No he isn't Troy's son. I'm just reading it like you and it sounds like Adam showed some previous PM to the reporters who wanted to verify his identity.^ So whilst incarcerated/remand - how would one Uncle send a PM to his nephew to "prove their id" - Facebook ? mobile ? email maybe ? Insta ? a hand-written letter ? Yes, Adam is my brother Troy's son - my nephew Adam Edwards (drum roll.....blah) ... I always have more questions when I read this stuff.
Judge disallowed some of EB evidence.... EB said BRE could not remember the HH incident..Likeamystery: I guess a "microchip" inserted into everyone at birth like a tracking device would solve everything Time frame facts.
I would have liked to have had one - to see when my path crossed paths with BRE. Imagine getting a print out of that !
Judge has already disallowed evidence from 1) ED @ her house of a 13yo BRE in her bedroom!; he was snooping through her drawers -..... "not relevant".
Judge disallowed the friend being driving to a unknown "bush location"...... "not relevant" - BRE didnt harm her, kept on driving.
Judge disallowed some of EB evidence.... EB said BRE could not remember the HH incident..
open air fetishes ? People assume Telstra knew - his first wife EB assumed too..... I just have more and more and more questions.
I’d think after the incident BRE would have been escorted to the nearest police station – Stirling Hwy, Claremont. Surly the management at HH would have notified Telstra not to send that particular technician again, so someone at Telstra would have known about the incident.I don't even know if an "open air fetish" is even a thing either............ rather than "indoors" ?
HH is the Hollywood Hospital (HH) criminal charge (BRE pleaded guilty); BRE attacked a social worker at Hollywood Hospital in May 1990, while he was in the building carrying out work in his role as a technician with Telstra.
BRE had inquired with the woman about using the toilet, before bursting out and attacking her from behind, placing a piece of material over her mouth and dragging her backwards.
The woman managed to struggle, kicking Mr Edwards hard, lost a shoe - managing to escape from BRE grip !!
Security officers detained Mr Edwards and when police arrived they found cable ties in his pocket, Ms Barbagallo said.
Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to common assault and was sentenced to two years’ probation the following month, and he kept his job at Telstra.
I'm unsure if the Managers/Supervisors/Head of Telstra knew of this event, it seems some of his work colleagues knew though. BRE's first wife assumed his workplace knew..... her evidence is that BRE told her he could not recall the incident and was reluctant to talk about it - although later he did say he stayed in the bathroom at HH until his arrest.
I assume bathroom means toilet
I think it will depend on whether or not the right procedures were followed or if corners were cut. I presume his statement to police would go along the lines of 'I was instructed by my supervisor to attend to a fault that had been reported in the system at Hollywood Hospital .....'I’d think after the incident BRE would have been escorted to the nearest police station – Stirling Hwy, Claremont. Surly the management at HH would have notified Telstra not to send that particular technician again, so someone at Telstra would have known about the incident.
It’s likely BRE kept the incident quiet – very secretive. The Telstra vehicle would have needed to be picked up.
Perhaps after the incident Telstra found BRE another area to work. Couldn’t have him causing grief on the job.
The Police would have likely first verified with Hollywood Hospital that Telstra was meant to be working there that day, and possibly if BRE worked there regularly on behalf of Telstra.I presume his statement to police would go along the lines of 'I was instructed by my supervisor to attend to a fault that had been reported in the system at Hollywood Hospital'
The police should have verified if this was true or not thus alerting at least one more senior management staff to what had happened.
IF BRE was released (on bail?) shortly after his arrest, and the vehicle he was driving at the time was one assigned to him for more than just a day, he might have just gone and picked it up himself the next day.The Telstra vehicle would have needed to be picked up.
Hollywood Hospital during daylight hours is open for all manner of comings and goings. One could still wander all corridors without being challenged. 1990 I doubt a "building access" pass would be necessary/required. Tech would walk on in - attend to the naughty switchboard and walk out. Seems at HH BRE couldn't fix the system/switchboard on this particulary day and this caused BRE angst - and the Social worker used "Terse Talk" (BRE version and BRE snapped).The Police would have likely first verified with Hollywood Hospital that Telstra was meant to be working there that day, and possibly if BRE worked there regularly on behalf of Telstra.
Hollywood Hospital might have provided Police with copies of documents from Telstra to Hollywood Hospital that named BRE (and possibly others) as the Telstra techs that would work onsite at the hospital when required, and a communication or document that confirmed the reason why BRE was onsite that day at the hospital.
I would hope that these documents would list, at least to ensure that a Hollywood Hospital building access pass was available to BRE upon each onsite visit, and that the hospital Security/Admin that managed building access passes, required BRE to front up with photo ID each time he was required to enter the hospital.
And that Security/Admin were expecting him on each onsite visit from him form documents provided to them ahead of each visit.
Also, BRE would have likely had a Telstra ID with him (possibly a Telstra worker photo ID?).
All of which might have caused the Police to not require confirmation from Telstra, that BRE was required/authorised by Telstra to be onsite that day.
Do you think tunnel vision, misinformation and misconduct by certain macro task force investigators could be a possible reason for certain things for being overlooked at the time?From what I can gather Macro being such an isolated/secure team weren’t in a position to take input from WAPOL support staff who knew the various database systems. Macro Management/hierarchy may have sourced who they considered to be the best staff but were they local to Perth. Presumably Macro detectives had support staff who gathered information for them.
Thinking about the Hollywood Hospital (HH) crime – May 1990. Monash Av, Nedlands is the next suburb east of Claremont.
Below are my thoughts as to why the HH crime may have been overlooked. Can anyone else think of any examples.
When the Schramm review took place (late 2004) did, they review Macro’s existing information. If Scramm didn’t compile the information from scratch, could it be possible they also overlooked the HH crime for the same reason.
- Support staff asked to source information dating back 5 years (from March 1996 SS disappearance). Hence picked up the KK rape (1995), missed the HH crime (May 1990).
- Support staff didn’t realize HH/Nedlands was next to Claremont. Management specifically asked to search for Claremont crimes.
- Presumed Hollywood was an actual suburb (not in western suburbs).
- Information was migrated to an inactive data base – data base didn’t get searched
- Crime registered under secondment company’s name instead of Telstra
A bombshell twist has emerged in the case of the Claremont serial killings after a former police commissioner said evidence of a Telstra vehicle stalking young women was identified in 2004 — more than a decade before a Telstra employee was arrested over the crimes.
The 50-year-old was arrested and charged in 2016 after a fresh investigation of the unsolved serial killings and is due to face trial in July. Stunning allegations about a Telstra connection to the case surfaced publicly for the first time during a pre-trial submissions hearing last month when prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo listed six occasions when the activities of a Telstra vehicle and its male driver were reported between 1995 and 1997.
Yes I can imagine tunnel vision! At one time Macro had 100 detectives (10 teams of 10). Early in the investigation, LW came under the radar - cleared in 2008. I suppose they scrutinized a backlog of crimes, perhaps went through boxes of information.Do you think tunnel vision, misinformation and misconduct by certain macro task force investigators could be a possible reason for certain things for being overlooked at the time?
Corruption watchdog recommends disciplinary action against two senior police and a senior lawyer over the wrongful murder conviction of a Perth man.www.abc.net.au