontracted the 1987 works out (to person 4) and supervised them; he said on behalf of person 1 when in fact the works were done on behalf of the property Trustee person 2. False evidence. Withholding of evidence.

Person 1 and 3 testified the works were done in 1985 when in fact the works were done in 1987. It was not revealed until the 2nd trial that person 1 and person 3 had a family connection. Person 3 was summonsed to appear before the 1996 (failed) appeal and produce the invoices for the 1985 works. It was not until this time, it became known that the works had actually occurred in 1987.

It was not until 2014 the 1987 sub contractor (person 4) was contacted and verified the massive extent of the works carried out in 1987. It was not until 2014 that it became known that the area behind 600 had never been subjected to covering of bitumen. The area behind 600 and 598 remained as natural earth and lush green weeds took over. This first became evident when the video was discovered. Person 4 had the distinct impression in 1987 that person 2 was the property owner. Person 4 at no time met or spoke with person 1 or the Trustee person 2.

On person 1's 2012 death, person 3's wife the sister of person 1, became the property owner. The properties have now changed ownership and new owner has no connection to the previous Trust or its original family members.

Does this look like a bitumen carpark to anyone?

NB the bitumen you can see in the lower half of the snips, is actually behind 602 and 604.

602 was the hairdressers and 604 had been previously (another) french restaurant named Rendezvous. I have a 'feeling' about Rendezvous but that is another topic.

The 'lovely' lush green heavily weeded areas are those areas that wapol and dpp asserted were bitumen carparks. Well that is totally false. These areas had never been subjected to a bitumen covering at any time since the properties were developed in 1950s. Withholding and falsifying of evidence.

The below grainy black and white snips are direct screen shots of the grainy black and white photographs that wapol/dpp supplied to all defense counsels. The counsels were unaware there were coloured photographs available neither were they aware of the video captured in 1991 existed.
In hindsight it now appears there was withholding of evidence and a certain amount of 'hoodwinking' occurring at trials. The 'distance' photo taken whilst person 1 was standing behind 616 gives the impression the lovely lush green weeded area is actually a strip garden bed. When in fact it was the non bitumenized area behind 598 and 600.

The commissioner in charge of the prelim, the jury members involved in 2 trials and the appeal justices were all told that 600 yard had been covered in bitumen. The evidence was presented in such a manner as to create the illusion that the area behind 602 was actually 600. We don't know if the prosecutor/s knew of what was occurring but history makes one consider they might have known (Mallard). Certain wapol major crime heads of obviously knew.

It may now be considered that the photographs used as exhibits in court were actually taken from the video and those which had not been initially captured as standalone photographs as was stated in evidence.

The video was passed to the then research team months after the death of person 1 on 24 January 2012, by his defacto.

26 very long and very painful years!

I cannot begin to explain to anyone what it was like revealing the new fresh and compelling evidence to Arthur Greer the day after his release. The details could not be revealed to him whilst he was still incarcerated due to the fact that all mail is pre-read by person's unknown and all telephone calls are listened to and recorded by persons unknown. However, he was told whilst incarcerated new fresh and compelling evidence had been discovered.

Please don't believe for one moment the information contained with the screen snips is all of the new fresh and compelling evidence.

That first discussion I had with Arthur was full of the most powerful emotions I have ever had or felt in my very long lifetime. His heartbreaking and emotionally devastating responses I cannot begin to describe.

Arthur had fought for years with what he believed were pertinent points he could never find answers to; and it wasn't until I got a direct message passed to me that Arthur was never able to discover who, at the scene, had removed the lower remains that a mind explosion occurred. Another major point was the contact made with person 4. That was a bewildering moment. Then above all when copies of certain very grainy black and white evidence photographs were received from Legal Aid that is when the gates of hell opened up. Contact was made with all former defense counsels and not one recalled viewing coloured scene photographs captured in full colour by wapol forensics and briefed up to defense counsels in very grainy black and white. The wonders of modern technology took over. Breathless and speechless moments occurred and lasted a very very long time. A question was posed to a certain Queen's Counsel about the possibility of withholding of evidence and wella we had the answers.

 

[Spinnaker]

Ý


You are welcome. It gets very very complicated.

The case was prosecuted on the premis the lower remains when discovered were wedged tightly in undisturbed compacted soil in a HOLE in the undisturbed ground. This is now known to be totally false.

A recently discovered statement made out in 1992 by the cadet forensics officer who was charged with removal of the lower remains, showed he had stated he removed the remains from a PILE of soil. His attendance at scene was never known until his statement was discovered. He attended with Karen Margolius (RiP) patholigist and D Lane! Margolius was charged with upper remains. However she did state in her scene report she had observed lower remains in a MOUND of soil. Not even whilst testifying did she mention the cadets attendance.

In fact NOT ONE officer or workman witnessing the scene on the discovery day gave mention of who removed the lower remains. What was the big secret! The great stitch up in progress. Don't let the truth get in the way under any circumstance. Do and say what ever it takes. 26 years!

The red haired cadet is to right of Lane (as viewed) in scene photo you posted above! It was his 1st attendance at a crime scene. He had rremained silent. He is no longer connected to wapol.

Thanks BN, yes it does seem complicated - I have re-read a few times to actually get my head around the details.

Significant detail to overlook between the below:
1. Alleged Lower remains found wedged tightly in undisturbed, compacted soil, HOLE in the ground
2. ACTUALLY being removed from MOUND/ PILE of soil - implying that lower remains were indeed disturbed by the digger/works.

Would be interesting to know how deep the actual digging work took place before SM remains were found.

My understanding is that levelling of area was being conducted - not deep digging works .

Works also at request of shop owners/tenants (worth noting for later discussion.)

Deep digging works could perhaps damage previous pipe works - wonder if this was a consideration for workmen in their job scope, whether they had plans of pipe works, water mains etc pre commencing job.

Could perhaps conclude that upper and lower remains were buried close to surface - not in a deep hole under a garden shed.

Given the state of decomposition of lower remains and with the premise that all remains were quite close to surface, IMO highly unlikely that SM was buried in this location pre 1987. Think this is just one of the 'big secrets'!

Also how on earth does a cadet forensic officer get charged with removal of dismembered remains - should it not be 'watch and observe'?

 

[Spinnaker]

Thanks for sharing re AG - I can't begin to imagine how devastating it would be to unlawfully locked away for 26 years based on circumstantial, insufficient and misleading evidence. (Indeed QC MM had also stated that 'significant evidence' was withheld).

I sincerely hope that the investigation can be reopened.

Noted that area behind 600 was grass as opposed to bitumen - appears that prosecution were implying that remains were sealed by bitumen during works in 87.

Does seem like another case of 'we've got our man' - LW & AM fell prey to this for a number of years.

Look fwd to hearing your views on the 'other' restaurant at a later point.

 

[Beatnicked]

Thanks for sharing re AG - I can't begin to imagine how devastating it would be to unlawfully locked away for 26 years based on circumstantial, insufficient and misleading evidence. (Indeed QC MM had also stated that 'significant evidence' was withheld).

I sincerely hope that the investigation can be reopened.

Noted that area behind 600 was grass as opposed to bitumen - appears that prosecution were implying that remains were sealed by bitumen during works in 87.

Does seem like another case of 'we've got our man' - LW & AM fell prey to this for a number of years.

Look fwd to hearing your views on the 'other' restaurant at a later point.

re this para taken out if your reply....
'Noted that area behind 600 was grass as opposed to bitumen - appears that prosecution were implying that remains were sealed by bitumen during works in 87.'

They prosecuted the case based on bitumen works behind 600 were done in 1985 therefore no one else had opportunity to bury remains where his shed had been located. They used an aerial taken on 23 Dec 1985. But why not an aerial taken just 2 weeks after SM disappearance in 1983?

Funny how the testimony of Person 1 and 3 matched this false 1985 works premise perfectly.

Wapol had the council docs 1 week prior to Greer's arrest on 30 July '92 that proved the 1987 works therefore no 1985 works yet the prosecution was mounted on 1985. Stitch stitch the wapol tailoring team at work.

Those 1992 supplied council docs were not briefed up to any defense counsels. They were discovered through FOI to council in 2014.

 

[Beatnicked]

And then we have the 1991 architect's plans used by D Lane to prepare witness statements. Again not briefed up the defense counsels. A plan had been used by the hydrolgy expert to design the stormwater drainage systems including size of pipes and where these pipes were to be laid.

Mr Lane took it upon himself to use whiteout liberally! First he drew lines where door spaces had been indicated. And he also amended the hydrology plan by drawing a vertical line next to a pipe so that this line showing a pipe would be viewed as a wall. But he left behind a bit of valuable evidence in doing so. He forgot to apply whiteout to plumbing codes adjacent to the initial line showing the intended pipe location! And he forgot to take out certain markings by the architect.

There was never a wall intended to go where Lane's 'wall' was applied. We have copies of all prelim architect's drawings and final approved plan.....9 in all. We know wapol also had all of these. Never briefed up to defense counsels.

One of the prelim plans had a note by the architect specific to 600....''existing backyard to stay''.

Notes relevant to all other properties that had pre existing bitumen carparks....''existing carpark to stay''. Person 1 had intended to convert 602 to a dental surgery-he was a dentist this property had a pre existing bitumen carpark, and 600 to his private residence this property had no pre exixsting bitumen carpark instead lush green meadow of very high weeds since 1987, but lawn in 1982 and 1983.

These plans where changed after SM discovery.

26 years!

 

[Melsy]

And then we have the 1991 architect's plans used by D Lane to prepare witness statements. Again not briefed up the defense counsels. A plan had been used by the hydrolgy expert to design the stormwater drainage systems including size of pipes and where these pipes were to be laid.

Mr Lane took it upon himself to use whiteout liberally! First he drew lines where door spaces had been indicated. And he also amended the hydrology plan by drawing a vertical line next to a pipe so that this line showing a pipe would be viewed as a wall. But he left behind a bit of valuable evidence in doing so. He forgot to apply whiteout to plumbing codes adjacent to the initial line showing the intended pipe location! And he forgot to take out certain markings by the architect.

There was never a wall intended to go where Lane's 'wall' was applied. We have copies of all prelim architect's drawings and final approved plan.....9 in all. We know wapol also had all of these. Never briefed up to defense counsels.

One of the prelim plans had a note by the architect specific to 600....''existing backyard to stay''.

Notes relevant to all other properties that had pre existing bitumen carparks....''existing carpark to stay''. Person 1 had intended to convert 602 to a dental surgery-he was a dentist this property had a pre existing bitumen carpark, and 600 to his private residence this property had no pre exixsting bitumen carpark instead lush green meadow of very high weeds since 1987, but lawn in 1982 and 1983.
These plans where changed after SM discovery.
26 years!

Is this another case of lock jaw? Or have some people police protection?

Like say, South Perth drug dealers in red sports cars?

 

[BlueE]

And then we have the 1991 architect's plans used by D Lane to prepare witness statements. Again not briefed up the defense counsels. A plan had been used by the hydrolgy expert to design the stormwater drainage systems including size of pipes and where these pipes were to be laid.

Mr Lane took it upon himself to use whiteout liberally! First he drew lines where door spaces had been indicated. And he also amended the hydrology plan by drawing a vertical line next to a pipe so that this line showing a pipe would be viewed as a wall. But he left behind a bit of valuable evidence in doing so. He forgot to apply whiteout to plumbing codes adjacent to the initial line showing the intended pipe location! And he forgot to take out certain markings by the architect.

There was never a wall intended to go where Lane's 'wall' was applied. We have copies of all prelim architect's drawings and final approved plan.....9 in all. We know wapol also had all of these. Never briefed up to defense counsels.

One of the prelim plans had a note by the architect specific to 600....''existing backyard to stay''.

Notes relevant to all other properties that had pre existing bitumen carparks....''existing carpark to stay''. Person 1 had intended to convert 602 to a dental surgery-he was a dentist this property had a pre existing bitumen carpark, and 600 to his private residence this property had no pre exixsting bitumen carpark instead lush green meadow of very high weeds since 1987, but lawn in 1982 and 1983.

These plans where changed after SM discovery.

26 years!

I acknowledge your deep understanding of the facts, but I'm finding it very hard to follow. Is it possible for you to mark your diagrams to indicate where you assert the body was buried, and whether this was in one or two places, and where the prosecution said the body was buried?

Also to help me understand what you are asserting could you please answer

1. when are you indicating the body was buried?

2. do you believe it was frozen before burial?

3. do you believe the body was separated and buried at two separate times?

4. do you believe there could have been other bodies buried there?

5. is it possible this wasn't SM's body?

 

[Beatnicked]

I acknowledge your deep understanding of the facts, but I'm finding it very hard to follow. Is it possible for you to mark your diagrams to indicate where you assert the body was buried, and whether this was in one or two places, and where the prosecution said the body was buried?

Also to help me understand what you are asserting could you please answer

1. when are you indicating the body was buried?

2. do you believe it was frozen before burial?

3. do you believe the body was separated and buried at two separate times?

4. do you believe there could have been other bodies buried there?

5. is it possible this wasn't SM's body?

Will do and thanks for your interest.

 

[Beatnicked]

Above image is a direct snip of grainy black and white photograph discovered in November 2014. the yellow highlight shows the remains CONTAINED WITHIN A PILE OF SOIL as per what was stated in the statement made out by the forensics cadet that was charged with the removal of the remains. That statement was also discovered in November 2014.



The above photograph is directly taken from a 'darkened' black and white forensic photograph. various wapol officers. the man with bushy beard is the bobcat operator. Note the scrap cardboard sheet used by wapol obtained from within piles of debris at sight. They placed forensics exhibits intermingled on this piece of cardboard. Note the man to right (as viewed) of cardboard is Lane. What is he holding in his left hand? A workman's boot he denied in testimony that he had recovered at scene! Note the tracks on south side (below) of bobcat as these are important to note when you view the last photograph below.



The above has been snipped from another BSN photograph (zoomed) to show lower remains contained within A PILE OF SOIL. The white oblong object is a forensics tool used at scenes. On this they record date, photographer code and location. Plastic bags and partial remains are depicted.



The red X in above photograph is lower remains location. the yellow highlight indicates the commencement of the bobcat scoop and the top edge of that scoop. It is clearly evident the scoop commenced behind 598. The white painted bricks behind the brick wall is the rear wall of the 598 main building as the previously existing tin walls of the laundry had been removed as part of the 1992 works.

The photograph was never used as an exhibit in the prelim, 2 trials nor 2 appeals. This photograph was attributed to Lane in wapol files.

This photograph was discovered in November 2014 at the same time wapol's cadet forensics officer's statement was discovered - separately.

Yes the photograph shows the lower remains were ultimately discovered behind 600 and in close proximity to where a garden shed may have been allegedly in place on 19 February 1983. BUT this photograph, nor any other photograph can conclusively validate the proposition that the remains had been buried under that shed at any time. When one considers the full extent of the 1987 works, and the works carried out at the site in 1992 prior to the discovery day it is absolutely impossible to state anything conclusively. The only thing that can be stated conclusively, is the lower remains were not discovered in undisturbed soil in a hole in undisturbed soil. There is no evidence of a HOLE. There is NO evidence the remains were in a place at the time in 1992, immediately prior to discovery, where the shed had allegedly been located!

The bobcat tracks referred to under the 2nd photograph above, can be clearly seen in this photograph. Wapol had permitted possibly by instruction the bobcat operator to remove soil and objects from this site!

The above is in reference to point 1 question. Point 2 question answered below.

 

[Beatnicked]

2. do you believe it was frozen before burial?
Answer: As a lay person I cannot possibly give an answer to your question. The only thing I have to go by is the Pathologist Pocock's 2010 opinion. Given this man's incredible CV and work experience detailed below, that is the only evidence I can form an opinion on. Note in below I have pasted from points 8 onwards. The previous points are only preamble.


Note there were a couple of further points but they were not strictly connected to opinion - more closing.


3. do you believe the body was separated and buried at two separate times?

Answer: No one except the perpetrator or person or persons that placed the remains (initially) where they did, could possibly answer that question.

4. do you believe there could have been other bodies buried there? 5. is it possible this wasn't SM's body?

Answers to 4 & 5: I believe anything is possible due to the fact there was no DNA testing of upper or lower remains. There is a woman missing in 1968 in this location, she had worked at a milk bar opposite the mosman park railway station. 598 was operating in 1968 as a milk bar. I am not aware of any other shops in the area. The Victoria detective who traveled to Western Australia to search for clues regarding the 1968 disappearance was unable to locate any other milk bars either. Note: this 1968 woman had moved to Western Australia from Victoria. there were items found with upper remains that appear to be cloth covered buttons that were not connected to items of clothing worn by Sharon Mason. The buttons do appear to have a fabric pattern and are of a size that was popular in the mid 1965s etc and photographs of the 1968 woman she wore clothing items with similar buttons. The bathroom at the rear of 600 was added to the main building in 1968. We have the plans.

There were massive earth works including digging to depth and removal of massive amounts of rubble and garden and fence debris and removal from site and dumping of same in 1987. Who knows what was removed and disposed of during this time. I dont think it a coincidence either that in 1987 the milk bar closed down as the council ordered removal of a massive metal roof structure (similar to a carport I would suppose) that covered nearly the entire rear yard of 598, hence no storage facility was available. It is highly probably there was a freezer or 2 used in that business. Do you want to see council docs as well?

The closeness of the locality of where Julie Cutler disappeared in June 1988 also raises possibilities.

 

[Melsy]

View attachment 620346

Above image is a direct snip of grainy black and white photograph discovered in November 2014. the yellow highlight shows the remains CONTAINED WITHIN A PILE OF SOIL as per what was stated in the statement made out by the forensics cadet that was charged with the removal of the remains. That statement was also discovered in November 2014.

View attachment 620347

The above photograph is directly taken from a 'darkened' black and white forensic photograph. various wapol officers. the man with bushy beard is the bobcat operator. Note the scrap cardboard sheet used by wapol obtained from within piles of debris at sight. They placed forensics exhibits intermingled on this piece of cardboard. Note the man to right (as viewed) of cardboard is Lane. What is he holding in his left hand? A workman's boot he denied in testimony that he had recovered at scene! Note the tracks on south side (below) of bobcat as these are important to note when you view the last photograph below.

View attachment 620350

The above has been snipped from another BSN photograph (zoomed) to show lower remains contained within A PILE OF SOIL. The white oblong object is a forensics tool used at scenes. On this they record date, photographer code and location. Plastic bags and partial remains are depicted.

View attachment 620351

The red X in above photograph is lower remains location. the yellow highlight indicates the commencement of the bobcat scoop and the top edge of that scoop. It is clearly evident the scoop commenced behind 598. The white painted bricks behind the brick wall is the rear wall of the 598 main building as the previously existing tin walls of the laundry had been removed as part of the 1992 works.

The photograph was never used as an exhibit in the prelim, 2 trials nor 2 appeals. This photograph was attributed to Lane in wapol files.

This photograph was discovered in November 2014 at the same time wapol's cadet forensics officer's statement was discovered - separately.

Yes the photograph shows the lower remains were ultimately discovered behind 600 and in close proximity to where a garden shed may have been allegedly in place on 19 February 1983. BUT this photograph, nor any other photograph can conclusively validate the proposition that the remains had been buried under that shed at any time. When one considers the full extent of the 1987 works, and the works carried out at the site in 1992 prior to the discovery day it is absolutely impossible to state anything conclusively. The only thing that can be stated conclusively, is the lower remains were not discovered in undisturbed soil in a hole in undisturbed soil. There is no evidence of a HOLE. There is NO evidence the remains were in a place at the time in 1992, immediately prior to discovery, where the shed had allegedly been located!

The bobcat tracks referred to under the 2nd photograph above, can be clearly seen in this photograph. Wapol had permitted possibly by instruction the bobcat operator to remove soil and objects from this site!

The above is in reference to point 1 question. Point 2 question answered below.

Those rear fence walls wouldnt be that old. This is 1983-1987?

 

[Beatnicked]

Those rear fence walls wouldnt be that old. This is 1983-1987?

You talking about the brick walls north and east? If you are they were done after 1987 the 1987 subcontractor said they were not there when he did works. We don't know when they were actually done. They were there in 1990/1991 as they are on the person 1 supplied video. All the forensic scene photos are from July 1992.

 

[Beatnicked]

The liquor store in Stuart was owned by the old aunt of person 2 (the property owned by the Armanasco Trus detailed a few days ago) and the store also took up the building at the cnr of Stuart and Stirling that was the bank and the next shop building (a former butchery) on stirling hwy which would make it one shop north of 598. The northern brick fence, fenced off and supplied security to the liquor store and its relevant storage areas. At the eastern wall southern end, the Trust had installed a high metal gate to secure access to Stuart St bottle shop.

Melsy do you know the name of the christian fellowship church that was based in a shop on stirling highway next to garlocks? I think it was painted bright blue?

The Armanasco clan owned all shop properties from and including the stuart st bottle shop down to 626 stirling. some were in grouped titles, some separate. totally different owners now not connected to family.

They also owned various shop properties in Glyde.

edit person 1 to person 2

 

[Beatnicked]

well well well I have just found a 'little' treasure. a couple of scene photos taken by chan 9 before the dump trucks returned to site with the debris loads. Shots taken before the wapol HQ squad and Claremont CIB arrived on scene. There are a couple of cops having a scratch around where the remains were located in a PILE of soil! well well well. This was not legal or authorised as no one is able to interfere with a human remains scene until the coronial pathologist attends! She did not attend until the debris trucks returned.




This 'event' has never been mentioned! This little posy of cops has never been mentioned....ever! Holy effing sh#t! OMG OMG OMG

 

[Beatnicked]

 

[Beatnicked]

I get so very damned angry when viewing these scene photos. Below are the two paperbags the remains were placed in. to the left the upper remains, to the right the lower remains. They were placed in a bloody garden bed full of god knows what! Absolutely NO respect paid to this victim - in life, after life or during justice proceedings!

 

[Beatnicked]