Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt2

[Kurve]

Here is Claremont Murders - Part One
- Media
- The Bunker
- Hey Bret ...? Unexplained trial mysteries & CSK Supreme Court cliffhangers

 

[JezzaPerth]

A general comment and/or complaint about the trial process. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the immediate answer to what I observed.

Essentially whenever Carmel or her crew start to lead the witnesses in their chief, Paul jumps up and complains about leading. On the other hand, Paul's cross is almost purely leading and no complaint from Carmel.

I assume this is a convention? Or is Carmel letting Paul get away with blue murder?

Never mind. I have found the answer. (Grrr. I wish I know about confusing and misleading questions before now. I've certainly had some)

 

[Sepai]

I didn't say those witnesses wouldn't be recalled. I said they would not be recalled to say what they were cut off from saying. They were cut off by the prosecution or defence on purpose. No doubt the prosecutor and defence knew what they were trying to say and it isn't relevant to the case and could cause a mistrial.

That's obvious why they were stopped. If recalled they call tell what they saw if asked. That's what being a witness is all about. There's also a strategy about cutting people off when they have started to say something. It creates a sense of Theatre. It gives the impression they know something damning. If they said what the saw in his room if asked. How would that be a mistrial if asked? Everything they saw is relevant to the trial if asked. It's up the Justice Hall to make the decision on relevance.

 

[BFew]

Hopefully they discuss with right answer tonight on the podcast.

Your wish is granted

Leather Gloves and Fingernails in Taxis - CLAREMONT: The Trial

Two never-before-heard about leads police were following up on during the mammoth investigation were revealed to the court on day 46. A leather glove which had been found near Jane Rimmer’s body when she was found in Wellard bushland on August 3, 1996, and two fingernail clippings which were...

omny.fm

 

[JezzaPerth]

Your wish is granted

Leather Gloves and Fingernails in Taxis - CLAREMONT: The Trial

Two never-before-heard about leads police were following up on during the mammoth investigation were revealed to the court on day 46. A leather glove which had been found near Jane Rimmer’s body when she was found in Wellard bushland on August 3, 1996, and two fingernail clippings which were...

omny.fm

Totally off-topic. The audio from Tim was absolute crap. Just standard mobile phone (GSM) format.

I've recently started using the Android App Signal and made calls to other parties using Signal or just normal phone calls. Signal has far better voice quality. Perhaps time for the West blog to start using better phone-in tools?

As an aside, the uni expert in the studio had almost as lousy audio, but I think that's due to inept mic-ing.

 

[the dark knight]

Claremont killer trial LIVE: Defence uncovers five examples of DNA contamination in Ciara's samples by 2004.

Are they 5 human contamination? Or could it be with animal DNA?
I'll be honest, My heart sank a little reading this. Kingswood, Can you clarify this doozie? Cheers.

 

[Countessa]

That's obvious why they were stopped. If recalled they call tell what they saw if asked. That's what being a witness is all about. There's also a strategy about cutting people off when they have started to say something. It creates a sense of Theatre. It gives the impression they know something damning. If they said what the saw in his room if asked. How would that be a mistrial if asked? Everything they saw is relevant to the trial if asked. It's up the Justice Hall to make the decision on relevance.

Lawyers don't want long complicated answers, they want yes or no answers If a witness starts narrating beyond the scope of what’s asked of them, the other party’s counsel may object on the ground that the witness is narrating the story. The witnesses aren't in charge in Court.

 

[Sepai]

Lawyers don't want long complicated answers, they want yes or no answers If a witness starts narrating beyond the scope of what’s asked of them, the other party’s counsel may object on the ground that the witness is narrating the story. The witnesses aren't in charge in Court.

I get your point. Yovich is all over the Prosecution at the moment. If you can get the witness to say something damaging about the defendant it gets the Defense on the back foot. Lawyers from both sides can object if they don't like the question. It's up to Justice Hall to rule if the question is relevant. If the prosecution don't drag up the dirt on BRE he will get off with 3 murders. The DNA evidence has been challenged strongly.

 

[Sepai]

That's obvious why they were stopped. If recalled they call tell what they saw if asked. That's what being a witness is all about. There's also a strategy about cutting people off when they have started to say something. It creates a sense of Theatre. It gives the impression they know something damning. If they said what the saw in his room if asked. How would that be a mistrial if asked? Everything they saw is relevant to the trial if asked. It's up the Justice Hall to make the decision on relevance.

Yovich is turning this into a Street fight. The Prosecution should have hired him.

 

[dmorris30]

That's obvious why they were stopped. If recalled they call tell what they saw if asked. That's what being a witness is all about. There's also a strategy about cutting people off when they have started to say something. It creates a sense of Theatre. It gives the impression they know something damning. If they said what the saw in his room if asked. How would that be a mistrial if asked? Everything they saw is relevant to the trial if asked. It's up the Justice Hall to make the decision on relevance.

That's not what happened. It wasn't done for theatrics; that only happens in the movies. The witnesses won't be recalled to say what they were going to say before they were cut off. I'm a paralegal, worked in the criminal field and sat on many juries. Youre wrong here. Take the L

 

[dmorris30]

I get your point. Yovich is all over the Prosecution at the moment. If you can get the witness to say something damaging about the defendant it gets the Defense on the back foot. Lawyers from both sides can object if they don't like the question. It's up to Justice Hall to rule if the question is relevant. If the prosecution don't drag up the dirt on BRE he will get off with 3 murders. The DNA evidence has been challenged strongly.

You have no idea how a trial is run. The questions from prosecution or defence were ok; it was the answers that went beyond a yes or no and started to veer into territory that wasn't relevant and could be potentially prejudicial to the accused. Prosecution or defence object if the questioning from the other is leading or otherwise contrary to the rules of the court. Then the judge rules it to be allowed or not. There are things ruled inadmissible in this case such as BRE's erotic stories. As such, they won't be raised in questioning and if a witness answers a question and starts to veer, say, onto that subject the prosecution or defence will interrupt and you won't get the full answer. It's not for theatrics it's for the trial rules.

 

[kingswood71]

Are they 5 human contamination? Or could it be with animal DNA?
I'll be honest, My heart sank a little reading this. Kingswood, Can you clarify this doozie? Cheers.

Its referring to the possible contamination of 41 and the 4 contaminated control blanks. All female DNA. All likely coming from the amplification done in 2001. Importantly neither 42 or its blank showed any contamination.

 

[JWS2019]

Never mind. I have found the answer. (Grrr. I wish I know about confusing and misleading questions before now. I've certainly had some)

View attachment 824524

Your wish is granted

Leather Gloves and Fingernails in Taxis - CLAREMONT: The Trial

Two never-before-heard about leads police were following up on during the mammoth investigation were revealed to the court on day 46. A leather glove which had been found near Jane Rimmer’s body when she was found in Wellard bushland on August 3, 1996, and two fingernail clippings which were...

omny.fm

Thanks bfew!
Just listening now..

 

[kingswood71]

I get your point. Yovich is all over the Prosecution at the moment. If you can get the witness to say something damaging about the defendant it gets the Defense on the back foot. Lawyers from both sides can object if they don't like the question. It's up to Justice Hall to rule if the question is relevant. If the prosecution don't drag up the dirt on BRE he will get off with 3 murders. The DNA evidence has been challenged strongly.

Some of the answers or what the witnesses may have been going to say was likely ruled in-admissible a long time before the trial actually started!
"It's up to Justice Hall to rule if the question is relevant"....some of it he did...last year!!

 

[JWS2019]

That's not what happened. It wasn't done for theatrics; that only happens in the movies. The witnesses won't be recalled to say what they were going to say before they were cut off. I'm a paralegal, worked in the criminal field and sat on many juries. Youre wrong here. Take the L

Be kind to our newbies DM!

 

[dmorris30]

Be kind to our newbies DM!

Oh alright. It's hard for me

 

[Sepai]

You have no idea how a trial is run. The questions from prosecution or defence were ok; it was the answers that went beyond a yes or no and started to veer into territory that wasn't relevant and could be potentially prejudicial to the accused. Prosecution or defence object if the questioning from the other is leading or otherwise contrary to the rules of the court. Then the judge rules it to be allowed or not. There are things ruled inadmissible in this case such as BRE's erotic stories. As such, they won't be raised in questioning and if a witness answers a question and starts to veer, say, onto that subject the prosecution or defence will interrupt and you won't get the full answer. It's not for theatrics it's for the trial rules.

Are you a Lawyer? How do you know what their going to say if they haven't said it yet? If the Prosecution think like you Yovich will continue to have the upper hand. We all have diferrent points of view on the way the Trial should run. It's a murder trial not a competition between you and I. Justice Hall will determine if the questions and answers are relevant. He will step in and stop them if needed. It's not a jury trial. He's the only one the lawyer;s and witnesses can influence.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Are you a Lawyer? How do you know what their going to say if they haven't said it yet? If the Prosecution think like you Yovich will continue to have the upper hand. We all have diferrent points of view on the way the Trial should run. It's a murder trial not a competition between you and I. Justice Hall will determine if the questions and answers are relevant. He will step in and stop them if needed. It's not a jury trial. He's the only one lawyer and witnesses can influence.

There is a famous legal saying. Never ask a question unless you already know the answer.

I'm not a lawyer but I work in criminal trials. Everything that is asked of a witness has been the subject of disclosure to prosecution and defence well before trial. They all know exactly what the witness will say in advance. True there may be minor variations and quirks, but a witness saynig something completely new is very rare.

 

[Bring back Drum]

Now questions have moved to RH 21, a branch found on the top of Jane Rimmer's body at Woolcoot Road, Wellard in August, 1996.

During his opening, Mr Yovich told the court an examination in 2002 of a swab from that branch yielded a partial profile belonging to a victim of a completely unrelated crime.

The court heard that victims' samples had been processed in the lab some days either side of Jane's branch sample.

How many days???

 

[Sepai]

Some of the answers or what the witnesses may have been going to say was likely ruled in-admissible a long time before the trial actually started!
"It's up to Justice Hall to rule if the question is relevant"....some of it he did...last year!!

[/QUOTE There are questions that can't be asked. Areas out of bounds. A good lawyer will to use angles to try and get what they want. If the Prosecusion are just basing their case on DNA their taking a big chance. They haven't got much else. BRE hasn't even been identified as being seen in Claremont. As this trial continues we will all find out how the questioning of witnesses goes. Yovich wouldn't be holding back. They have to push the envelope to make Justice Hall object. Has he had to yet.?

 

[Ripley]

Be kind to our newbies DM!

In the same vein, some newbies could be a little less arrogant in their posts whilst stating " what should have happened" in a number of scenarios and obviously not having any idea about the realities of a given process and persisting along those lines even after a number of other posters explain why their theory is incorrect or impossible. Post at your own risk I say.

 

[JezzaPerth]

https://www.24liveblog.com/live/2459179357321686431

 

[JezzaPerth]

The court then heard of the 21 control samples tested at ESR, four were found to contain female DNA.​

​

When asked what was an acceptable percentage for control samples to be contaminated for an accredited lab, Mr Bagdonavicius said the international standard was between 0.3 to 0.4 or 3 out of 100.​

​

When asked by Mr Yovich if that was significantly lower than 4 out of 21, Mr Bagdonavicius agreed.​

So the question that Yovich won't ask and probably not Barbagallo either is:

In the period 1995 to 2005 what percentage of PathWest control samples were contaminated?​

​

As has been pointed out the NZ people couldn't be sure where the contamination occurred. If it did occur at PathWest was it an anomaly to their normal standards?

 

[dmorris30]

Are you a Lawyer? How do you know what their going to say if they haven't said it yet? If the Prosecution think like you Yovich will continue to have the upper hand. We all have diferrent points of view on the way the Trial should run. It's a murder trial not a competition between you and I. Justice Hall will determine if the questions and answers are relevant. He will step in and stop them if needed. It's not a jury trial. He's the only one the lawyer;s and witnesses can influence.

The court then heard of the 21 control samples tested at ESR, four were found to contain female DNA.​

​

When asked what was an acceptable percentage for control samples to be contaminated for an accredited lab, Mr Bagdonavicius said the international standard was between 0.3 to 0.4 or 3 out of 100.​

​

When asked by Mr Yovich if that was significantly lower than 4 out of 21, Mr Bagdonavicius agreed.​

So the question that Yovich won't ask and probably not Barbagallo either is:

In the period 1995 to 2005 what percentage of PathWest control samples were contaminated?​

​

As has been pointed out the NZ people couldn't be sure where the contamination occurred. If it did occur at PathWest was it an anomaly to their normal standards?

didn't the NZ labs say tho that the contamination could have happened in their labs? I'm pretty sure it didn't but if I was Carmel is be pushing that to bring the statistic of contamination per 100 down

 

[JezzaPerth]

The court then heard of the 21 control samples tested at ESR, four were found to contain female DNA.​

​

When asked what was an acceptable percentage for control samples to be contaminated for an accredited lab, Mr Bagdonavicius said the international standard was between 0.3 to 0.4 or 3 out of 100.​

​

When asked by Mr Yovich if that was significantly lower than 4 out of 21, Mr Bagdonavicius agreed.​

So the question that Yovich won't ask and probably not Barbagallo either is:

In the period 1995 to 2005 what percentage of PathWest control samples were contaminated?​

​

As has been pointed out the NZ people couldn't be sure where the contamination occurred. If it did occur at PathWest was it an anomaly to their normal standards?

Looks like he did ask the question. Live24 ommitted to mention it. Watoday did mention it, and they both got the numbers different

Live24:

When asked what was an acceptable percentage for control samples to be contaminated for an accredited lab, Mr Bagdonavicius said the international standard was between 0.3 to 0.4 or 3 out of 100. [Jezza: That don't make no sense!]​

Watoday:

"somewhere between 3 to 4 issues detected for every 100 results" [Jezza: That sounds high?]​

​

Mr Bagdonavicius: Recently the lab assessed the number of quality incidents we have and according to international standards, we are approximately half of the international standard.​

 

[dmorris30]

The court then heard of the 21 control samples tested at ESR, four were found to contain female DNA.​

​

When asked what was an acceptable percentage for control samples to be contaminated for an accredited lab, Mr Bagdonavicius said the international standard was between 0.3 to 0.4 or 3 out of 100.​

​

When asked by Mr Yovich if that was significantly lower than 4 out of 21, Mr Bagdonavicius agreed.​

So the question that Yovich won't ask and probably not Barbagallo either is:

In the period 1995 to 2005 what percentage of PathWest control samples were contaminated?​

​

As has been pointed out the NZ people couldn't be sure where the contamination occurred. If it did occur at PathWest was it an anomaly to their normal standards?

Bohdanovich (can't remember his name ) is getting cranky again