Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasn’t it reported at the time one of the girls was found (Jane I think?) that clothes not belonging to her were found close by? Yet there has bee
no mention of these clothes in court, not even by the man yesterday who gave evidence about the search of the surrounding area? Have I missed something? I guess they’ve decided they aren’t relevant to the case, but I was expecting yesterday to at least hear mention of them...

the clothes of some one else's has only been in one newspaper report that i recall. im starting to wonder if they actually existed.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Welcome to the last two decades of this thread

I was just thinking a couple of days ago what a great thread this has shaped into, it gets a bit bumpy at times but overall the level of discussion is high.

There's a lot of us engaging so a minor skirmish here and there is probably to be expected.
 
the clothes of some one else's has only been in one newspaper report that i recall. im starting to wonder if they actually existed.


Not 100% sure but I think it was in the Post,quoted from Paul Ferguson. Shortly there after he was out and I believe Caporn came in
 
no cutting implement near a dark blue uniform near a body that was covered in dark blue fibres perhaps?
Makes sense...but I had the impression they were in the context of the hair sample that was taken at the time (RH17), which allegedly revealed 2 blue fibres and was describes as pristine. I think they were getting at that RH17 wasnt cut from the head, rather was found.
Mott gave evidence: "When asked where they found RH17, Mr Mott said: "Off the head. I just recall Dr Margolius finding it. We scooped on it quickly so we didn't lose it."
When asked if he could remember if they collected it while Ciara's body was in situ he said he thought she was still "in the same spot we found her"."
 
Last edited:
Wondering what these Vag parts might be ....
Did anyone comprehend what these exhibits are ?
The interest is mainly because of the supposed tampon CG had in place. (Just checking)
View attachment 807590
Dunno, but I will say that its difficult to do an upper vaginal swab if there is a tampon in place. Thats not to say that AF62 was removed, then AF61 done, then 61 given and labelled followed by 62.
 
It is easy to delete original comments but not so easy to delete quotes in others peoples comments.
I'm a big admirer of shellyg's. She can do anything...delete comments, delete whole threads, even delete members.
I'd keep in her good books and spend more time trying to make sure the prosecution are not missing anything regarding CG's DNA and JR's body so that BRE is found guilty, than putting in markers and things for your missing comments that nobody wants to read.
 
Bold statement?
"both cg jr throats were cut"

Does that mean it was the actual cause of death ?View attachment 807591
From "the post"

In regard to Ciara they claim the cuts to her neck were the cause of death but in regards to Jane they stop short of making that claim. I assume that is because of the state of the decomposition.

Ciara -
"The court was also told the initial cause of death was ruled as undetermined. However after further testing the original forensic pathologist found Ciara's cause of death as being consistent with neck injuries."

Jane-
"She said a diamond shaped injury was found on Jane's neck 10-17 cm in area. The "defect" on her left was consistent with cutting or "sawing" from a bladed weapon or possibly from animal predators."

"Ms Barbagallo said Jane's left arm was found in an unusual position at the scene and was consistent with her being dragged by the arms and put into that position prior to rigor mortis."

"She said there was evidence of a sharp edge defect resembling a cut – being indicative of classic self defence injuries or in the circumstances in which someone would “fend off an attack by a person wielding a bladed or sharp-edged implement”.

"Ms Barbagallo said the neck defect or neck injury was inflicted prior to death. She said it was extensive."

"She said the State says the neck defect was caused by the person who killed her and whoever inflicted this injury intended to kill her."
 
Last edited:
Wondering what these Vag parts might be ....
Did anyone comprehend what these exhibits are ?
The interest is mainly because of the supposed tampon CG had in place. (Just checking)
View attachment 807590
Without knowing if the "material" is biological or foreign material it is anyone guess at this point.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I assume the arrest, house search, and interview will be coming up late in the trial? So far, despite skipping to and fro between Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon sites and procedures, it seems to be logically sequential. Next, lots of fibre and DNA evidence showing how BRE was identified.

The arrest and interview videos will be jolly good fun! Especially as you know he is lying through his teeth about the Karrakatta rape. Definitely a day or days to attend!

Also the Post seems to be unreasonable gloomy about the DNA evidence. As Carmel Barbagallo says, DNA doesn't just jump out of evidence jars and into other evidence jars.
 
I don't understand why he said anything at all. As much as police try to intimidate suspects that if they stay silent it will go against them in court, it has no legal ground.

"If you're not guilty why are you hiding by keeping silent. It's going to loo really bad for you in court if you stay silent"

"No comment".
 
I assume the arrest, house search, and interview will be coming up late in the trial? So far, despite skipping to and fro between Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon sites and procedures, it seems to be logically sequential. Next, lots of fibre and DNA evidence showing how BRE was identified.

The arrest and interview videos will be jolly good fun! Especially as you know he is lying through his teeth about the Karrakatta rape. Definitely a day or days to attend!

Also the Post seems to be unreasonable gloomy about the DNA evidence. As Carmel Barbagallo says, DNA doesn't just jump out of evidence jars and into other evidence jars.
He is not giving evidence so how is he lying through his teeth , or are you saying the guilty plea was a lie
 
He is not giving evidence so how is he lying through his teeth , or are you saying the guilty plea was a lie

In the interview he denied the rape. Now he has admitted it. The Judge is perfectly entitled to take an adverse view as to his honesty in regards the murders.

I would say that it's rare for a suspect to refuse to do an interview. Most of them think they can talk their way out of it or somehow minimise their guilt. The opposite is true. Any admissions and lies will be taken into account.. That's why lawyers inevitably try and stop them talking.
 
He is not giving evidence so how is he lying through his teeth , or are you saying the guilty plea was a lie
- He said he hadn't been to Claremont and wasn't familiar with the area
- He said he knew nothing of the KK rape

Then he pleads guilty which means he was lying.

The moral of the story: "no comment".
 
In the interview he denied the rape. Now he has admitted it. The Judge is perfectly entitled to take an adverse view as to his honesty in regards the murders.

I would say that it's rare for a suspect to refuse to do an interview. Most of them think they can talk their way out of it or somehow minimise their guilt. The opposite is true. Any admissions and lies will be taken into account.. That's why lawyers inevitably try and stop them talking.
Re KK the judge has no need to take anything into account ... he has pleaded guilty ... its solved
 
Re KK the judge has no need to take anything into account ... he has pleaded guilty ... its solved

You've completely missed the point. The important thing is JRE has proved that he's a liar. And more importantly he has denied the murders. The judge is fully allowed to use his propensity to lie as one piece of circumstantial evidence in reaching his decision.
 
You've completely missed the point. The important thing is JRE has proved that he's a liar. And more importantly he has denied the murders. The judge is fully allowed to use his propensity to lie as one piece of circumstantial evidence in reaching his decision.
I don't know who JRE is but if he is a liar I will take your word for it
 
Yes of course , the experts from the West or WA today , the judge should consider what they say and Karl Stevonovic should be contacted for his opinion , the case could hang on it
They're legal experts for a reason. CB will point out that BRE has a propensity to lie. Point taken about Karl though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top