Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[Eaglette01]

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 remains of this car parked out the front (2pm yesterday) could be classed as "interesting" too.

 

[Coastie19]

OK OK - I went to drive past Huntingdale yesterday only to realise exactly how close everything is - Huntingdale Primary School and Gosnells Senior High School - Gay Street etc. There have been a few new buildings 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.

The car parked out the front (2pm yesterday) could be classed as "interesting" too.

WTF

 

[Likeamystery]

I just think the car would have trapped him. There were several times he was spotted so that meant running to get out by whichever was the fastest way and he could end up anywhere he might have to backtrack to get to his car and make a heap of noise.

A pushy might work, just not in a flowing nightie or a kimono. The visuals are hilarious though.

Perhaps the accused wore something over the women's clothing like a long coat. Anyone who might have seen him might have thought he was on his way to a fancy dress party. He would have looked very strange in drag.

 

[Kurve]

Okay, who's got the makeup app to run his face through on? I know a couple of you out there have because I've seen them! We might be able to do one or two .... for research purposes.

 

[Kurve]

He would have looked very strange in drag.

I've seen some pics where a younger version has been dressed up in apps with makeup and hair, if he wasn't so tall and his body quite so masculine he actually looks pretty convincing. And quite attractive.

 

[Likeamystery]

I've seen some pics where a younger version has been dressed up in apps with makeup and hair, if he wasn't so tall and his body quite so masculine he actually looks pretty convincing. And quite attractive.

Dressing up was probably one of the accused's biggest kept secrets. Now the whole world knows.

 

[Likeamystery]

The earliest map I can locate for the Huntingdale area is Town Planning Scheme No. 17. I’m not sure if that encompasses the properties on Huntingdale Rd because the map is dated July 1989 which is after the break-ins.

https://www.gosnells.wa.gov.au/file...ing_and_development/tps_17_-_land_use_map.pdf

There was a large chicken farm on Balfour Rd (about Lot 1471)

 

[Krusty Crab]

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]

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.

 

[Catcher In The Rye]

Was at Southern River College a week ago for my grandsons graduation assembly, was at his father's graduation there in 1988.

 

[Likeamystery]

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/e...b6b-827d-9a3296764715?unredactedVersion=False

 

[BonzaRam]

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/e...b6b-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]

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]

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.

 

[Eaglette01]

^ 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]

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]

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

 

[BlueE]

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

[Eaglette01]

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

 

[Krusty Crab]

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/e...b6b-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]

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]

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.