Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

Likeamystery

Debutant
Aug 11, 2019
71
59
AFL Club
West Coast

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Krusty Crab

Debutant
Jan 5, 2019
92
185
AFL Club
West Coast
OK OK (someone prompted me with with "photo" comments ;) - I drove through Huntingdale yesterday only to realise exactly how close everything is - Huntingdale Primary School and Gosnells Senior High School - Gay Street (where BRE lived) etc. There have been a few new buildings added to both the Primary school and High school since I drove past years ago:

And, the new name of GSHS it is now "Southern River College" - interesting.
The high school had a reputation of having a gang called the Gozzie Boys back in 1980's (skin tight jeans and black DB's).
The car parked out the front (2pm yesterday) could be classed as "interesting" too.
i went to gosnells high school, finished before it got changed to southern river college though. having a look online it has been updated a lot since i went there, the place really was an average high school back in the day. can confirm the gozzy boys existed, i remember a few names that were rumoured to be members. they were older than me, but not 100% what age group they were in. going by things i remember happening back in the day i would say they would of been born approx early to mid 70's. if i remember correctly BRE was born 1969/1970? so they were quite possibly younger than him, and still at school when BRE graduated.
 

Likeamystery

Debutant
Aug 11, 2019
71
59
AFL Club
West Coast
i went to gosnells high school, finished before it got changed to southern river college though. having a look online it has been updated a lot since i went there, the place really was an average high school back in the day. can confirm the gozzy boys existed, i remember a few names that were rumoured to be members. they were older than me, but not 100% what age group they were in. going by things i remember happening back in the day i would say they would of been born approx early to mid 70's. if i remember correctly BRE was born 1969/1970? so they were quite possibly younger than him, and still at school when BRE graduated.
Born December 1968 - last year of school was 1985 - year 12. No I don't know him.
 

Likeamystery

Debutant
Aug 11, 2019
71
59
AFL Club
West Coast
Regarding Huntingdale break-in and EWH attack - 15 Feb 1988 (kimono incident). According to the court transcript another family member was affected (ALH) – possibly that’s the mother of EWH.
  • Count 1 - 15 February 1988 the accused broke into a dwelling of EWH.
  • Count 2 - the accused unlawfully deprived ALH of her personal liberty.
For detailed information refer Page 6 of 71 …..

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/DownloadDecision/4419f4e0-2b37-4b6b-827d-9a3296764715?unredactedVersion=False
 

BonzaRam

Debutant
Jan 21, 2019
113
246
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Regarding Huntingdale break-in and EWH attack - 15 Feb 1988 (kimono incident). According to the court transcript another family member was affected (ALH) – possibly that’s the mother of EWH.
  • Count 1 - 15 February 1988 the accused broke into a dwelling of EWH.
  • Count 2 - the accused unlawfully deprived ALH of her personal liberty.
For detailed information refer Page 6 of 71 …..

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/DownloadDecision/4419f4e0-2b37-4b6b-827d-9a3296764715?unredactedVersion=False
Only one attack in that, ALH was attacked in EWH's dwelling...

scroll down to page 8

"With regard to counts 1 and 2, the State alleges that on 15 February 1988, the accused entered a house in Huntingdale at night, with the intention of sexually assaulting the complainant. The complainant, who was aged 18 at the time, was asleep in her bedroom. The State case is that the accused entered the property through an unlocked door, closed the bedroom doors of other family members, unplugged the telephone and went into the complainant's bedroom. He then straddled the complainant, who was lying on her stomach, and pinned her down by placing his knees on either side of her back, one hand on the back of her head and the other hand over her mouth. He attempted to force a cloth or piece of material into her mouth. She managed to turn to her side and scratch her attacker, who then ran from the room. Throughout, the attacker did not speak to the complainant. Two items were left behind by the attacker, being a kimono and a pair of knotted stockings. In 2016, DNA examination of spermatozoa on the kimono revealed a DNA profile matching that of the accused.2"
 

Likeamystery

Debutant
Aug 11, 2019
71
59
AFL Club
West Coast
Only one attack in that, ALH was attacked in EWH's dwelling...

scroll down to page 8

"With regard to counts 1 and 2, the State alleges that on 15 February 1988, the accused entered a house in Huntingdale at night, with the intention of sexually assaulting the complainant. The complainant, who was aged 18 at the time, was asleep in her bedroom. The State case is that the accused entered the property through an unlocked door, closed the bedroom doors of other family members, unplugged the telephone and went into the complainant's bedroom. He then straddled the complainant, who was lying on her stomach, and pinned her down by placing his knees on either side of her back, one hand on the back of her head and the other hand over her mouth. He attempted to force a cloth or piece of material into her mouth. She managed to turn to her side and scratch her attacker, who then ran from the room. Throughout, the attacker did not speak to the complainant. Two items were left behind by the attacker, being a kimono and a pair of knotted stockings. In 2016, DNA examination of spermatozoa on the kimono revealed a DNA profile matching that of the accused.2"
Many thanks I will have another look tomorrow.
 

BFew

Inn Spectre
Mar 5, 2017
598
1,323
AFL Club
West Coast
Two items were left behind by the attacker, being a kimono and a pair of knotted stockings. In 2016, DNA examination of spermatozoa on the kimono revealed a DNA profile matching that of the accused.2"
I wonder which of the below (if any) the defence might claim?

1. The kimono was stolen/taken from BRE's possession by whoever it was that attacked in EWH's Huntingdale dwelling or someone that passed it onto someone(s) else; or

2. BRE sold/gave/bartered the kimono to someone at a swap meat or the local watering hole/pond; or

3. BRE's nocturnal activities/fetishes included doing X-rated things on ppl's clothing without him actually removing the clothing/kimono from their backyard washing lines (particularly when he'd run out of sandwich bags), and that someone else must have taken/used the Kimono for use in the EWH dwelling attack; or

4. That there can't be 100% certainty that the DNA on the kimono was actually deposited on the Kimono before/during the EWH dwelling attack.
That the accused's DNA might have been deliberately placed on it by someone (i.e framed), at some point in the many years after the event before the kimono was found to have spermatozoa on it that was a DNA match with BRE.
 
Last edited:

Eaglette01

Rookie
Dec 31, 2016
30
89
AFL Club
West Coast
^ yeah - and, the victim's brother gave BRE a key ------------- Defence - Tell em their dreaming

Also, known as the Shaggy defence "it wasnt me" Point the finger at every other single person in the vicinity. That old one pony trick.


Count1 - Break in at night (far greater crime than during daylight hours)
Count2 - the attack on a sleeping 18yo
 

Likeamystery

Debutant
Aug 11, 2019
71
59
AFL Club
West Coast
I wonder which of the below (if any) the defence might claim?

1. The kimono was stolen/taken from BRE's possession by whoever it was that attacked in EWH's Huntingdale dwelling or someone that passed it onto someone(s) else; or

2. BRE sold/gave/bartered the kimono to someone at a swap meat or the local watering hole/pond; or

3. BRE's nocturnal activities/fetishes included doing X-rated things on ppl's clothing without him actually removing the clothing/kimono from their backyard washing lines (particularly when he'd run out of sandwich bags), and that someone else must have taken/used the Kimono for use in the EWH dwelling attack; or

4. That there can't be 100% certainty that the DNA on the kimono was actually deposited on the Kimono before/during the EWH dwelling attack.
That the accused's DNA might have been deliberately placed on it by someone (i.e framed), at some point in the many years after the event before the kimono was found to have spermatozoa on it that was a DNA match with BRE.
The defence will have a good excuse for the DNA being on the kimono, and it will be hard to prove he was in the house, because it was dark. I suppose the most feasible excuse would be that BRE found the kimono whilst out jogging, took it home, wiped himself on it, placed it on his own clothesline and someone stole it and then broke into the Huntingdale house.

The accused's finger prints might have been on the phone when he took it off the hook. Yet, in a panic, the householders probably used the phone overriding any prints. What about the doorknob fingerprints, he closed several doors within the house. Also, what are the odds of someone leaving their door unlocked, sounds odd.
 

Redacted

Debutant
Sep 16, 2019
92
99
AFL Club
West Coast
I wonder which of the below (if any) the defence might claim?

1. The kimono was stolen/taken from BRE's possession by whoever it was that attacked in EWH's Huntingdale dwelling or someone that passed it onto someone(s) else; or

2. BRE sold/gave/bartered the kimono to someone at a swap meat or the local watering hole/pond; or

3. BRE's nocturnal activities/fetishes included doing X-rated things on ppl's clothing without him actually removing the clothing/kimono from their backyard washing lines (particularly when he'd run out of sandwich bags), and that someone else must have taken/used the Kimono for use in the EWH dwelling attack; or

4. That there can't be 100% certainty that the DNA on the kimono was actually deposited on the Kimono before/during the EWH dwelling attack.
That the accused's DNA might have been deliberately placed on it by someone (i.e framed), at some point in the many years after the event before the kimono was found to have spermatozoa on it that was a DNA match with BRE.
I'd wager #4

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,579
2,661
AFL Club
Fremantle
I'd wager #4

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk
Someone's DNA was on it because a couple of days after the Huntingdale attack a cop was on the front page of the Worst holding up the kimono saying they had a clue to a brutal killing (a woman murdered the previous Sept - Victoria?).

The kimono had only been stolen since that murder and they knew they had semen on the kimono. They now allege it is BRE's semen and DNA.

Whether he'd deposited it on the kimono during that attack or some stage after stealing it. Somehow with the front page display they thought, either from some basic forensic testing or just guessing, they had this September killer. They did charge someone else for this murder who's still inside, but he was originally cleared forensically.
 

Likeamystery

Debutant
Aug 11, 2019
71
59
AFL Club
West Coast
I wonder which of the below (if any) the defence might claim?

1. The kimono was stolen/taken from BRE's possession by whoever it was that attacked in EWH's Huntingdale dwelling or someone that passed it onto someone(s) else; or

2. BRE sold/gave/bartered the kimono to someone at a swap meat or the local watering hole/pond; or

3. BRE's nocturnal activities/fetishes included doing X-rated things on ppl's clothing without him actually removing the clothing/kimono from their backyard washing lines (particularly when he'd run out of sandwich bags), and that someone else must have taken/used the Kimono for use in the EWH dwelling attack; or

4. That there can't be 100% certainty that the DNA on the kimono was actually deposited on the Kimono before/during the EWH dwelling attack.
That the accused's DNA might have been deliberately placed on it by someone (i.e framed), at some point in the many years after the event before the kimono was found to have spermatozoa on it that was a DNA match with BRE.
Sorry BFew I should have just answered - No 4. looks feasible.
 

zedx

Draftee
Feb 23, 2019
13
20
AFL Club
Fremantle
I wonder which of the below (if any) the defence might claim?

1. The kimono was stolen/taken from BRE's possession by whoever it was that attacked in EWH's Huntingdale dwelling or someone that passed it onto someone(s) else; or

2. BRE sold/gave/bartered the kimono to someone at a swap meat or the local watering hole/pond; or

3. BRE's nocturnal activities/fetishes included doing X-rated things on ppl's clothing without him actually removing the clothing/kimono from their backyard washing lines (particularly when he'd run out of sandwich bags), and that someone else must have taken/used the Kimono for use in the EWH dwelling attack; or

4. That there can't be 100% certainty that the DNA on the kimono was actually deposited on the Kimono before/during the EWH dwelling attack.
That the accused's DNA might have been deliberately placed on it by someone (i.e framed), at some point in the many years after the event before the kimono was found to have spermatozoa on it that was a DNA match with BRE.
I don't think any of those options will hold up. IMO the police would have noticed the stain on the Kimono straight away and would have seen that it was 'fresh' or newly deposited and that's partly why they held onto it in the hope that it may be able to be tested one day. It's also possible the young lady knew he ejaculated on it. We really don't know the whole story. Also it would be pretty bad luck, for some one to ejaculate onto a Kimono and then for a rapist to randomly come by it to use it in a rape and so the original depositor gets framed! But then stranger things have happened I suppose.
I'm more worried about contamination claims with cop holding it with ungloved hands.
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,579
2,661
AFL Club
Fremantle
I don't think any of those options will hold up. IMO the police would have noticed the stain on the Kimono straight away and would have seen that it was 'fresh' or newly deposited and that's partly why they held onto it in the hope that it may be able to be tested one day. It's also possible the young lady knew he ejaculated on it. We really don't know the whole story. Also it would be pretty bad luck, for some one to ejaculate onto a Kimono and then for a rapist to randomly come by it to use it in a rape and so the original depositor gets framed! But then stranger things have happened I suppose.
I'm more worried about contamination claims with cop holding it with ungloved hands.
They could easily take the DNA from the cop away from any found on the kimono.

More strange was how they decided this semen stain was a clue to the brutal killing that had occurred the previous September (well before the kimono was stolen from the clothes line).

1570850512933.png
 

Eaglette01

Rookie
Dec 31, 2016
30
89
AFL Club
West Coast
They could easily take the DNA from the cop away from any found on the kimono.

More strange was how they decided this semen stain was a clue to the brutal killing that had occurred the previous September (well before the kimono was stolen from the clothes line).

View attachment 763271
I agree - what made WAPOL think it was linked to a murder/killing previously. "please explain the link WAPOL"

Total F***up I think :mad:
 

Krusty Crab

Debutant
Jan 5, 2019
92
185
AFL Club
West Coast
Regarding Huntingdale break-in and EWH attack - 15 Feb 1988 (kimono incident). According to the court transcript another family member was affected (ALH) – possibly that’s the mother of EWH.
  • Count 1 - 15 February 1988 the accused broke into a dwelling of EWH.
  • Count 2 - the accused unlawfully deprived ALH of her personal liberty.
For detailed information refer Page 6 of 71 …..

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/DownloadDecision/4419f4e0-2b37-4b6b-827d-9a3296764715?unredactedVersion=False
EWH owned the house
ALH was attacked

I highly doubt the 18 year old ALH that was attacked owned the family home.
 

Krusty Crab

Debutant
Jan 5, 2019
92
185
AFL Club
West Coast
If BRE broke in and attacked the huntingdale victim as suggested, and if he was wearing the kimono as suggested, and if he ejaculated on it while attacking her as suggested, would it be feasible that some of this ejaculate might of transferred to the victims clothing/bed clothes? i wonder if they were taken as evidence by the police to be tested and compared to the kimono?
 

Krusty Crab

Debutant
Jan 5, 2019
92
185
AFL Club
West Coast
I wonder which of the below (if any) the defence might claim?

1. The kimono was stolen/taken from BRE's possession by whoever it was that attacked in EWH's Huntingdale dwelling or someone that passed it onto someone(s) else; or

2. BRE sold/gave/bartered the kimono to someone at a swap meat or the local watering hole/pond; or

3. BRE's nocturnal activities/fetishes included doing X-rated things on ppl's clothing without him actually removing the clothing/kimono from their backyard washing lines (particularly when he'd run out of sandwich bags), and that someone else must have taken/used the Kimono for use in the EWH dwelling attack; or

4. That there can't be 100% certainty that the DNA on the kimono was actually deposited on the Kimono before/during the EWH dwelling attack.
That the accused's DNA might have been deliberately placed on it by someone (i.e framed), at some point in the many years after the event before the kimono was found to have spermatozoa on it that was a DNA match with BRE.
[/QUOTE]

Im more inclined the original line of attack will be to label the kimono as contaminated. they will assert that it was handled in a fashion that allowed cross contamination at the scene, it was then lost, when it was found it was then a period of time before the semen was discovered and tested, and compared to BRE. if this works then the kimono is shown to be useless and disregarded. if it doesn't work, next step is to distance bre from the kimono. either the "ive never seen it before your honour", the "that belonged to my girlfriend at the time and went missing" or even the classic "i had a random hookup with person x and left it at their house". the more believable the excuse to show that BRE had handled it at some stage but it was out of his possession by the time of the huntingdale attack, the better, as it goes towards reasonable doubt for the charge.

On a side note has it even been 100% confirmed where the kimono came from? someone could of said i had one like that which was stolen from my washing line, however that doesn't mean the kimono was theirs. if the kimono had someones name on the tag for instance, then that is a bit hard to refute.
 

zedx

Draftee
Feb 23, 2019
13
20
AFL Club
Fremantle
I wonder which of the below (if any) the defence might claim?

1. The kimono was stolen/taken from BRE's possession by whoever it was that attacked in EWH's Huntingdale dwelling or someone that passed it onto someone(s) else; or

2. BRE sold/gave/bartered the kimono to someone at a swap meat or the local watering hole/pond; or

3. BRE's nocturnal activities/fetishes included doing X-rated things on ppl's clothing without him actually removing the clothing/kimono from their backyard washing lines (particularly when he'd run out of sandwich bags), and that someone else must have taken/used the Kimono for use in the EWH dwelling attack; or

4. That there can't be 100% certainty that the DNA on the kimono was actually deposited on the Kimono before/during the EWH dwelling attack.
That the accused's DNA might have been deliberately placed on it by someone (i.e framed), at some point in the many years after the event before the kimono was found to have spermatozoa on it that was a DNA match with BRE.
Im more inclined the original line of attack will be to label the kimono as contaminated. they will assert that it was handled in a fashion that allowed cross contamination at the scene, it was then lost, when it was found it was then a period of time before the semen was discovered and tested, and compared to BRE. if this works then the kimono is shown to be useless and disregarded. if it doesn't work, next step is to distance bre from the kimono. either the "ive never seen it before your honour", the "that belonged to my girlfriend at the time and went missing" or even the classic "i had a random hookup with person x and left it at their house". the more believable the excuse to show that BRE had handled it at some stage but it was out of his possession by the time of the huntingdale attack, the better, as it goes towards reasonable doubt for the charge.

On a side note has it even been 100% confirmed where the kimono came from? someone could of said i had one like that which was stolen from my washing line, however that doesn't mean the kimono was theirs. if the kimono had someones name on the tag for instance, then that is a bit hard to refute.
[/QUOTE]
your right it is a worry contamination!! IIRC some where it has been stated the owner of the kimono has been located.
 

zedx

Draftee
Feb 23, 2019
13
20
AFL Club
Fremantle
They could easily take the DNA from the cop away from any found on the kimono.

More strange was how they decided this semen stain was a clue to the brutal killing that had occurred the previous September (well before the kimono was stolen from the clothes line).

View attachment 763271
Agree, maybe they know something we don't know? otherwise I can't understand the connection!
 

GreyCrow

Hall of Famer
Mar 21, 2016
47,547
69,013
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
I agree - what made WAPOL think it was linked to a murder/killing previously. "please explain the link WAPOL"

Total F***up I think :mad:
Im more inclined the original line of attack will be to label the kimono as contaminated. they will assert that it was handled in a fashion that allowed cross contamination at the scene, it was then lost, when it was found it was then a period of time before the semen was discovered and tested, and compared to BRE. if this works then the kimono is shown to be useless and disregarded. if it doesn't work, next step is to distance bre from the kimono. either the "ive never seen it before your honour", the "that belonged to my girlfriend at the time and went missing" or even the classic "i had a random hookup with person x and left it at their house". the more believable the excuse to show that BRE had handled it at some stage but it was out of his possession by the time of the huntingdale attack, the better, as it goes towards reasonable doubt for the charge.

On a side note has it even been 100% confirmed where the kimono came from? someone could of said i had one like that which was stolen from my washing line, however that doesn't mean the kimono was theirs. if the kimono had someones name on the tag for instance, then that is a bit hard to refute.
Contamination and the Victoria Park murder should be enough for a good lawyer to at least raise reasonable doubt
 

Likeamystery

Debutant
Aug 11, 2019
71
59
AFL Club
West Coast
EWH owned the house
ALH was attacked

I highly doubt the 18 year old ALH that was attacked owned the family home.
I didn't know what depravation of liberty meant. I'm aware she lived in the family home with one or two parents.
I recall when the incident happened, the police did a door knock at the neighbours. Didn't say what it was about though.
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,579
2,661
AFL Club
Fremantle
Contamination and the Victoria Park murder should be enough for a good lawyer to at least raise reasonable doubt
Thing is the guy confessed (Masters I think) while he was in a Qld prison for murder of a backpacker. Turns out he was living in one of the block of 8 one bedroom unites the victim was living in. However he had been "cleared" using some forensic evidence the cops had. It could have been he was the wrong blood type for what they found at the scene they never siad what they had but it was a brutal murder so cold assume they had plenty of evidence.

Strangely, the initial reports were they could be looking for a male and a female. Oh wait ... the thought just entered my head of the picture Shelly had of BRE. :oops:

Anyway just because someone confesses, it's not a strong enough reason to convict esp when "forensics" cleared him. I assume he must have had details of the crime only the killer could know. After 21 years (added to his initial 7) I think he's still inside.

However it would be interesting to test the blood and whatever else they had in this case to see if any matched the current accused.
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,579
2,661
AFL Club
Fremantle
I didn't know what depravation of liberty meant. I'm aware she lived in the family home with one or two parents.
I recall when the incident happened, the police did a door knock at the neighbours. Didn't say what it was about though.
He lay on her, preventing her from moving.

He tried to assault her but was scared off when she screamed and I think they have only charged him with depriving her of her liberty because it should be easily proved.
 

Top Bottom