Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[Chameleon75]

Week 2
I think the fibre evidence is pretty important....blue fibres, grey fibres matched to 3 victims (KK, JR and CG). If its proven that they all match, then pleading guilty to KK is quite important!
"Ms Barbagallo said the blue polyester fibres found on Jane Rimmer's hair, Ciara Glennon and the Karrakatta rape victim all matched but because there were still no explanation for them, it was again "parked".

Pleading guilty to the KK rape was about DNA , as the defence has conceded insitu contamination isn’t possible, hence he wouldn’t be able to explain how his DNA ended up where it is. But by pleading guilty to KK and Huntingdale, it places his DNA in the lab and allows them to argue cross contamination in the lab in regards to CG.

 

[Kurve]

Pleading guilty to the KK rape was about DNA , as the defence has conceded insitu contamination isn’t possible, hence he wouldn’t be able to explain how his DNA ended up where it is. But by pleading guilty to KK and Huntingdale, it places his DNA in the lab and allows them to argue cross contamination in the lab in regards to CG.

Do we know if Ciara's nails in the same lab as the KK samples?

 

[Chameleon75]

Do we know if Ciara's nails in the same lab as the KK samples?

That hasn’t been revealed yet. But there’s a reason why some of the testing was done abroad imo it’s to circumvent the defence argument given the issue that that particular lab has had in the past.

 

[kingswood71]

Pleading guilty to the KK rape was about DNA , as the defence has conceded insitu contamination isn’t possible, hence he wouldn’t be able to explain how his DNA ended up where it is. But by pleading guilty to KK and Huntingdale, it places his DNA in the lab and allows them to argue cross contamination in the lab in regards to CG.

Yes I get that.....
Will be interesting to watch how the evidence unfolds....

 

[zedx]

Week 2
I think the fibre evidence is pretty important....blue fibres, grey fibres matched to 3 victims (KK, JR and CG). If its proven that the blue ployester ones all match, then pleading guilty to KK is quite important!
"Ms Barbagallo said the blue polyester fibres found on Jane Rimmer's hair, Ciara Glennon and the Karrakatta rape victim all matched but because there were still no explanation for them, it was again "parked".

The fiber evidence worries me as it doesnt actually directly link him to anything, it only adds another 'dot point' to other circumstantial evidence which when all added together becomes important, then you have to choose whether to believe all the circumstantial evidence or throw it out as just circumstantial.
I suppose 'circumstantial evidence' really worries me because of the Lindy Chamberlan case. She was pretty much found guilty before she even went to court and the prosecution seemed to just pull circumstance after circumstance out of the hat!

 

[kingswood71]

The fiber evidence worries me as it doesnt actually directly link him to anything, it only adds another 'dot point' to other circumstantial evidence which when all added together becomes important, then you have to choose whether to believe all the circumstantial evidence or throw it out as just circumstantial.
I suppose 'circumstantial evidence' really worries me because of the Lindy Chamberlan case. She was pretty much found guilty before she even went to court and the prosecution seemed to just pull circumstance after circumstance out of the hat!

The blue fibres do....If the KK blue fibre is proven to have come from Telstra clothes and is identical to the fibres found from JR and CG, then it stands to reason that the person who left the blue fibre on KK (BRE likely as he admitted that crime) also left the identical blue fibres on JR and CG.
Telstra Navy.....
Unless of course that he did the rape on KK as admitted, but there was another Telstra worker who did the murders while also driving a VS Commodore.
The above scenario of one rapist and one murderer both working for Telstra in Perth in 1995-1997, both leaving behind blue fibres and both driving VS commodores and both targeting Claremont, seems a little far fetched...

 

[zedx]

The blue fibres do....If the KK blue fibre is proven to have come from Telstra clothes and is identical to the fibres found from JR and CG, then it stands to reason that the person who left the blue fibre on KK (BRE likely as he admitted that crime) also left the identical blue fibres on JR and CG.
Telstra Navy.....
Unless of course that he did the rape on KK as admitted, but there was another Telstra worker who did the murders while also driving a VS Commodore.
The above scenario of one rapist and one murderer both working for Telstra in Perth in 1995-1997, both leaving behind blue fibres and both driving VS commodores and both targeting Claremont, seems a little far fetched...

and thats my problem, it only 'stands to reason' it doesnt prove beyond a doubt.

 

[Ripley]

The fiber evidence worries me as it doesnt actually directly link him to anything, it only adds another 'dot point' to other circumstantial evidence which when all added together becomes important, then you have to choose whether to believe all the circumstantial evidence or throw it out as just circumstantial.
I suppose 'circumstantial evidence' really worries me because of the Lindy Chamberlan case. She was pretty much found guilty before she even went to court and the prosecution seemed to just pull circumstance after circumstance out of the hat!

That was 40 years ago, no comparison to today's methods.

 

[Ripley]

and thats my problem, it only 'stands to reason' it doesnt prove beyond a doubt.

Only need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[kingswood71]

and thats my problem, it only 'stands to reason' it doesnt prove beyond a doubt.

not beyond a doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[one eyed spy]

"The defence is simple - it wasn't him," Mr Yovich told the Western Australia Supreme Court. We are not pointing the finger at any specific person, all we are saying is the nice, neat picture the state wants to present ... is not the full picture."

Accused Claremont killer 'didn't do it'

Bradley Robert Edwards is not the Claremont serial killer and the scientific evidence prosecutors are relying on may...

www.canberratimes.com.au

I dont think the defence could now introduce a "surprise" telstra worker who admits that it was him stalking women and not the accused......

He also commented along the lines of keeping his comments pretty neutral considering disclosures were still to be made and he obviously hadnt received all of his own forensic results nor provided them to the prosecution.
The course he decides to take may change when court resumes considering his deadline was Friday.

 

[kingswood71]

and thats my problem, it only 'stands to reason' it doesnt prove beyond a doubt.

To look at it another way: Defence is arguing "its not him". Now to use that defence they will have to raise reasonable doubt over the DNA, that is, they need to raise doubts over the collection, the analysis and the storage of the DNA. They need to raise doubt by inferring that the possibility of the KK DNA contaminating the CG DNA was possible by using evidence to suggest that possibility.
In regards the blue fibres, they need to raise reasonable doubt that the KK/JR/CG fibres do not match and that they do not match Telstra Navy as worn by the accused.
Likewise the car fibres. Since the VS commodore was actually found, you can bet your bottom dollar that fibres from the exact car as driven by the accused have been matched to the actual fibres recovered from JR and CG. How would the defence get around this and argue reasonable doubt? Perhaps someone else's VS Commodore wagon?? Perhaps someone borrowed his car on those nights?
Arriving late to Dawesville and telling a not so true story? Consciousness of guilt.
Stating that he had never been to Rowe park and could not explain how his DNA was on a rape victim and also on the kimono?...Consciousness of guilt.
Stating that he didnt go to Claremont until 2008/09?...Consciousness of guilt.

 

[Ripley]

To look at it another way: Defence is arguing "its not him". Now to use that defence they will have to raise reasonable doubt over the DNA, that is, they need to raise doubts over the collection, the analysis and the storage of the DNA. They need to raise doubt by inferring that the possibility of the KK DNA contaminating the CG DNA was possible by using evidence to suggest that possibility.
In regards the blue fibres, they need to raise reasonable doubt that the KK/JR/CG fibres do not match and that they do not match Telstra Navy as worn by the accused.
Likewise the car fibres. Since the VS commodore was actually found, you can bet your bottom dollar that fibres from the exact car as driven by the accused have been matched to the actual fibres recovered from JR and CG. How would the defence get around this and argue reasonable doubt? Perhaps someone else's VS Commodore wagon?? Perhaps someone borrowed his car on those nights?
Arriving late to Dawesville and telling a not so true story? Consciousness of guilt.
Stating that he had never been to Rowe park and could not explain how his DNA was on a rape victim and also on the kimono?...Consciousness of guilt.
Stating that he didnt go to Claremont until 2008/09?...Consciousness of guilt.

Brilliantly said. BRE can change his plea through the trial is this correct? Not that I think he will.

 

[BonzaRam]

and thats my problem, it only 'stands to reason' it doesnt prove beyond a doubt.

The KK crime gives both DNA (conclusive by his own admission and testing) and blue fibres, From there the matching blue fibres link to JR and CG with a DNA link to CG also. where is the reasonable doubt?

It's connect them to SS that seems to be proving troublesome to me.

 

[kingswood71]

The KK crime gives both DNA (conclusive by his own admission and testing) and blue fibres, From there the matching blue fibres link to JR and CG with a DNA link to CG also. where is the reasonable doubt?

It's connect them to SS that seems to be proving troublesome to me.

The only reasonable doubt will be if the defence can raise reasonable doubt as to the possibility of contamination of the DNA. Prosecutor is aware of this and has already said they were stored in different parts of the lab and were never in the same room. If she can prove this, reasonable doubt flies out the window.
I wonder how many matching blue fibres they retreived from the VS after they got it in into forensics?....I would not be surprised that no matter how much that car has been vaccumed, some may have still been there....

 

[PaulSubetro]

He also halfway through the rape, took the hood off. Marked for death as soon as he did that imo. He was also seen driving around looking for her after she'd run to the hospital.

But there is no evidence that a security spooked him and that's why he left. So we have to assume he decided not to kill her because he never intended to kill her.

 

[one eyed spy]

But by pleading guilty to KK and Huntingdale, it places his DNA in the lab and allows them to argue cross contamination in the lab in regards to CG.

I'm not sure how pleading guilty has any influence on whether there was a chance of contamination or not but I think it's a given the potential of contamination is there regardless seeing they already have results showing the evidence from JR was contaminated with evidence from an unrelated crime scene.

Yovich also referred to a report on the specific issue of contamination at that lab that he says concluded the lab was set up in a way that makes contamination possible, so there's the answer to that issue right there.

I dont doubt that KK and CSK evidence would have been handled at similar times at some stage but proving when & how contamination occured exactly isn't required, only that the potential exists & in this case, its backed with proof it has occured.

It'll be up to the judge to conclude whether he thinks it was potentially contaminated or not &/or whether all the other evidence points to BRE having killed them regardless. He can disregard the DNA and still decide to find him guilty if he concludes he was responsible.

I think it will be an issue for the prosecution though & suspect the second line of attack may come with the interpretation of such a small sample & the fact it had been combined with a 2nd sample before it produced a result.

I think the defense will also attempt an attack on the things that weren't done rather than those that were and call into question the decisions that have been made since arrest in firming up the evidence against him, perhaps suggesting it was focused too far towards getting the charges to stick to BRE & in the process forsaking anything which might indicate he wasn't responsible. Hence opening the "reasonable doubt" door without offering a solid alternative theory as to who was responsible and largely ignoring why his client could not have been.
Edit- aside from the guilty pleas which goes toward the reasons they'll say he's not guilty of murder anyway.

 

[PaulSubetro]

The security guard reported seeing the Telstra van. We'll see what the KK victim has to say, whether she saw the security guards lights in the cemetery through the rape but press reports after she fled she saw it drive back past the hospital assuming he was looking for her.

This is not the same as what you said before - that a security scared BRE off.

From memory, i don't think it was the same day that the witness saw the telstra van parked near the cemetery. Has anyone got a link to that?

 

[Kurve]

But there is no evidence that a security spooked him and that's why he left. So we have to assume he decided not to kill her because he never intended to kill her.

That's why I posted that we'll see what the KK victim says re. security. He left her suddenly, then returned to pick her up and throw her in the bushes.

IMO it was no coincidence the KK victim was taken into the graveyard in such close proximity to the hospital where he was finally after years of evading the law, held in some manner to account. He's now got a conviction, could have lost his job and was ordered onto a humiliating "time wasting" sex offenders course and he resented it. IMO.

He didn't want to get caught again IMO and at that stage was probably already DNA aware. This is why I believe the KK victim is lucky to be alive.

We'll see.

 

[PaulSubetro]

You are assuming that rape only means penis to vagina. It can and does take other forms. Killers escalate in their behaviour from the keeping tom break one and assaults to the current charges.

Edwards did not have an explanation for how his DNA got under Ms Glennon's nails, but accepted a "direct scratching event" was more likely than chance social contact.

Is the accused going to argue it was an attempt at rape that led to CG scratching him but he left her alive and she met her death at someone else's hands.

Apologies for not putting reference in quotes. Getting used to doing this on a phone. I'm old school.

My guess is the defence are going to say, "Hunts and KK were rapes, he did them, but JR and CG were murders without rape, he didn't do them because that's "not his thing". Oh, the DNA - the DNA from KK (which is our client's) contaminated the sample form CG". That's what I roughly think they will say.

I'm quite aware that rape can be anal but I'm also aware that they had no evidence of this.

 

[PaulSubetro]

That's why I posted that we'll see what the KK victim says re. security. He left her suddenly, then returned to pick her up and throw her in the bushes.

....and he chose not to kill her.

He didn't want to get caught again IMO and at that stage was probably already DNA aware. This is why I believe the KK victim is lucky to be alive.

We'll see.

I think it's more likely he didn't want to get caught again so blitzed her and hooded her. At some stage he wasn't getting off sexually so decided to remove the hood. The next time around he knew he had to be able to see his victim so rationalised he had to kill them. Now that he had reasoned he was going to kill his next victim he also rationalised that there was no need for a blitz attack, He could now coerce them into his because it didn't matter if they saw him because he was going to kill them.

I don't think we'll ever find out how this part all worked.

 

[kingswood71]

My guess is the defence are going to say, "Hunts and KK were rapes, he did them, but JR and CG were murders without rape, he didn't do them because that's "not his thing". Oh, the DNA - the DNA from KK (which is our client's) contaminated the sample form CG". That's what I roughly think they will say.

I'm quite aware that rape can be anal but I'm also aware that they had no evidence of this.

And the fibres?

 

[Chameleon75]

I'm not sure how pleading guilty has any influence on whether there was a chance of contamination or not but I think it's a given the potential of contamination is there regardless seeing they already have results showing the evidence from JR was contaminated with evidence from an unrelated crime scene.

Yovich also referred to a report on the specific issue of contamination at that lab that he says concluded the lab was set up in a way that makes contamination possible, so there's the answer to that issue right there.

I dont doubt that KK and CSK evidence would have been handled at similar times at some stage but proving when & how contamination occured exactly isn't required, only that the potential exists & in this case, its backed with proof it has occured.

It'll be up to the judge to conclude whether he thinks it was potentially contaminated or not &/or whether all the other evidence points to BRE having killed them regardless. He can disregard the DNA and still decide to find him guilty if he concludes he was responsible.

I think it will be an issue for the prosecution though & suspect the second line of attack may come with the interpretation of such a small sample & the fact it had been combined with a 2nd sample before it produced a result.

I think the defense will also attempt an attack on the things that weren't done rather than those that were and call into question the decisions that have been made since arrest in firming up the evidence against him, perhaps suggesting it was focused too far towards getting the charges to stick to BRE & in the process forsaking anything which might indicate he wasn't responsible. Hence opening the "reasonable doubt" door without offering a solid alternative theory as to who was responsible and largely ignoring why his client could not have been.
Edit- aside from the guilty pleas which goes toward the reasons they'll say he's not guilty of murder anyway.

If your DNA ends up at 3 crime scenes, years before your DNA’s been collected for comparison.

I’m not sure potential contamination is the biggest question to be answered re DNA.

No it was critical he pleaded guilty to Huntingdale and KK for that reason.

 

[PaulSubetro]

In regards the blue fibres, they need to raise reasonable doubt that the KK/JR/CG fibres do not match and that they do not match Telstra Navy as worn by the accused.
Likewise the car fibres. Since the VS commodore was actually found, you can bet your bottom dollar that fibres from the exact car as driven by the accused have been matched to the actual fibres recovered from JR and CG. How would the defence get around this and argue reasonable doubt? Perhaps someone else's VS Commodore wagon?? Perhaps someone borrowed his car on those nights?

I don't believe they can prove that the fibres came from "BRE's shorts" or the car fibres came from "BRE's car". I think they can only prove that the fibres came from "Telstra issue shorts that BRE would have worn" and "A specific model commodore that BRE drove".

Therefore it's a case of;

- you have a history of escalating sex crimes (including one in Claremont)
- Your DNA is under one of the victim's fingernails
- The fibres on one victim you admit to and one you don't, both have Telstra shorts fibres
- One of the victims has car fibres that match the exact model of car you were driving at the time..

 

[PaulSubetro]

And the fibres?

10,000 other Telstra workers wore the same shorts including one who was a suspect that you never ruled out until you had contaminated DNA.