Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[petedavo]

Clue might be in the above post. Is it possible the theory that BRE was tracked down in a similar way EAR/ONS was, might be correct? And the 'witnesses' as they're termed in his genealogical line, don't wish to be associated or have it widely known even that they're not who they thought they were, maybe?

I think everyone is getting ahead of themselves on here.
There simply won't be any much to know from the media until the trial, and even during as they'd won't be able to disclose names of people giving evidence who's names are covered by suppression orders. It may well be that some, or all the trial might be heard "in camera".
We can only but wait it out, until the Court makes a finding whether the charges are proven or not proven.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[GreyCrow]

It might also fall under the Privacy Act. The Australian Law Reform Commission on sensitive information, I'm not sure WA has it covered separately under another Act as some other states do. Still, doubtful the prosecution can get away with this. [101]


6.90 ‘Sensitive information’ also includes health information[98] and genetic information about an individual that is not otherwise health information.[99]

6.91 ‘Sensitive information’ is subject to a higher level of privacy protection than other ‘personal information’ handled by organisations in the following ways:

• ‘sensitive information’ may only be collected with consent, except in specified circumstances. Consent is generally not required to collect ‘personal information’ that is not ‘sensitive information’;[100]
• ‘sensitive information’ must not be used or disclosed for a secondary purpose unless the secondary purpose is directly related to the primary purpose of collection and within the reasonable expectations of the individual;[101]
• ‘sensitive information’ cannot be used for the secondary purpose of direct marketing;[102] and
• ‘sensitive information’ cannot be shared by ‘related bodies corporate’ in the same way that they may share other ‘personal information’.[103]

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/6. The Privacy Act: Some Important Definitions/sensitive-information#_ftn99

Depends on how it is collected.

From a public listed site I cant see a privacy issue. The rest is speculation I wont go into

 

[Kurve]

I think everyone is getting ahead of themselves on here.
There simply won't be any much to know from the media until the trial, and even during as they'd won't be able to disclose names of people giving evidence who's names are covered by suppression orders. It may well be that some, or all the trial might be heard "in camera".
We can only but wait it out, until the Court makes a finding whether the charges are proven or not proven.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

I dont think so PD, it's been reported in the press that the defense is querying why he can't see sections of evidentiary material then it's up for discussion imo.

Also, its super interesting.

 

[petedavo]

I dont think so PD, it's been reported in the press that the defense is querying why he can't see sections of evidentiary material then it's up for discussion imo.

It's a guess-a-thon


Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo]

Paul Yovich, Francis Burt Chambers is acting for Edwards. He's made an appearance Corruption and Crime Commission as well.

Profile:

AREAS OF PRACTICE
CIVIL
Commercial
Confiscations (proceeds of crime)


CRIMINAL
State offences
Crimes against the person
Drugs
Financial crime
Fraud
Juvenile justice
Money laundering
Sexual assault
White collar and corporate crime

Commissions and other inquiries
Crime and corruption commission
Australian crime authority

Commonwealth offences
Crimes against the person
Drugs
Extradition
Financial crime
Fraud
Juvenile justice
Money laundering
Trafficking
White collar and corporate crime

Coronial inquests

Regulatory offences
Workplace health and safety
Environmental and planning offences

White collar and corporate crime
Confiscations (proceeds of crime)

Environment and Planning
Environmental and planning offences

Public and Administrative
Confiscations (proceeds of crime)
Disciplinary proceedings
Proceeds of crime


Paul Yovich SC specialises in criminal law. He has over 25 years’ experience as a trial and appeal advocate, appearing in matters of all levels of seriousness and complexity – including murder, serious sex and drug offences, complex fraud, insider trading and cyber-crime.

Paul advises and represents clients ranging from private individuals and charities to multinational corporations and State and Federal government agencies.

He has particular expertise in appeals, having argued over 50 matters in the Court of Appeal. His success rate for the defence is approximately double the average.

Paul also has an extensive professional disciplinary practice, representing lawyers, doctors and other professionals, as well as regulators such as the LPCC and Medical Board.

He has appeared in a number of complex and high profile inquests; he undertakes corporate regulatory work in the Federal Court; and he accepts instructions in occupational, mine safety and other regulatory prosecutions.

Paul regularly presents continuing professional development papers and seminars on various subjects in criminal law and advocacy, and teaches practical advocacy courses for students and junior practitioners.

https://twitter.com/PiddingtonSoc/status/607796740624916480?s=19

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

It's a guess-a-thon


Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

That's how we humans roll. Especially when something is hidden, of course everybody wants to know what it is and why it's being hidden.

 

[petedavo]

This would've been a fascinating conference.

https://crimescene2012.wordpress.com/speakers/paul-yovich/

Oh boy, my former boss from back a few decades ago, was a speaker at this conference as well.
Such a small world. Another of my friends on social media was also a speaker.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo]

That's how we humans roll. Especially when something is hidden, of course everybody wants to know what it is and why it's being hidden.

For all we know, the redaction could've been about how the the Police divined the name of the accused, with a Ouija board, tea leaves, chicken entrails, the smell of goat dung, coffee grounds, a crystal ball, 3 old hags and a priest who performs exorcisms.



Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[GreyCrow]

For all we know, the redaction could've been about how the the Police divined the name of the accused, with a Ouija board, tea leaves, chicken entrails, the smell of goat dung, coffee grounds, a crystal ball, 3 old hags and a priest who performs exorcisms.

I think Shakespeare posted this a few pages back

 

[BlueE]

Clue might be in the above post. Is it possible the theory that BRE was tracked down in a similar way EAR/ONS was, might be correct? And the 'witnesses' as they're termed in his genealogical line, don't wish to be associated or have it widely known even that they're not who they thought they were, maybe?

Sounds plausible. It would be awkward if someone put their DNA in hoping to find their father or relations they didn't know about. Sorry don't want anyone to know now!

 

[craigos]

Sounds plausible. It would be awkward if someone put their DNA in hoping to find their father or relations they didn't know about. Sorry don't want anyone to know now!

Oh well, guess I'm a serial killer now.

 

[Melsy]

Sounds plausible. It would be awkward if someone put their DNA in hoping to find their father or relations they didn't know about. Sorry don't want anyone to know now!

We have already discussed ancestry contracts.
I just cant see why people won't accept the logical answer quoted in newspapers over and over.
Pages of speculating on something that is less relevant. For now, a pointless exercise in speculation.
Not that it matters speculating about how they arrived at their accused.
They have multiple DNA matches from multiple crimes with a crime in the vicinity of the residing accused.
There must be a few wholly crap moments going on with witnesses now and some non witnesses.
For right now, speculating over whaf was in the newspaper about finding an accused its spilt milk until more pieces of puzzle are released at trial.

 

[Melsy]

If the prosecution request a judge only trial and defense say jury trial, that could say a lot really.
Prosecution shifting their chess pieces early?

 

[GreyCrow]

They have multiple DNA matches from multiple crimes with a crime in the vicinity of the residing accused.
For right now, speculating over whaf was in the newspaper about finding an accused its spilt milk until more pieces of puzzle are released at trial.

They dont

 

[Melsy]

There must be police interviewing non victims, family friends etc thinking in the back their heads, how the **** did you not recognise Mystery Man on the widely broadcast video footage!

Not one inkling of contemplation...

 

[Kurve]

I just cant see why people won't accept the logical answer quoted in newspapers over and over.

The police and the prosecution have NEVER SAID how the accused was found. This has been quoted over and over.

 

[Melsy]

As stated before pages of wasted time discussing speculation.
As you have just said, police and prosecution have not stated so beyond media reports, no one knows except maybe people around the neighbourhood that know the family.
Only a few know how they got there, it simply is irrelevant until they announce it in trial proceedings.
Its wasted breath on spilled milk.

 

[Melsy]

Given what I have been told, it pertains to charges which were dropped, hence police don't want media publishing any relationship to an innocent person in the case.

Newspaper reporting ties in with the protection of a person about something that is of low importance that is the past, where name maynot be released but the process probably especially in a judge alone case unless the suppression overides the name.

 

[Kurve]

As stated before pages of wasted time discussing speculation.

So I guess everybody should just shut up ... except you right?

 

[BlueE]

Given what I have been told, it pertains to charges which were dropped, hence police don't want media publishing any relationship to an innocent person in the case.

Newspaper reporting ties in with the protection of a person about something that is of low importance that is the past, where name maynot be released but the process probably especially in a judge alone case unless the suppression overides the name.

The charge dropped of Indecent Assault, as was stated by another poster was most likely because lying on top of the victim probably didn't fit the description of this charge. There are still two other charges that encompass the attack on the girl in Huntingdale.

 

[BlueE]

We have already discussed ancestry contracts.
I just cant see why people won't accept the logical answer quoted in newspapers over and over.
Pages of speculating on something that is less relevant. For now, a pointless exercise in speculation.
Not that it matters speculating about how they arrived at their accused.
They have multiple DNA matches from multiple crimes with a crime in the vicinity of the residing accused.
There must be a few wholly crap moments going on with witnesses now and some non witnesses.
For right now, speculating over whaf was in the newspaper about finding an accused its spilt milk until more pieces of puzzle are released at trial.

It becomes relevant in my opinion because of the suppression orders. The defense doesn't know the names of some witnesses which could indicate DNA taken of relative unwittingly through ancestry records.

Could be something else, but for me that possibility comes into play with those new orders.

 

[Kurve]

Given what I have been told, it pertains to charges which were dropped, hence police don't want media publishing any relationship to an innocent person in the case.

Then they can say that and we'll all probs go 'okay fair enough'. But they're not. Even at this stage when the brief's in, nothing. Not even a clue as to what there might be in the way of evidence for the Sarah Spiers charge. All we know really is the defense's lawyer is all up about redactions and secrets and most of us are also going 'yeah, that isn't a good look'.

Yovich is already ahead playing the press.

 

[Badge666]

There must be police interviewing non victims, family friends etc thinking in the back their heads, how the **** did you not recognise Mystery Man on the widely broadcast video footage!

Not one inkling of contemplation...

Mystery Man. Not for discussion in the press. Not a word about him or information received as to his identity and if he has been ruled out as a suspect. Since 2008. All Hush-Hush now.
Looks to be about the same height, build , hairstyle and age as a certain somebody. Swanning about the doors of a Claremont nightclub as it closes without a second look from the Club bouncers who are too busy kissing each other and playing grab-arse to care. He's a local. He knows Jane. What a colossall utensil- up if it is indeed a certain someone. My mail is that aint the half of it. We will know soon.

 

[Kurve]

Mystery Man. Not for discussion in the press. Not a word about him or information received as to his identity and if he has been ruled out as a suspect. Since 2008. All Hush-Hush now.
Looks to be about the same height, build , hairstyle and age as a certain somebody. Swanning about the doors of a Claremont nightclub as it closes without a second look from the Club bouncers who are too busy kissing each other and playing grab-arse to care. He's a local. He knows Jane. What a colossall utensil- up if it is indeed a certain someone. My mail is that aint the half of it. We will know soon.

That might be a big slab of the redacted stuff ... they're 'okay, let's just cross all that mystery man stuff out with this big fat black texta'

Oh ... and categorise it 'very sensitive information'

 

[Badge666]

That might be a big slab of the redacted stuff ... they're 'okay, let's just cross all that mystery man stuff out with this big fat black texta'

Oh ... and categorise it 'very sensitive information'

Redacted. So let me get this straight . The prosecution has deprived a man of his Liberty for nearly two years and made the gravest of allegeations against him. The Western Australian Police Commissioner has specifically asked for people not to discuss the case immediately after his arrest. Taboo. has not happened before or since.
A number of suppression orders have been made including suppression orders about the suppression orders. Media reports bare minimum to non existent.
Now, with a possible trial being set for eight months time the information given to the defence that has enabled this man to be locked up has had large tracts of it blacked out on the grounds it is "sensitive information".
No this is not North Korea or 1950 s Russia, this is democratic ,fair, transparent Australia in 2018.
No wonder Yovich is squealing....rightfully so. What are they hiding..from him...and from us us.?