Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt2

JezzaPerth

All Australian
Dec 14, 2019
675
3,129
AFL Club
West Coast
I feel for that magistrate. Imagine how many thoughts have gone thru his head already.
In a way the Magistrate has little to do with it. It's the Police prosecutor who does the running, moderated prehaps by BRE's counsel (if he had one?). The Magistrate simply makes sure what is asked for is legallly sound.
 

Coastie19

Senior List
Apr 22, 2019
164
279
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Agreed, but i must say I hope they have improved their sexual offender courses because what he was sent to obvious didn't work.
I wonder if they have gotten a hold of the Probation file also, depends what their retention on files was and whether computerised or hand written and whether now destroyed. Their initial assessment and two years worth of case notes would be an interesting read
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 5, 2012
45
102
AFL Club
Sydney
JWS2019, Thanks for the questions. It's great to see healthy, various questions.

Contamination is the big elephant in the room. How did it happen in other cases? And does it in any way relate to this case? Let's hope the same errors haven't been made. IMO, the big errors so far (that I'm aware of) are administrative errors. Which granted, Lets hope that's all been improved dramatically. After sitting back and reading back through previous blogs (with a few scotch's), transcripts etc. I'm seeing less of a chance of contamination with CG's 2 key samples 40 and 42.

After Dr Whitaker's testimony, I'm looking forward to Yovich's turn to present his case so to speak. I don't know a great deal about Yovich, But I'm sure he's cooking something. Regardless how strong it is.

For the first time in a while, I confidence in the judge. Hall isn't dumb or biased. He won't deal with potential maybe or maybe nots. Regardless of the decision, I dont think an appeal will hapoen, Unless something comes from left field.


Jezza, The phone ringing yet?
Kingswood, Thanks again. You're breaking it down for the inexperienced. Greatly appreciated.
 

Mudman85

Rookie
Feb 21, 2019
31
88
AFL Club
Fremantle
JWS2019, Thanks for the questions. It's great to see healthy, various questions.

Contamination is the big elephant in the room. How did it happen in other cases? And does it in any way relate to this case? Let's hope the same errors haven't been made. IMO, the big errors so far (that I'm aware of) are administrative errors. Which granted, Lets hope that's all been improved dramatically. After sitting back and reading back through previous blogs (with a few scotch's), transcripts etc. I'm seeing less of a chance of contamination with CG's 2 key samples 40 and 42.

After Dr Whitaker's testimony, I'm looking forward to Yovich's turn to present his case so to speak. I don't know a great deal about Yovich, But I'm sure he's cooking something. Regardless how strong it is.

For the first time in a while, I confidence in the judge. Hall isn't dumb or biased. He won't deal with potential maybe or maybe nots. Regardless of the decision, I dont think an appeal will hapoen, Unless something comes from left field.


Jezza, The phone ringing yet?
Kingswood, Thanks again. You're breaking it down for the inexperienced. Greatly appreciated.
I imagine the defence argument around sample 40 & 42 not being opened previously is that given the errors in paperwork that have been uncovered, how can we be sure that they weren’t opened and it either wasn’t recorded, was recorded incorrectly or the records were misplaced. Maybe in another lever arch file somewhere. They don’t need to prove how or when contamination of that specific sample might have occurred, just need to prove that it is possible. Due to other admin errors made, just because there is no paperwork to say it was opened doesn’t 100% guarantee it wasn’t.
 

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
I imagine the defence argument around sample 40 & 42 not being opened previously is that given the errors in paperwork that have been uncovered, how can we be sure that they weren’t opened and it either wasn’t recorded, was recorded incorrectly or the records were misplaced. Maybe in another lever arch file somewhere. They don’t need to prove how or when contamination of that specific sample might have occurred, just need to prove that it is possible. Due to other admin errors made, just because there is no paperwork to say it was opened doesn’t 100% guarantee it wasn’t.
The judge will make a decision based on the evidence that is presented, not on "what if" and "it could have happened" scenario's.
42 was opened. Its just 40 that the evidence suggests wasnt.
They dont need to prove how or when contamination occurred is quite correct, but it goes a bit further than "its possible". The judge would need to be convinced that the evidence allows him to conclude that contamination is the only reasonable inference of how the DNA got where it was. Not just a guess, or speculation or saying "well its possible", its an inference that is drawn from the evidence and it needs to be the only reasonable inference after the evidence is considered.
 

JezzaPerth

All Australian
Dec 14, 2019
675
3,129
AFL Club
West Coast
The judge will make a decision based on the evidence that is presented, not on "what if" and "it could have happened" scenario's.
42 was opened. Its just 40 that the evidence suggests wasnt.
They dont need to prove how or when contamination occurred is quite correct, but it goes a bit further than "its possible". The judge would need to be convinced that the evidence allows him to conclude that contamination is the only reasonable inference of how the DNA got where it was. Not just a guess, or speculation or saying "well its possible", its an inference that is drawn from the evidence and it needs to be the only reasonable inference after the evidence is considered.
The judge has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that 40 wasn't open at a time when amplified KK DNA was around.
  • There is no evidence of any activity on AJM samples at times when KK DNA was being processed or had recently been processed in the lab.
  • There is no evidence 40 was opened prior to UK
Lets say that the chance of AJM and KK samples being processed proximately is one in a thousand.
And say the chance 40 was ever opened in W.A. as one in a thousand.

Multiply a tiny number by a tiny number and you get one in a million chance. That's beyond reasonable doubt.
 

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
The judge has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that 40 wasn't open at a time when amplified KK DNA was around.
  • There is no evidence of any activity on AJM samples at times when KK DNA was being processed or had recently been processed in the lab.
  • There is no evidence 40 was opened prior to UK
Lets say that the chance of AJM and KK samples being processed proximately is one in a thousand.
And say the chance 40 was ever opened in W.A. as one in a thousand.

Multiply a tiny number by a tiny number and you get one in a million chance. That's beyond reasonable doubt.
And then he will weigh up that evidence with the rest of the evidence to arrive at a reasonable inference based on the facts relevant to the case.
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
JWS2019, Thanks for the questions. It's great to see healthy, various questions.

Contamination is the big elephant in the room. How did it happen in other cases? And does it in any way relate to this case? Let's hope the same errors haven't been made. IMO, the big errors so far (that I'm aware of) are administrative errors. Which granted, Lets hope that's all been improved dramatically. After sitting back and reading back through previous blogs (with a few scotch's), transcripts etc. I'm seeing less of a chance of contamination with CG's 2 key samples 40 and 42.

After Dr Whitaker's testimony, I'm looking forward to Yovich's turn to present his case so to speak. I don't know a great deal about Yovich, But I'm sure he's cooking something. Regardless how strong it is.

For the first time in a while, I confidence in the judge. Hall isn't dumb or biased. He won't deal with potential maybe or maybe nots. Regardless of the decision, I dont think an appeal will hapoen, Unless something comes from left field.


Jezza, The phone ringing yet?
Kingswood, Thanks again. You're breaking it down for the inexperienced. Greatly appreciated.
I think we got the right judge on this. Which I’m relieved! We don’t want appeals and all that jazz for the families.

I do think he’ll we want to be thorough though and follow the law not the popular verdict - so I hope prosecution has got this.
Fingers crossed!!
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
I imagine the defence argument around sample 40 & 42 not being opened previously is that given the errors in paperwork that have been uncovered, how can we be sure that they weren’t opened and it either wasn’t recorded, was recorded incorrectly or the records were misplaced. Maybe in another lever arch file somewhere. They don’t need to prove how or when contamination of that specific sample might have occurred, just need to prove that it is possible. Due to other admin errors made, just because there is no paperwork to say it was opened doesn’t 100% guarantee it wasn’t.
This does bother me...
So many screwups.
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
I like your thought processes :)
I can help with some of that...
1. We would take it as been accurate. This is based on that scientists record when they test things, especially in criminal cases. Mainly for situations just like this.
2. I dont know. But I do know a tree branch is a lot bigger to have in a lab or in storage than a finger nail :)
3 and 5. These were all given in evidence. The closest was 14 days apart.
7. The evidence so far suggests it was never opened until 2008 in the UK. prosecution stated same in opening.
Questions:
1+2. Yes but thats why all these documents have been handed in that show the dates of testing, what was done etc. They are a record of what the scientists did with each exhibit and when.
3. It may come up in the defense.
4. 4 plates contaminated. Okay, but 15 werent. The amplification that Pathwest used in 2001 likely was the culprit. Importantly, the plate for 42 wasnt contaminated.
5+6- I guess the answer this depends on the Ng or Pg level of detection of the tests themselves. The PP generally aimed for 1-2.5ng of DNA.
The Y-STR analyzer I am not sure of as I dont know what machine it was. The nails had CG DNA so picking them up just implies that enough of her own DNA was on them...as you'd expect.
7. The answer is two fold. Firstly, it is entirely possible that 40 actually held all the DNA but was never tested. 42 may never have had any.
Or secondly, when the DNA that was on 40 and the DNA that was on 42 was combined and then extracted, it allowed enough DNA to get a decent result. The scientific reason for this is that as the amount of DNA falls, the noise increases and this can result in difficulty working out what is a real allele. The combined result could have pushed the level of DNA above the stochastic threshold and thus alleles and their sister alleles were able to be seen. Carmel's answer is dead right...she cant say....Maybe it was all on 40. Maybe it was that they both had some and the combining of both put the level of DNA above the level of detection. I suspect Whitaker doesnt know either.
8. We dont know yet until this week, but I couldnt imagine that the UK lab handled it multiple times. They likely swabbed 40 and 42 and then combined the swabs into one extract.
9. This has been discussed already by Ms Ashley. She gave dates of testing of KK and 42. She never tested 40. The closest date of CG testing was 14 days or so after KK was in the lab in March. These dates are on record.
Thanks kingswood! Insightful as always :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JezzaPerth

All Australian
Dec 14, 2019
675
3,129
AFL Club
West Coast
This does bother me...
So many screwups.
There are a million pieces of evidence and thousands of actors. There will be innumerable screwups.

What the prosecution has been doing is leading and highlighting the potentially important screwups. This is to show the prosecution is being fair, and perhaps more importantly denying the opposition the chance to reveal and exploit.

You don't need to worry about the screwups you already know about. Yovich has had his say on them already (though wait for early next week) and he hasn't made any devastating blows.

What you need to worry about is screwups he discovers on his own - perhaps to be revealed early next week in his cross?

Yovich has already said he won't be bringing in his own DNA experts so its extremely unlikely he will produce new evidence of DNA screwups when he starts his defence.
 
Last edited:

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
Yovich has already said he won't be bringing in his own DNA experts so its extremely unlikley he will produce new evidence of DNA screwups when he starts his defence.
That fascinates me. I did some reading earlier and even at the Feb 2019 pre-trial, there was still an idea that he may challenge the identity of the DNA. He said he would have more of an idea when he got his DNA reports back. I guess the reports were unfavorable and well here we are with a contamination defense.
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
That fascinates me. I did some reading earlier and even at the Feb 2019 pre-trial, there was still an idea that he may challenge the identity of the DNA. He said he would have more of an idea when he got his DNA reports back. I guess the reports were unfavorable and well here we are with a contamination defense.
I’m dying to know his plan if any - and yes that does not seem to have eventuated anywhere.
 

JezzaPerth

All Australian
Dec 14, 2019
675
3,129
AFL Club
West Coast
That fascinates me. I did some reading earlier and even at the Feb 2019 pre-trial, there was still an idea that he may challenge the identity of the DNA. He said he would have more of an idea when he got his DNA reports back. I guess the reports were unfavorable and well here we are with a contamination defense.
It's not uncommon for expert reports to be quietly dropped if they are unhelpful. I've had it happen to me recently. Next time I'll be more circumspect :$
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
There are a million pieces of evidence and thousands of actors. There will be innumerable screwups.

What the prosecution has been doing is leading and highlighting the potentially important screwups. This is to show the prosecution is being fair, and perhaps more importantly denying the opposition the chance to reveal and exploit.

You don't need to worry about the screwups you already know about. Yovich has had his say on them already (though wait for early next week) and he hasn't made any devastating blows.

What you need to worry about is screwups he discovers on his own - perhaps to be revealed early next week in his cross?

Yovich has already said he won't be bringing in his own DNA experts so its extremely unlikely he will produce new evidence of DNA screwups when he starts his defence.
Looking forward to his cross this week! With hope it fails ! But will still be interesting to see.
 

shellyg

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
8,640
16,317
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
That fascinates me. I did some reading earlier and even at the Feb 2019 pre-trial, there was still an idea that he may challenge the identity of the DNA. He said he would have more of an idea when he got his DNA reports back. I guess the reports were unfavorable and well here we are with a contamination defense.
Yovich might change his mind, he's done it once already claiming innocence on his clients earlier charges.

Not much point in bringing in a parade of DNA scientists to confuse not a jury but the judge unless he really has to. imo.
 

JezzaPerth

All Australian
Dec 14, 2019
675
3,129
AFL Club
West Coast
Just for the record in relation to the DNA evidence, I thought Ms Ashley to be a competent and cautious witness. I thought Blooms to be overconfident and less reliable. I thought Bagdonovicius to be difficult to communcate with for reasons yet to be explained. I haven't seen (née) Galvin so I can't give my impression of her.

The cross for Bagdonovicius and (née) Galvin will be interesting. I'll be attending for sure.

Edit: I think that all the evidence from gathering at the crime scene till exhibits were removed from the autopsy room has no possibility of contamination of KK DNA. It's only the PathWest lab time period that needs to be considered.
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2012
45
102
AFL Club
Sydney
I think we got the right judge on this. Which I’m relieved! We don’t want appeals and all that jazz for the families.

I do think he’ll we want to be thorough though and follow the law not the popular verdict - so I hope prosecution has got this.
Fingers crossed!!
Definitely. We have the right judge. I've got all confidence in justice Hall.

Jezza will be in the box seat to give us the insights that the media don't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, But I can't see any juvenile records being surfaced in court. Unless it's a strong relation to the alleged crimes. As in he's done the exact same thing before. They're not aloud to bring those records in if they aren't classed as relevant are they? State by state may be different. I think over here in Vic there's something like that in place. As I said I could be wrong. Which if proven I'll happily cop on the chin.
 
Jul 5, 2012
45
102
AFL Club
Sydney
Just for the record in relation to the DNA evidence, I thought Ms Ashley to be a competent and cautious witness. I thought Blooms to be overconfident and less reliable. I thought Bagdonovicius to be difficult to communcate with for reasons yet to be explained. I haven't seen (née) Galvin so I can't give my impression of her.

The cross for Bagdonovicius and (née) Galvin will be interesting. I'll be attending for sure.

Edit: I think that all the evidence from gathering at the crime scene till exhibits were removed from the autopsy room has no possibility of contamination of KK DNA. It's only the PathWest lab time period that needs to be considered.
Jezza, Bagdonovicius as you said appeared as he was difficult. I can't see him really helping Yovich either. IMO, He's a difficult customer for any side.
 

Top Bottom