Current Claremont Murders - The Bunker

[Likeamystery]

Questions and some of my answers and further questions from the below CSK trial verdict 619 page document p104-105 John Travis – evidence summary
1. Did John Travis appear at the trial for cross examination?
Yes on 6 Dec 2019.

Claremont killer trial LIVE: Bradley Edwards faces woman he attacked in 1988 and Jane Rimmer's brother

Accused man Bradley Edwards has faced the woman he admitted to attacking inside her Huntingdale home in 1988, who spoke of how he pinned her down and stuffed cloth in her mouth as she slept. Jane Rimmer's brother, Adam, has also taken the stand to give evidence.

www.watoday.com.au

"The next witness to be called is John Travis. The 66-year-old"
"He is now talking about the pager number he had written down at the time for Mr Edwards, which was 137."
"Mr Yovich is now cross-examining Mr Travis."
"He is being asked now if he has an individual memory for the day he worked with Mr Edwards at Dumas House, he has said no and that he is relying on his diary entries, which he wrote down to lodge employee timesheets, which was his responsibility."

Claremont serial killing trial - day 10

The West Australian continues its live blog of the Claremont serial killer trial

www.24liveblog.com

"I trust my notes 100 per cent."
"The court was shown a copy of what Mr Travis said was the start communication pager list which contained the contact details of all the technicians who were working that weekend."

2. Were any witness statements able to be obtained from John Berkelaar and Lindsay Hilton who Travis claims were the other 2 workers who his hand written diary had recorded working with both himself Cook and BRE at Dumas House on the Saturday 27 January 1996 at Dumas House?
Neither Berkelaar or Hilton were witnesses in the trial.

3. What did Telstra records have for Berkelaar, Hilton, Cook & Travis for overtime worked that Saturday at Dumas House and did WAPOL/Prosecution request these records from Telstra? No idea. Nothing in the verdict docs.
(We already know that Telstra pay records provided for that fortnight for BRE, showed he was paid no overtime for Dumas House Saturday work).

4. Why wasn't Travis called back as a witness after the Telstra witness testified that Telstra pay records provided for that fortnight for BRE, showed BRE was paid no overtime for Dumas House Saturday work? Asked back to provide a possible explanation as to why there was no record at Telstra of overtime being paid for BRE for that Dumas House Saturday work. It is unclear to me whether Telstra payslips provided as evidence showed that BRE worked that Saturday.

5. Did the Admission BRE made agreeing that he had worked at Dumas House that Saturday, represent the truth?
Or did the Prosecution just try to get BRE agree to this and succeed, on the off chance that he did not work at Dumas House that Saturday, in order to then try and come up with more evidence that he did not work there that day, or already having some evidence that he did not work there this Saturday that was not tabled during the trial, all of which was designed to cleverly then possibly bring into question what else BRE might be lying about in regards to Sarah Spiers?

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?returnUrl=%2feCourtsPortal%2fDecisions%2fSearch%3fsearchText%3dedwards%26jurisdiction%3dSC%26advanced%3dFalse&id=9582e4ba-91ec-4119-998b-269447363aed

"John Travis – evidence summary
315 John Travis worked for Telstra as a technician from 1982 to 2013. From late 1988 through to the early 2000s he worked in the Corporate Customer Division in facility management. This meant that he was allocated to look after the internal telephone systems of large corporate customers. He had responsibility for large projects and would resource personnel from the depot to assist him on these projects. This work was generally done over long‑weekends when there were no workers in the customer's premises

316 Mr Travis met the accused sometime after 1988, because they both worked out of the Leederville depot. On some occasions when Mr Travis needed to call for volunteers to assist on large projects the accused came to work with him. One of those projects was at Dumas House, West Perth.
The work was over the Saturday and Sunday of the Australia Day long‑weekend 1996. Mr Travis worked both days, but not all others who assisted him did.

317 Mr Travis said that there were five people who worked on this project – himself, the accused, Mr Cook, John Berkelaar and Lindsay Hilton. He could not recall the hours worked but had kept a hand‑written record in his diary. He is a meticulous record keeper. According to his records the four named people came to assist him with the job on Saturday, 27 January 1996. They all started work at 8.00 am, apart from Mr Cook, who started at 10.00 am.

318 Mr Travis recorded the start and finish times, the length of time each person worked and what floor of the building they worked on. He worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 3.30 pm, on the 8th floor 3.30 pm to 9.30 pm and then on the 7th floor from 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. Mr Berkelaar worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 10.30 am, on 8th floor from 10.30 am to 7.30 pm and then on the 7th floor from 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm. Mr Hilton worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 11.00 am and then on the 8th floor from 11.00 am to 8.00 pm. Mr Cook did not work on the 9th floor; he commenced on the 8th floor at 10.00 am and worked on that floor for 7 hours and 45 minutes (the end time is not recorded). Mr Cook would have finished work at 6.15 or 6.45 pm (depending on whether he took one or two meal breaks). The accused worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am until 10.30 am and on the 8th floor from 10.30 am to 9.45 pm. Allowing for meal breaks, the accused worked a total of 12 hours 45 minutes on 27 January 1996. On the following day, Sunday 28 January 1996, only Mr Travis and Mr Hilton worked at Dumas House.

319 Mr Travis could not recall what car the accused arrived in on 27 January 1996 or what type of car he drove at that time. He did not see the accused arrive but said that those starting at 8.00 am would have gathered outside and would have entered the building together as he had the keys.

320 It was put to Mr Travis in cross‑examination that Mr Cook had given evidence that he started at 8.00 am and finished at 4.00 pm, an eight hour period. Mr Travis disagreed with those times and said that Mr Cook may have been confused with another job that he did at Dumas House, because Mr Cooke was a regular that came to assist him. He maintained that his diary is 100% accurate, and that Mr Cook must be mistaken.

321 Mr Travis said that if his vehicle had to go in for a service he could arrange to take a pool fleet vehicle. There was a register to fill in when an employee took a pool fleet vehicle. There was a person in charge of pool vehicles and that person had the key to the box in which the vehicle keys were kept."

(We already know that Telstra pay records provided for that fortnight for BRE, showed he was paid no overtime for Dumas House Saturday work).

When people work overtime they usually jump up and down until it gets paid. Could the overtime have been paid the following week?

 

[Girlnextdoor]

EB and BRE got together at a rock concert?

"She and Edwards had got together during an event known as the Sandhurst Run in WA's north, a rock concert held over a weekend, and she had immediately ended her relationship with her previous boyfriend.

They had shared a three-bedroom villa in suburban Noranda, but the boyfriend moved out and some months later Edwards moved in."

How did Bradley Edwards go from teen romance to accused serial killer?

One of the women closest to Bradley Edwards paints the most intimate portrait yet of the man accused of being the Claremont serial killer.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Likeamystery]

EB and BRE got together at a rock concert?

"She and Edwards had got together during an event known as the Sandhurst Run in WA's north, a rock concert held over a weekend, and she had immediately ended her relationship with her previous boyfriend.

They had shared a three-bedroom villa in suburban Noranda, but the boyfriend moved out and some months later Edwards moved in."

How did Bradley Edwards go from teen romance to accused serial killer?

One of the women closest to Bradley Edwards paints the most intimate portrait yet of the man accused of being the Claremont serial killer.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks GND.

It looks like the Sandhurst Run rock concert was held in Carnarvon. Thinking it might have been a yearly concert much like the Bindoon Rock.

 

[ms finch]

Yeah i know how tedious it is going through the fibre evidence in the Verdict. It was the same during trial. Below are summaries taken from the Verdict.
You are right about there being a lot telstra clothing fibres in CGs hair. Could that be due to a shorter exposure time? or different hair type perhaps?

KJG –collection and history of critical fibres
Two critical clothing fibres are associated with KJG. They are both blue polyester fibres that were recovered from the shorts she was wearing when she was assaulted by the accused. The shorts were given the exhibit reference AJM2. At least 301 fibres were recovered from tape lifts taken from the shorts. The two critical fibres were referenced as fibre 191 (taken from the front of the shorts) and fibre 280 (taken from the rear of the shorts). These fibres are said to correspond to Telstra clothing.

Jane Rimmer –collection and history of critical fibres
One critical clothing fibre was recovered from Ms Rimmer's hair, a blue polyester fibre said to correspond to the Telstra clothing. Twenty one critical vehicle fibres were also located in Ms Rimmer's hair. The 20 grey polyester fibres and one blue-grey polypropylene fibre are said to correspond to the fibres from a VS series I Holden Commodore station wagon with 25i trim

Ciara Glennon –collection and history of critical fibres
Eleven critical clothing fibres were recovered by the t-shirt of Ms Glennon and 39 critical clothing fibres were recovered from her hair. All of these were blue polyester fibres said to correspond to the Telstra clothing, with the exception of six from the hair, which were blue non-delustered rayon fibres, also said to correspond to the Telstra clothing. In addition a total of 11 critical vehicle fibres were recovered from the hair of MsGlennon. Of these three were grey polyester fibres, seven were light grey polypropylene fibres and one was a dark grey polypropylene fibre. All of these fibres were said to correspond to fibres from a VS series I Holden Commodore station wagon with 25i trim.

I must have been thinking of the volume of fibres in Ciara’s hair. I agree that it may be explained by the shorter length of time between the murder and when her body was discovered (this is what I think is probably the case). Could also be what transpired on the night - the way she fought him and/or the way he handled the body.

Also yes, her hair was curlier than Jane’s hair, which might have resulted in the fibres clinging to it better. Plus, didn’t Jane have her hair done the day it happened? I know after my hair has had proper conditioning treatments it is a smoother texture, which may have had an impact.

 

[BomberManU]

Interesting wording - "On some occasions when Mr Travis needed to call for volunteers"
Paid work, or helping out for free? More of a favour, to be repaid later? Could be why there was no record of getting paid?

 

[ms finch]

EB and BRE got together at a rock concert?

"She and Edwards had got together during an event known as the Sandhurst Run in WA's north, a rock concert held over a weekend, and she had immediately ended her relationship with her previous boyfriend.

They had shared a three-bedroom villa in suburban Noranda, but the boyfriend moved out and some months later Edwards moved in."

How did Bradley Edwards go from teen romance to accused serial killer?

One of the women closest to Bradley Edwards paints the most intimate portrait yet of the man accused of being the Claremont serial killer.

www.abc.net.au

The Sandhurst Run was (is?) a bikie riding event followed by a rock concert. I believe it is held in August each year, and it has been operating since at least 1987. See screenshots.

Now, this is EB’s evidence from the verdict about when they met:

226. EB met the accused between 1988 and 1989 when she was 18 or
19 years old. She met him through her then boyfriend, Chris Nixon, who
was working with the accused at Telstra. At the time she got to know the
accused she was living with Mr Nixon and another friend in Noranda and
the accused was living in Gay Street, Gosnells with his parents. She can
recall the timing of the start of her relationship with the accused because it
coincided with the end of her relationship with Mr Nixon. In mid-1989
EB and the accused got to know each other a lot better, decided they liked
each other and the accused moved in with EB sometime before his 21st birthday.

Edwards’ 21st birthday was 7 December 1989.

Coupled with what has been posted by girlnextdoor (quoted), do we take it that they met in August 1989 and got to know each other quickly and he moved in prior to December or do we take it that they met in August 1988, got to know each other over 9 months and he moved in around mid 1989? I favour the latter.

For additional reference, the attack on Wendy Davis was 7 May 1990, and there is the possibility that Edwards was under pressure to get married at that point. If they’d met in August 1989, would marriage have been being discussed in April 1990?

 

[ms finch]

The Sandhurst Run was (is?) a bikie riding event followed by a rock concert. I believe it is held in August each year, and it has been operating since at least 1987. See screenshots.

Now, this is EB’s evidence from the verdict about when they met:



Edwards’ 21st birthday was 7 December 1989.

Coupled with what has been posted by girlnextdoor (quoted), do we take it that they met in August 1989 and got to know each other quickly and he moved in prior to December or do we take it that they met in August 1988, got to know each other over 9 months and he moved in around mid 1989? I favour the latter.

For additional reference, the attack on Wendy Davis was 7 May 1990, and there is the possibility that Edwards was under pressure to get married at that point. If they’d met in August 1989, would marriage have been being discussed in April 1990?

So just adding to this, and apologies to anyone who saw it before I edited it with more information.

Here is Kurve’s post regarding Edwards’ prowling activities in 1988.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...updates-pt3-the-verdict.1248394/post-67487565

So if he met EB in August 1988 and she broke up with her boyfriend immediately and they started seeing each other, he was still prowling after that. Not inconsistent with the fact that he has done things while in other relationships. He was seeing KM and all was apparently fine, if casual, when he murdered Ciara. He was still living at Gay St at that point in 1988.

Still doesn’t account for the gap from February, although we could maybe say that he was in Perth and seeing someone from August, which may explain lesser activities from that point on.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

The Sandhurst Run was (is?) a bikie riding event followed by a rock concert. I believe it is held in August each year, and it has been operating since at least 1987. See screenshots.

G'day Ms Finch. Thanks for the screenshots. I don't understand the one with the TV program, is there a reference there I'm not seeing?

I did find this about The Jets band that played there in 1986, so that could narrow down the year, BRE and EB's romance started?

"Late in 1986, JETS released the first fruits of their studio work: the album, "JETS - ROCK CLASSICS"
JETS also played The Sandhurst Run at Carnarvon, some 900km north of Perth. This show attracted mainly bikers from the north of the state and Perth as a winter run. JETS headlined every Sandhurst show."

PS Just read your edited post. Then if Jets played there every year from 86 it could have been that year or any after that. They were hugely popular. Was it an early 21st gift from bro T or Ma and Pa in 1989?

Jets - Western Australia's Most Powerful and Dynamic Rock and Roll Band

www.jetsband.com.au

 

[ms finch]

G'day Ms Finch. Thanks for the screenshots. I don't understand the one with the TV program, is there a reference there I'm not seeing?

I did find this about The Jets band that played there in 1986, so that could narrow down the year, BRE and EB's romance started?

"Late in 1986, JETS released the first fruits of their studio work: the album, "JETS - ROCK CLASSICS"
JETS also played The Sandhurst Run at Carnarvon, some 900km north of Perth. This show attracted mainly bikers from the north of the state and Perth as a winter run. JETS headlined every Sandhurst show."

PS Just read your edited post. Then if Jets played there every year from 86 it could have been that year or any after that. They were hugely popular. Was it an early 21st gift from bro T in 1989?

Jets - Western Australia's Most Powerful and Dynamic Rock and Roll Band

www.jetsband.com.au

In the TV Guide one - random, I know - the show Tit for Tat, in one of the expanded descriptions up the top, was about the Sandhurst Run. That was from 1997, but it talks about it being a bikie event.

According to the evidence Edwards and EB met in 1988 or 1989. I was hoping to find something that potentially eliminated one of those years of the Sandhurst Run (eg that it was every two years or cancelled) but I haven’t seen anything, which leaves both 1988 and 1989 open. I don’t think it was before that. My best guess is that it was 1988 based on the evidence; 1989 doesn’t quite fit with the timeframes and comments.

I was just looking at The Jets stuff as well, and I think it answers the question as to why they would have been there when it was predominantly a biker event, especially at that point.

Thanks for the post about the Sandhurst Run. It was really helpful! Anyone killed in Carnarvon in August 1988 or 1989?

 

[ms finch]

Questions and some of my answers and further questions from the below CSK trial verdict 619 page document p104-105 John Travis – evidence summary
1. Did John Travis appear at the trial for cross examination?
Yes on 6 Dec 2019.

Claremont killer trial LIVE: Bradley Edwards faces woman he attacked in 1988 and Jane Rimmer's brother

Accused man Bradley Edwards has faced the woman he admitted to attacking inside her Huntingdale home in 1988, who spoke of how he pinned her down and stuffed cloth in her mouth as she slept. Jane Rimmer's brother, Adam, has also taken the stand to give evidence.

www.watoday.com.au

"The next witness to be called is John Travis. The 66-year-old"
"He is now talking about the pager number he had written down at the time for Mr Edwards, which was 137."
"Mr Yovich is now cross-examining Mr Travis."
"He is being asked now if he has an individual memory for the day he worked with Mr Edwards at Dumas House, he has said no and that he is relying on his diary entries, which he wrote down to lodge employee timesheets, which was his responsibility."

Claremont serial killing trial - day 10

The West Australian continues its live blog of the Claremont serial killer trial

www.24liveblog.com

"I trust my notes 100 per cent."
"The court was shown a copy of what Mr Travis said was the start communication pager list which contained the contact details of all the technicians who were working that weekend."

2. Were any witness statements able to be obtained from John Berkelaar and Lindsay Hilton who Travis claims were the other 2 workers who his hand written diary had recorded working with both himself Cook and BRE at Dumas House on the Saturday 27 January 1996 at Dumas House?
Neither Berkelaar or Hilton were witnesses in the trial.

3. What did Telstra records have for Berkelaar, Hilton, Cook & Travis for overtime worked that Saturday at Dumas House and did WAPOL/Prosecution request these records from Telstra? No idea. Nothing in the verdict docs.
(We already know that Telstra pay records provided for that fortnight for BRE, showed he was paid no overtime for Dumas House Saturday work).

4. Why wasn't Travis called back as a witness after the Telstra witness testified that Telstra pay records provided for that fortnight for BRE, showed BRE was paid no overtime for Dumas House Saturday work? Asked back to provide a possible explanation as to why there was no record at Telstra of overtime being paid for BRE for that Dumas House Saturday work. It is unclear to me whether Telstra payslips provided as evidence showed that BRE worked that Saturday.

5. Did the Admission BRE made agreeing that he had worked at Dumas House that Saturday, represent the truth?
Or did the Prosecution just try to get BRE agree to this and succeed, on the off chance that he did not work at Dumas House that Saturday, in order to then try and come up with more evidence that he did not work there that day, or already having some evidence that he did not work there this Saturday that was not tabled during the trial, all of which was designed to cleverly then possibly bring into question what else BRE might be lying about in regards to Sarah Spiers?

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?returnUrl=%2feCourtsPortal%2fDecisions%2fSearch%3fsearchText%3dedwards%26jurisdiction%3dSC%26advanced%3dFalse&id=9582e4ba-91ec-4119-998b-269447363aed

"John Travis – evidence summary
315 John Travis worked for Telstra as a technician from 1982 to 2013. From late 1988 through to the early 2000s he worked in the Corporate Customer Division in facility management. This meant that he was allocated to look after the internal telephone systems of large corporate customers. He had responsibility for large projects and would resource personnel from the depot to assist him on these projects. This work was generally done over long‑weekends when there were no workers in the customer's premises

316 Mr Travis met the accused sometime after 1988, because they both worked out of the Leederville depot. On some occasions when Mr Travis needed to call for volunteers to assist on large projects the accused came to work with him. One of those projects was at Dumas House, West Perth.
The work was over the Saturday and Sunday of the Australia Day long‑weekend 1996. Mr Travis worked both days, but not all others who assisted him did.

317 Mr Travis said that there were five people who worked on this project – himself, the accused, Mr Cook, John Berkelaar and Lindsay Hilton. He could not recall the hours worked but had kept a hand‑written record in his diary. He is a meticulous record keeper. According to his records the four named people came to assist him with the job on Saturday, 27 January 1996. They all started work at 8.00 am, apart from Mr Cook, who started at 10.00 am.

318 Mr Travis recorded the start and finish times, the length of time each person worked and what floor of the building they worked on. He worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 3.30 pm, on the 8th floor 3.30 pm to 9.30 pm and then on the 7th floor from 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. Mr Berkelaar worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 10.30 am, on 8th floor from 10.30 am to 7.30 pm and then on the 7th floor from 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm. Mr Hilton worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am to 11.00 am and then on the 8th floor from 11.00 am to 8.00 pm. Mr Cook did not work on the 9th floor; he commenced on the 8th floor at 10.00 am and worked on that floor for 7 hours and 45 minutes (the end time is not recorded). Mr Cook would have finished work at 6.15 or 6.45 pm (depending on whether he took one or two meal breaks). The accused worked on the 9th floor from 8.00 am until 10.30 am and on the 8th floor from 10.30 am to 9.45 pm. Allowing for meal breaks, the accused worked a total of 12 hours 45 minutes on 27 January 1996. On the following day, Sunday 28 January 1996, only Mr Travis and Mr Hilton worked at Dumas House.

319 Mr Travis could not recall what car the accused arrived in on 27 January 1996 or what type of car he drove at that time. He did not see the accused arrive but said that those starting at 8.00 am would have gathered outside and would have entered the building together as he had the keys.

320 It was put to Mr Travis in cross‑examination that Mr Cook had given evidence that he started at 8.00 am and finished at 4.00 pm, an eight hour period. Mr Travis disagreed with those times and said that Mr Cook may have been confused with another job that he did at Dumas House, because Mr Cooke was a regular that came to assist him. He maintained that his diary is 100% accurate, and that Mr Cook must be mistaken.

321 Mr Travis said that if his vehicle had to go in for a service he could arrange to take a pool fleet vehicle. There was a register to fill in when an employee took a pool fleet vehicle. There was a person in charge of pool vehicles and that person had the key to the box in which the vehicle keys were kept."

BBM

Can’t help answer your other queries, but can assist with some info on point 5.

If Edwards working on the Saturday was an agreed fact, the prosecution can’t then introduce evidence to counter it. They would also have had to turn over any evidence they had in relation to this prior to trial, so the defence would have been aware of it prior to agreeing to any admissions.

If something popped up at a later date there would have to be applications made to the court about its inclusion, which would have encompassed arguments about it contradicting any admissions that were agreed upon. It may not have been admitted or, if it was, it may have have resulted in allowing amendments to the agreed admissions.

This may explain why evidence from others who worked that day wasn’t presented. If they had no recollection of a car, the only thing they could establish is that Edwards worked, which is already known.

This is not to say that it is the truth. All it means is that it is the case for the purposes of evidence.

 

[BFew]

If Edwards working on the Saturday was an agreed fact, the prosecution can’t then introduce evidence to counter it.

What about in a seperate and later new trial of BRE, from additional evidence that comes to light at a later date and that results in a new trial of BRE (not a re-trial) for SS?

 

[BonzaRam]

Something I came across while looking for something else in the judgement:



It’s possible that DF was still living with Edwards the night Sarah was killed. I don’t think that’s impossible given the odd relationship that seemed to be going on there, and the fact that apparently Edwards begging DF not to leave moreso than EB. That to me makes it highly unlikely that Edwards ever hung on to Sarah’s body or had her at the house. He disposed of her that night.

You nailed it...DF gave February 1996 as the date he left the house with gas connection records to back it up so he was definitely there when SS disappeared.

" DF said in examination-in-chief that a couple of weeks later he moved to a house in Monterey Crescent, Warnbro. He was asked in cross-examination about the amount of time he stayed living at the Huntingdale house after the incident. He was shown his statement and confirmed that he had stated 'I decided to stay, but I only stayed for about a month before I moved out in February 1996 to my own place in Warnbro'. He was told that gas records for Monterey Crescent show that an account was set up on 16 February 1996. He agreed that about a month after the kissing incident he moved out of Huntingdale. "

 

[ms finch]

What about in a seperate and later new trial of BRE, from additional evidence that comes to light at a later date and that results in a new trial of BRE (not a re-trial) for SS?

Possibly yes, depending on the circumstances.

There would be a discussion about evidence from the prior trial and submissions would be made by prosecution and defence. The outcome of that is anyone’s guess - they might include the whole of the transcript, some of it or none of it.

There would also potentially be a new set of admissions, which may or may not be consistent with prior admissions. As odd as it sounds there could be different agreed facts that actually conflict with the prior ones, a result of new evidence.

To have another go at Edwards regarding Sarah, an application would have to be made that the circumstances were outside the scope of double jeopardy as per the relevant legislation. I have not read this legislation specifically, but it is usually substantial new evidence unavailable at the time.

Evidence that Edwards did not work that day on its own is unlikely to be enough. Indeed, if a person came forward suddenly and said, “I saw Bradley Edwards dragging a body that night down the street in Madora Bay”, that alone may not be enough (it may be - the arguments there would be fascinating). However, if, say the body was found and it had evidence that linked it to Edwards that would probably be enough. The body on its own may not be enough, unless it was found buried in Fountain Way or something like that.

Then subsequently, if another trial was agreed, discussions would begin about other evidence, especially that which may differ from the other trial. So at that point if there was information Edwards did not actually work on Saturday 27 January, it would form part of discussions.

 

[ms finch]

You nailed it...DF gave February 1996 as the date he left the house with gas connection records to back it up so he was definitely there when SS disappeared.

" DF said in examination-in-chief that a couple of weeks later he moved to a house in Monterey Crescent, Warnbro. He was asked in cross-examination about the amount of time he stayed living at the Huntingdale house after the incident. He was shown his statement and confirmed that he had stated 'I decided to stay, but I only stayed for about a month before I moved out in February 1996 to my own place in Warnbro'. He was told that gas records for Monterey Crescent show that an account was set up on 16 February 1996. He agreed that about a month after the kissing incident he moved out of Huntingdale. "

Yes, that’s what I came across. I tempered my assessment due to Hall’s finding that it was unlikely DF was there, although he didn’t rule it out; he appeared to be covering all bases there so as to ensure his judgement was safe. It is extremely odd that DF would remain after EB, but those three had such a weird relationship I think it is possible. The utility statement and details from EB and DF about timing definitely add up to him still being at Fountain Way.

That’s why I think Edwards headed south towards the Madora Bay house, dumped the body on the way, cleaned himself up and came back to Perth. Initially I thought he would have cleaned the car as well. However, upon finding vision of Madora Bay subsequently, I think even cleaning the car is extremely unlikely.

The Madora Bay house has a completely open grass front to the street with no garage or way of entering the house without being in the open. This was from the search in 2016, but from the layout in the vision and given people are more likely to add this than take it away, I doubt there was anything in 1996. I genuinely can’t see him lugging the body across the front lawn, which supports my premise that he dumped it on the way (which I held for other reasons). I also can’t see him cleaning the car in the open in full view of the street and neighbours.

Given the time frame of when he needed to be back in Perth, I doubt the body is anywhere but South. Sure he had time, but the further away from Madora Bay he travelled initially the harder he was making it for himself. But particularly, I do not think he would have gone anywhere near Fountain Bay with any evidence at that point.

 

[BFew]

Interesting wording - "On some occasions when Mr Travis needed to call for volunteers"
Paid work, or helping out for free? More of a favour, to be repaid later? Could be why there was no record of getting paid?

I'd be confident that it would be volunteers for paid weekend work. Probably at overtime rates.
Signifying that they might not be able to force their permanent staff to do this weekend work. Leaving Telstra to have to look at external contractors or flying in Telstra or contractor expertise from other States to assist do the work if it was urgent enough.

 

[ms finch]

Possibly yes, depending on the circumstances.

There would be a discussion about evidence from the prior trial and submissions would be made by prosecution and defence. The outcome of that is anyone’s guess - they might include the whole of the transcript, some of it or none of it.

There would also potentially be a new set of admissions, which may or may not be consistent with prior admissions. As odd as it sounds there could be different agreed facts that actually conflict with the prior ones, a result of new evidence.

To have another go at Edwards regarding Sarah, an application would have to be made that the circumstances were outside the scope of double jeopardy as per the relevant legislation. I have not read this legislation specifically, but it is usually substantial new evidence unavailable at the time.

Evidence that Edwards did not work that day on its own is unlikely to be enough. Indeed, if a person came forward suddenly and said, “I saw Bradley Edwards dragging a body that night down the street in Madora Bay”, that alone may not be enough (it may be - the arguments there would be fascinating). However, if, say the body was found and it had evidence that linked it to Edwards that would probably be enough. The body on its own may not be enough, unless it was found buried in Fountain Way or something like that.

Then subsequently, if another trial was agreed, discussions would begin about other evidence, especially that which may differ from the other trial. So at that point if there was information Edwards did not actually work on Saturday 27 January, it would form part of discussions.

Incidentally, I do not think the best way of linking Edwards to Sarah is by finding the body. Unless the body has forensic evidence on it - highly doubtful after this long; highly doubtful they will find anything other than a few remains even - or is found somewhere that links directly to Edwards such as a house he frequented or where Jane was, it doesn’t help establish any sort of further case against him.

The trophies to me are a better chance. Less potential degradation, more likely to have been handled more recently, more likely to be in a place that links to him or that he had clear access to on a consistent basis. But most significantly, there is a chance that the trophies will be something from all the victims, which creates a direct link between Jane and Ciara (about which he has been found guilty) and Sarah.

If there is anything else anyone can think of that could link Sarah’s death to anything to do with Jane’s and Ciara’s, that is the way to go in my view.

 

[BFew]

When people work overtime they usually jump up and down until it gets paid. Could the overtime have been paid the following week?

Very glad you asked this question as it had me looking back to the live blog for any more info on the payslip info I'd recently read a few times in the lengthy verdict document.

The overtime (all hours of work done that Saturday 27 Jan 1996 at Dumas house) could have been paid in subsequent fortnightly pay periods.
From the live blog quotes below, it appears that Telstra payslips back then did specify the actual dates that weekend work was done on, that was paid as overtime, either in the pay period that the weekend//overtime work was done, or in subsequent pay periods, depending on how long it took to get the overtime work on, approved, processed and paid thru Telstra processes and systems.

All of which highlights that there might have been other weekends, public holidays, rostered days off, or early mornings, evenings and nights that he also worked that will not show up on payslips with the actual dates that the work was done on.

The 619 page CSK trial verdict document says the following 2 fortnightly periods BRE payslips and "summary reports" were included in the evidence at trial and that some of these payslips showed allowances and overtime was paid.

'435 Various payslips and summary reports for the accused were produced, including for the periods ending 7 February 1996, 21 February 1996, 6 March 1996, 12 June 1996, 26 June 1996, 19 March 1997 and 2 April 1997. There are a number of entries on these slips for allowances and overtime, but not with the date 27 January 1996. These slips show that the accused was working in the fortnightly pay periods in which each of the offences are alleged to have occurred'

Claremont serial killer trial live blog - day 8

The West Australian is back live blogging the trial of the alleged Claremont serial killer Bradley Robert Edwards

www.24liveblog.com

'Mr Yovich is cross-examining Mr Vomero about the overtime found on Mr Edwards' payslips.
When asked by Mr Yovich if it was true to say that the dates recorded on the payslips don't actually represent the day the person actually worked the overtime, he said he could not answer yes or no.
Mr Yovich asked if staff could claim for overtime worked on more than one day, Mr Vomero said yes.
But when asked if it was possible the total amount shown to the court from a particular payslip for 10 hours if that could be made up of multiple days, Mr Vomero could not answer.
"I couldn't confirm if it was worked on multiple days or not," he said.
Mr Vomero also didn't agree with Mr Yovich's suggestion that the way overtime was recorded meant it could be explained by a number of different ways.'

Claremont killer trial LIVE: 'She looked like she was waiting for someone': Witness on night Sarah vanished

Day 8 of the trial of accused Claremont serial killer Bradley Edwards is expected to hear further evidence from women who the state claims received lifts from a man in a Telstra vehicle around the same period as when Sarah Spiers, Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon went missing.

www.watoday.com.au

'Telstra payroll manager detailing Mr Edwards' employment history
Mr Vomero is now being shown a Telstra directory from 1994 which includes Mr Edwards' name, the corporate and government division he was a part of, and his phone number.
Mr Vomero said at the time Mr Edwards would have been based in Herdsman, according to the phone number associated with his name.
Mr Vomero is now being asked what divisions Mr Edwards worked in between 1995 and 1998.
"They were all organisational units that he was a part of ... It was the corporate international enterprise and business [division]," he said.
According to Mr Edwards' pay slips, he worked a nine-day fortnight during that time period.
A report extracted from the payroll system which details Mr Edwards' allowances and overtime during the period is now on the court screens.'

'Mr Edwards worked overtime before abducting, raping teen that same night
Mr Vomero is now referring to pay slips between February and June 1995 where Mr Edwards was given a 'filled cable allowance'.
This time period covers the time Mr Edwards abducted and raped a 17-year-old girl a Karrakatta cemetery on February 12, 1995 in the early hours of the morning as she walked alone in Claremont after a night out with friends at Club Bayview.
On February 11, 1995, Mr Edwards was paid for two lots of overtime.
He did not claim overtime again until February 16, 1995.'

'Payslips fail to provide insight into days three women vanished
The day before Sarah Spiers was last seen, Mr Edwards received a 'filled cable' allowance.
There are no allowance entries for the 26th or 27th, although prosecutors allege he reported for work at Dumas House six hours after Ms Spiers was last seen at 2am on January 27, 1996.
On March 29, 1997 - two weeks after Ciara Glennon vanished - Mr Edwards had 'holiday duty' and 'recall to duty' entries on his pay slip.'

 

[Girlnextdoor]

How lucky again for BRE, The Spent Convictions Act came in 1988 and was of course used when he attacked poor Wendy in 1990.

FAQ

Landing page for WA Police Frequently Asked Questions.

edit.police.wa.gov.au

 

[zedx]

Very glad you asked this question as it had me looking back to the live blog for any more info on the payslip info I'd recently read a few times in the lengthy verdict document.

The overtime (all hours of work done that Saturday 27 Jan 1996 at Dumas house) could have been paid in subsequent fortnightly pay periods.
From the live blog quotes below, it appears that Telstra payslips back then did specify the actual dates that weekend work was done on, that was paid as overtime, either in the pay period that the weekend//overtime work was done, or in subsequent pay periods, depending on how long it took to get the overtime work on, approved, processed and paid thru Telstra processes and systems.

All of which highlights that there might have been other weekends, public holidays, rostered days off, or early mornings, evenings and nights that he also worked that will not show up on payslips with the actual dates that the work was done on.

The 619 page CSK trial verdict document says the following 2 fortnightly periods BRE payslips and "summary reports" were included in the evidence at trial and that some of these payslips showed allowances and overtime was paid.

'435 Various payslips and summary reports for the accused were produced, including for the periods ending 7 February 1996, 21 February 1996, 6 March 1996, 12 June 1996, 26 June 1996, 19 March 1997 and 2 April 1997. There are a number of entries on these slips for allowances and overtime, but not with the date 27 January 1996. These slips show that the accused was working in the fortnightly pay periods in which each of the offences are alleged to have occurred'

Claremont serial killer trial live blog - day 8

The West Australian is back live blogging the trial of the alleged Claremont serial killer Bradley Robert Edwards

www.24liveblog.com

'Mr Yovich is cross-examining Mr Vomero about the overtime found on Mr Edwards' payslips.
When asked by Mr Yovich if it was true to say that the dates recorded on the payslips don't actually represent the day the person actually worked the overtime, he said he could not answer yes or no.
Mr Yovich asked if staff could claim for overtime worked on more than one day, Mr Vomero said yes.
But when asked if it was possible the total amount shown to the court from a particular payslip for 10 hours if that could be made up of multiple days, Mr Vomero could not answer.
"I couldn't confirm if it was worked on multiple days or not," he said.
Mr Vomero also didn't agree with Mr Yovich's suggestion that the way overtime was recorded meant it could be explained by a number of different ways.'

Claremont killer trial LIVE: 'She looked like she was waiting for someone': Witness on night Sarah vanished

Day 8 of the trial of accused Claremont serial killer Bradley Edwards is expected to hear further evidence from women who the state claims received lifts from a man in a Telstra vehicle around the same period as when Sarah Spiers, Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon went missing.

www.watoday.com.au

'Telstra payroll manager detailing Mr Edwards' employment history
Mr Vomero is now being shown a Telstra directory from 1994 which includes Mr Edwards' name, the corporate and government division he was a part of, and his phone number.
Mr Vomero said at the time Mr Edwards would have been based in Herdsman, according to the phone number associated with his name.
Mr Vomero is now being asked what divisions Mr Edwards worked in between 1995 and 1998.
"They were all organisational units that he was a part of ... It was the corporate international enterprise and business [division]," he said.
According to Mr Edwards' pay slips, he worked a nine-day fortnight during that time period.
A report extracted from the payroll system which details Mr Edwards' allowances and overtime during the period is now on the court screens.'

'Mr Edwards worked overtime before abducting, raping teen that same night
Mr Vomero is now referring to pay slips between February and June 1995 where Mr Edwards was given a 'filled cable allowance'.
This time period covers the time Mr Edwards abducted and raped a 17-year-old girl a Karrakatta cemetery on February 12, 1995 in the early hours of the morning as she walked alone in Claremont after a night out with friends at Club Bayview.
On February 11, 1995, Mr Edwards was paid for two lots of overtime.
He did not claim overtime again until February 16, 1995.'

'Payslips fail to provide insight into days three women vanished
The day before Sarah Spiers was last seen, Mr Edwards received a 'filled cable' allowance.
There are no allowance entries for the 26th or 27th, although prosecutors allege he reported for work at Dumas House six hours after Ms Spiers was last seen at 2am on January 27, 1996.
On March 29, 1997 - two weeks after Ciara Glennon vanished - Mr Edwards had 'holiday duty' and 'recall to duty' entries on his pay slip.'

At my last place of employment, you were employed to work x days a fortnight and which included week days/nights and weekends depending on what was happening within the program, these days changed all the time. Every Friday we would work out which days/nights we needed to work the following week. None of the times we worked within our x amount of required days was paid at a higher rate, not weekends and not even nights. All time spent beyond these 8 hour slots was added up until we gained 8 hours of over time which would then allow us to have a day off instead of being paid for over time. From an outsiders view this could be very confusing trying to track where and when we were working and it was never followed up by HR as long as the job was done.

 

[ms finch]

How lucky again for BRE, The Spent Convictions Act came in 1988 and was of course used when he attacked poor Wendy in 1990.

FAQ

Landing page for WA Police Frequently Asked Questions.

edit.police.wa.gov.au

Do you mean it was applicable to prior offenses when he was looked at for the one against Wendy or do you mean that Wendy’s one may have been a spent conviction when looking at later crimes?

Usual spent conviction timeframe is 10 years (plus any imprisonment term). Edwards was 21 when he attacked Wendy. Anything over 3.5 or 4.5 years (depending on whether they take it as 17 or 18) and he was a juvenile offender anyway, which is a totally different category. The subsequent attacks 95-97 fell within the 10 year period so the attack on Wendy would not have been a spent conviction at that point.

Having said that, police will still have access to that information in perpetuity, and the legal system will also have access to it. So they can see history, even when it is not relevant to things such as job applications or cannot be technically taken into account.

Something I have been meaning to bring up, so I’m glad this prompted me, does anyone know if Edwards’ attack on Wendy was recorded as “no conviction”. This is not uncommon with young offenders charged with minor offences (which this was classed at even though I don’t agree with that), if judges accept the argument that the detrimental impact on their life and inability to get on with the lives may prove problematic. I was going to do some research but wondered if anyone knew?

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Do you mean it was applicable to prior offenses when he was looked at for the one against Wendy or do you mean that Wendy’s one may have been a spent conviction when looking at later crimes?

Usual spent conviction timeframe is 10 years (plus any imprisonment term). Edwards was 21 when he attacked Wendy. Anything over 3.5 or 4.5 years (depending on whether they take it as 17 or 18) and he was a juvenile offender anyway, which is a totally different category. The subsequent attacks 95-97 fell within the 10 year period so the attack on Wendy would not have been a spent conviction at that point.

Having said that, police will still have access to that information in perpetuity, and the legal system will also have access to it. So they can see history, even when it is not relevant to things such as job applications or cannot be technically taken into account.

Something I have been meaning to bring up, so I’m glad this prompted me, does anyone know if Edwards’ attack on Wendy was recorded as “no conviction”. This is not uncommon with young offenders charged with minor offences (which this was classed at even though I don’t agree with that), if judges accept the argument that the detrimental impact on their life and inability to get on with the lives may prove problematic. I was going to do some research but wondered if anyone knew?

I meant Wendy's conviction was Spent because this law was available from 1988. I had no idea how long Spent Convictions were around and hadn't even heard about them till a friend's weirdo neighbour was granted one three years ago. He having come onto her property in his underpants at 3am with a hammer several times that night and smashed her Security cameras Cops told her to install! Incidentally he continues to this day to terrorize her (she being 78 and 5ft tall, he 50 and 6ft!) Let's hear it folks for Spent Convictions!!

 

[BonzaRam]

Incidentally, I do not think the best way of linking Edwards to Sarah is by finding the body. Unless the body has forensic evidence on it - highly doubtful after this long; highly doubtful they will find anything other than a few remains even - or is found somewhere that links directly to Edwards such as a house he frequented or where Jane was, it doesn’t help establish any sort of further case against him.

The trophies to me are a better chance. Less potential degradation, more likely to have been handled more recently, more likely to be in a place that links to him or that he had clear access to on a consistent basis. But most significantly, there is a chance that the trophies will be something from all the victims, which creates a direct link between Jane and Ciara (about which he has been found guilty) and Sarah.

If there is anything else anyone can think of that could link Sarah’s death to anything to do with Jane’s and Ciara’s, that is the way to go in my view.

I think you're right about the trophies...
Any fibre evidence that may survive after all this time (if clothing is found with her) would be almost useless because he had the camry when she disappeared and that camry has never been located. At best they could say it came from a camry.
They may be able find skeletal damage that mimics the cutting on JR and CG but would that be enough?
Hair decomposes at a very slow rate, it varies depending on environment but hey scientists have found hair on 100 year old remains, whether that could have fibres in it still i don't know.
The only other thing i can think of at the moment is if BRE accidentally dropped or left something near the remains that can be shown to have belonged to him.

The finding of the body is, at least, to give closure to the Spiers.

 

[BonzaRam]

Do you mean it was applicable to prior offenses when he was looked at for the one against Wendy or do you mean that Wendy’s one may have been a spent conviction when looking at later crimes?

Usual spent conviction timeframe is 10 years (plus any imprisonment term). Edwards was 21 when he attacked Wendy. Anything over 3.5 or 4.5 years (depending on whether they take it as 17 or 18) and he was a juvenile offender anyway, which is a totally different category. The subsequent attacks 95-97 fell within the 10 year period so the attack on Wendy would not have been a spent conviction at that point.

Having said that, police will still have access to that information in perpetuity, and the legal system will also have access to it. So they can see history, even when it is not relevant to things such as job applications or cannot be technically taken into account.

Something I have been meaning to bring up, so I’m glad this prompted me, does anyone know if Edwards’ attack on Wendy was recorded as “no conviction”. This is not uncommon with young offenders charged with minor offences (which this was classed at even though I don’t agree with that), if judges accept the argument that the detrimental impact on their life and inability to get on with the lives may prove problematic. I was going to do some research but wondered if anyone knew?

We debated the spent conviction possibility a while back on here. A conviction can be classed as spent at sentencing on assault charges. We were debating if that could be why Telstra never heard about the HH attack (and had no record of it) because if it was spent it doesn't have to be disclosed. It most definitely was a recorded conviction, even if it was spent it would still be in police records, just not shown on Police Clearances or available to the public.

Does a Spent Conviction Order affect my sentence?
You will not get a better or worse penalty if the court also makes a Spent Conviction Order.
Having a Spent Conviction Order made during sentencing does not affect your sentence or any related orders, such as:

• having to pay court fines or costs or orders for compensation
• complying with a community based order
• your driver’s licence being disqualified or cancelled, or
• becoming a reportable offender (for offences such as sexual offences).
  
  

  Spent Conviction Orders in sentencing | Legal Aid WA

  www.legalaid.wa.gov.au

 

[Likeamystery]

I'd be confident that it would be volunteers for paid weekend work. Probably at overtime rates.
Signifying that they might not be able to force their permanent staff to do this weekend work. Leaving Telstra to have to look at external contractors or flying in Telstra or contractor expertise from other States to assist do the work if it was urgent enough.

It would seem BRE had an extremely good work ethic, and was highly regarded in Telstra’s eyes. He was probably known to be punctual, reliable and trustworthy too. BRE probably came to work, come rain, hail or shine, as well as after an abduction, rapes and murders – he was probably fully reliable according to Telstra!

Maybe BRE and a few others were on a voluntary work list. Probably doing ad-hoc work for a contractor, who paid them separately. They probably received cash in hand, but the witnesses never mentioned it.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

It would seem BRE had an extremely good work ethic, and was highly regarded in Telstra’s eyes. He was probably known to be punctual, reliable and trustworthy too. BRE probably came to work, come rain, hail or shine, as well as after an abduction, rapes and murders – he was probably fully reliable according to Telstra!

Maybe BRE and a few others were on a voluntary work list. Probably doing ad-hoc work for a contractor, who paid them separately. They probably received cash in hand, but the witnesses never mentioned it.

"BRE probably came to work, come rain, hail or shine, as well as after an abduction, rapes and murders – he was probably fully reliable according to Telstra!"

I think you're right LAM about rarely missing work. He had Dad watching on too, and everyone knew that, so he'd want to "appear" super trustworthy and reliable (oh except when he was attacking a customer, abducting, raping and killing someone in a company vehicle!)

It's always amazed me that nobody who worked with BRE regularly, noticed scratches or even bruises on him? I know he maybe wore long sleeves, but even so??