Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[dmorris30]

There is no evidence she was killed prone. All we know is she had defensive wounds on her right arm, her right throat was cut / stabbed, and her body was found in the prone position lying on her right arm.

My personal view is she was attacked and killed from the front - probably standing for some part and later supine. Her body was then rolled over to die in the prone positions trapping her right arm underneath her.

If you have any evidence or theory that suggest something different please put it up.

Nope. The coroner said she was not standing when her throat was cut or blood would have dripped down her front. The blood was all pooled under her head and neck. I think each girl was on their front and raised up on opposite sides to fend off the cuts. He was standing over them and on the left of Jane and on the right of Ciara and cut the arm and side that was presented to him.

 

[dmorris30]

Didn’t prosecution include closely related in that figure?

What do you mean? That it could be a relative of BRE?

 

[JezzaPerth]

Nope. The coroner said she was not standing when her throat was cut or blood would have dripped down her front. The blood was all pooled under her head and neck. I think each girl was on their front and raised up on opposite sides to fend off the cuts. He was standing over them and on the left of Jane and on the right of Ciara and cut the arm and side that was presented to him.

You don't get defensive wounds on your arms in the 'boxer position' if you are lying face down. They were described in this case as typical injuries to the little finger side of the hand and forearm

 

[dmorris30]

You don't get defensive wounds on your arms in the 'boxer position' if you are lying face down. They were described in this case as typical injuries to the little finger side of the hand and forearm

You do if you rise up on one elbow and lift your other arm up to fend off the knife. The coroner clearly stated Ciara was lying down when her throat was cut. No blood pouring down her front just pooled under her head.

 

[Sepai]

1. They didn't miss the reports of a Telstra worker. It's been well documented years before BRE was identified
2. This KK "disturbed" thing. There has been no witness who has ever come forward and said they were in or near the cemetery at that time. It's a low percentage play to think he was disturbed. If he was going to kill her he wouldn't have hooded her in the first place. Maybe it was an afterthought and that's what made him look for her later on, but the evidence suggests he didn't set out to murder her. That point in time, after he left and when he was driving around the area - potentially that's the point where he decided murder was his best option going forward.

Why would BRE risk being identified by removing the Hood? That alone shows his intention. The victim said she kept her eyes closed as she was in fear of her attacker killing her if she recognized him. This was part of her evidence she gave at the BRE trial. Why was a Telstra vehicle witnessed by HH Security crawling along like it was looking for someone? That was after the victim had made her way to HH for help.

 

[dmorris30]

"When asked by Ms Barbagallo if the neck defect was caused by a cutting motion while Ciara was standing up, Dr Cooke said: "No, you would see vertical bleeding coming down."

This means Ciara Glennon was already on the ground when her throat was cut."

 

[Sepai]

Normally DNA under a victims nails would find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt once identified. Yovich is lucky he's not dealing with a Jury. The Task force were chasing the wrong guy for years. Key footage suppressed of MM at the Conti for years. It turns up on Chanel 9 crime documentary. It would have triggered something surely. If the MM wasn't BRE he may have seen something. The MM was never identified. The Defense has exposed countless mistakes by the forensic team and Police at the crime scenes and later during the autopsy of the victims. The person delivering the CG fingernails to the UK left his employment under a cloud. With all the mistakes BRE's DNA has been identified at the CG crime scene. The judge when he makes his deliberation would need this DNA evidence to be discounted by a DNA expert working for the Defense. I can't see it happening.

 

[sprockets]

Normally DNA under a victims nails would find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt once identified. Yovich is lucky he's not dealing with a Jury. The Task force were chasing the wrong guy for years. Key footage suppressed of MM at the Conti for years. It turns up on Chanel 9 crime documentary. It would have triggered something surely. If the MM wasn't BRE he may have seen something. The MM was never identified. The Defense has exposed countless mistakes by the forensic team and Police at the crime scenes and later during the autopsy of the victims. The person delivering the CG fingernails to the UK left his employment under a cloud. With all the mistakes BRE's DNA has been identified at the CG crime scene. The judge when he makes his deliberation would need this DNA evidence to be discounted by a DNA expert working for the Defense. I can't see it happening.

Now that you mention it, it'd be easier to convict someone who's never had his DNA taken before, a cleanskin as it were. Seems wrong.

 

[Kurve]

You don't get defensive wounds on your arms in the 'boxer position' if you are lying face down. They were described in this case as typical injuries to the little finger side of the hand and forearm

My interpretation of what likely happened is the fight for her life started when she was on her feet facing him, resisting being turned and going down. Towering over her she would have been on the back foot with her arms up in defence and either stumbled or was pushed over and all that movement could have been within five or six seconds. Hopefully less.

 

[trawlerman]

The judge when he makes his deliberation would need this DNA evidence to be discounted by a DNA expert working for the Defense. I can't see it happening.

If the leading DNA expert in the world was on the side of the defence, then BRE could get off...but he's a prosecution witness thankfully.

 

[Sepai]

"When asked by Ms Barbagallo if the neck defect was caused by a cutting motion while Ciara was standing up, Dr Cooke said: "No, you would see vertical bleeding coming down."

This means Ciara Glennon was already on the ground when her throat was cut."

This would have to be a Media helicopter above. how could this be allowed? The spinning blades would be disturbing the crime scene. Then you had the media pushing in. Yovich was having a field day with this stuff.

 

[Kurve]

This would have to be a Media helicopter above. how could this be allowed? The spinning blades would be disturbing the crime scene. Then you had the media pushing in. Yovich was having a field day with this stuff.

There was also a police chopper overhead, it got a mention last week.

 

[JWS2019]

What do you mean? That it could be a relative of BRE?

Not my personal opinion, just what the prosecution said in opening - sorry going over this again!! then yovich saying something to the effect of.

“we are not identifying who it could be, just that it’s not bre”

I can’t recall if someone cleared this, but will be interesting to see DNA evidence - obviously not going to be down to 100% but is it:
1. Brads DNA - with a chance of however millionth that it’s someone else’s
2. Brads family DNA

if that makes sense.

 

[sprockets]

Not my personal opinion, just what the prosecution said in opening - sorry going over this again!! then yovich saying something to the effect of.

“we are not identifying who it could be, just that it’s not bre”

I can’t recall if someone cleared this, but will be interesting to see DNA evidence - obviously not going to be down to 100% but is it:
1. Brads DNA - with a chance of however millionth that it’s someone else’s
2. Brads family DNA

if that makes sense.

That depends on exactly how much DNA they have. If it's minute it's possible it could include a relative, although if the lab says it's 1 in 5 billion that's unlikely. The question is, if it's a relative how did it get there?

 

[dmorris30]

Not my personal opinion, just what the prosecution said in opening - sorry going over this again!! then yovich saying something to the effect of.

“we are not identifying who it could be, just that it’s not bre”

I can’t recall if someone cleared this, but will be interesting to see DNA evidence - obviously not going to be down to 100% but is it:
1. Brads DNA - with a chance of however millionth that it’s someone else’s
2. Brads family DNA

if that makes sense.

You will never get a DNA result that says it's only that person. The results say something like the chance it could be someone else is 5 million to 1. The chance someone else with the same DNA was in Claremont killing girls at the same time BRE was there is practically impossible as Oz only has 28 million people anyway. The defence has admitted it is BRE's DNA. BRE's relatives would have some of his DNA but not all of it thereby excluding them but narrowing down the DNA just to BRE. Does that make sense?

 

[dmorris30]

Not my personal opinion, just what the prosecution said in opening - sorry going over this again!! then yovich saying something to the effect of.

“we are not identifying who it could be, just that it’s not bre”

I can’t recall if someone cleared this, but will be interesting to see DNA evidence - obviously not going to be down to 100% but is it:
1. Brads DNA - with a chance of however millionth that it’s someone else’s
2. Brads family DNA

if that makes sense.

Them saying it's not BRE is because the defence admits it's BRE's DNA in the sample from Ciara but they're saying it got into that sample through cross contamination from the KK sample.

 

[dmorris30]

That depends on exactly how much DNA they have. If it's minute it's possible it could include a relative, although if the lab says it's 1 in 5 billion that's unlikely. The question is, if it's a relative how did it get there?

The defence has already admitted it's BRE's DNA.

 

[sprockets]

The defence has already admitted it's BRE's DNA.

Yes, my comment was in relation to the hypothetical that JWS proposed.

 

[JWS2019]

The defence has already admitted it's BRE's DNA.

I think the defence was a little more ambiguous than that.

 

[JWS2019]

You will never get a DNA result that says it's only that person. The results say something like the chance it could be someone else is 5 million to 1. The chance someone else with the same DNA was in Claremont killing girls at the same time BRE was there is practically impossible as Oz only has 28 million people anyway. The defence has admitted it is BRE's DNA. BRE's relatives would have some of his DNA but not all of it thereby excluding them but narrowing down the DNA just to BRE. Does that make sense?

It was the prosecution that said chances are..... that’s it’s not bre or related

 

[JWS2019]

That depends on exactly how much DNA they have. If it's minute it's possible it could include a relative, although if the lab says it's 1 in 5 billion that's unlikely. The question is, if it's a relative how did it get there?

Thanks S that makes sense!
That’s the million dollar question I suppose!

 

[JWS2019]

You will never get a DNA result that says it's only that person. The results say something like the chance it could be someone else is 5 million to 1. The chance someone else with the same DNA was in Claremont killing girls at the same time BRE was there is practically impossible as Oz only has 28 million people anyway. The defence has admitted it is BRE's DNA. BRE's relatives would have some of his DNA but not all of it thereby excluding them but narrowing down the DNA just to BRE. Does that make sense?

agree with some of but I want to understand if it’s as per what sprockets just stated i.e small and not definitive or enough to pinpoint a person (rather than family group)

 

[JWS2019]

You will never get a DNA result that says it's only that person. The results say something like the chance it could be someone else is 5 million to 1. The chance someone else with the same DNA was in Claremont killing girls at the same time BRE was there is practically impossible as Oz only has 28 million people anyway. The defence has admitted it is BRE's DNA. BRE's relatives would have some of his DNA but not all of it thereby excluding them but narrowing down the DNA just to BRE. Does that make sense?

Also not saying it is a relative... but we do have family members living and working in the same place, same field, same access to Telstra fibres And Holden commodore fibres.

 

[Chameleon75]

Not my personal opinion, just what the prosecution said in opening - sorry going over this again!! then yovich saying something to the effect of.

“we are not identifying who it could be, just that it’s not bre”

I can’t recall if someone cleared this, but will be interesting to see DNA evidence - obviously not going to be down to 100% but is it:
1. Brads DNA - with a chance of however millionth that it’s someone else’s
2. Brads family DNA

if that makes sense.

That comment wasn’t made in respect to the DNA but the case as a whole. They’re not putting forward an alternative offender as part of the defence.

In relation to the DNA the defence has acknowledged that it is bre but are going to claim it was not found insitu but from contamination in the lab.

 

[Countessa]

Claremont serial killings trial live blog day 34

We are back live blogging WA's trial of the century involving alleged triple murderer Bradley Robert Edwards accused of killing Ciara Glennon, Sarah Spiers and Jane Rimmer.

www.24liveblog.com