Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt2

[Kurve]

Here is Claremont Murders - Part One
- Media
- The Bunker
- Hey Bret ...? Unexplained trial mysteries & CSK Supreme Court cliffhangers

 

[GreyCrow]

I've watched several documentaries regarding the dissection/meanings of sentences and words of criminals etc, by crime Profilers and after watching this video picked up two very interesting answers BRE gave during his Police interview.
1. When Police asked if he had anything that belonged to Ciara, Jane or Sarah in his house he answered " There would be nothing in here." Which i feel Profilers would interpret as "I have nothing in here...but I do have something of theirs somewhere else." He didn't give a straight out denial that he didn't have anything, just that it wasn't in his house.
2. Also from the same Police interview he said, "I'm being as honest as I can with you guys." Again I feel Profilers would have interpreted this as
"I'm being as honest as I can with you guys....with out giving my guilt away." Usually a person would say 'Yes I'm being honest!.', why would you add the words 'as I can.' ? Which could be interpreted as your not telling everything.

Thats a 100% spot on interpretation

1. a little wiggle room but the use of there would instead of there is - is telling

2. ' i am telling you the truth - thats the truth '' or variations -

 

[MightyFreo]

I've watched several documentaries regarding the dissection/meanings of sentences and words of criminals etc, by crime Profilers and after watching this video picked up two very interesting answers BRE gave during his Police interview.
1. When Police asked if he had anything that belonged to Ciara, Jane or Sarah in his house he answered " There would be nothing in here." Which i feel Profilers would interpret as "I have nothing in here...but I do have something of theirs somewhere else." He didn't give a straight out denial that he didn't have anything, just that it wasn't in his house.
2. Also from the same Police interview he said, "I'm being as honest as I can with you guys." Again I feel Profilers would have interpreted this as
"I'm being as honest as I can with you guys....with out giving my guilt away." Usually a person would say 'Yes I'm being honest!.', why would you add the words 'as I can.' ? Which could be interpreted as your not telling everything.

Did he also say something like "I didn't expect to be here" at one stage during the interview
I thought I heard that but then couldn't find it while trawling thru again

 

[Kurve]

Did he also say something like "I didn't expect to be here" at one stage during the interview
I thought I heard that but then couldn't find it while trawling thru again

I think he might have said something like that when the police asked if he'd been advised he could call a lawyer. 'I didnt expect to be here, I dont have a lawyer on speed dial' or similar.

 

[Likeamystery]

I think he might have said something like that when the police asked if he'd been advised he could call a lawyer. 'I didnt expect to be here, I dont have a lawyer on speed dial' or similar.

When you think about it, he would have known Macro/Special Crimes had some of his DNA. Surly he's not arrogant enough to think he'd never need a lawyer. I would have thought he'd done some sort of research, not everyone is entitled to Legal Aid.

Thinking about the money needed for a lawyer, my guess is funds may have been used against the house. I'm not sure how that will pan out though.

Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper's house was used as assurance for the trial and now his ex-wife is unable to sell it.

Yorkshire Ripper's ex-wife still lives in house she shared with serial killer

The ex-wife of the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe continues to live in the house she shared with the serial killer and only stopped visiting him two years ago

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Rockman928]

As someone who has also read a lot of material on deception in statements, let's not forget the 'obviously the response is that I'm innocent'.

What is obvious? The detectives don't know that's obvious. He is telling them his response. His words would indicate that he's thinking 'in order to avoid jail, I'm obviously going to deny guilt' rather than just denying it straight up as an innocent person would.

Additionally, another telling point was when he was pressed about driving around late at night in Claremont. He took an eternity to answer the question. Clearly, he was carefully considering how to answer the question which made it obvious that he was being deceptive. He may have wondered if denying it would come back to bite him on the ass since driving around late at night in Claremont is not a crime in itself. Then, when he is pressed about having driven around late at night in Claremont back then, he got flustered and said 'I don't go to Claremont' - a typical sign of deception as he has avoided the question (that being, the question was not 'do you go to Claremont?')

I also felt he deliberately tried to obfuscate the dates surrounding when his first marriage ended. If my memory serves me correctly, he said late 1997. To me it seemed like he was trying to place it well after Ciara's disappearance. Incidentally, I find it interesting that he couldn't remember if his first wife took his surname. I'd have thought that'd be something you would remember, even if he did get married young. I guess he was under the pump, but still.

Also, I felt his voice got weak and a bit emotive when he denied recognising the photo of Ciara Glennon. He'd admitted knowing about the Claremont case, so he should've just admitted that he knew who it was. Funny how in denying it, he came across as more guilty. I feel like it possibly came right back to him at that point that the last time he saw her in person was when he was killing her and it became more 'real' at that point.

I found his constant stonewalling of the detectives when they were attempting to confirm his understanding of his rights extremely annoying. I guess it was just stall tactics. Good on the other detective for his assertive interjection (not denigrating Marapodi as he was doing what he had to do to keep Edwards talking, but it was nice to hear that bit).

 

[Sepai]

Did he also say something like "I didn't expect to be here" at one stage during the interview
I thought I heard that but then couldn't find it while trawling thru again

When Bre removed the Hood from the Karrakatta victim is was to be the end for her. The Prosecution agreed. As I mentioned in a previous post that Security must have disturbed him. That shows his intentions. The DNA and fibre evidence buries him. My son has seen BRE in person. The MM at the Conte is BRE. Staying away from that saves the Police some blushes. They chased the wrong man for a decade. That footage should never have been held back at the time. That person was never identified. BRE is a sexual predator. He lives on the edge. He enters a room in Huntingdale. The victims parents are in the next room. He tried to drag a lady into the toilets at HH. He grabbed her from her desk. He was well organised when he abducted the Karnataka victim. That's why I believe he met JR at the Conte. The smile on her face when the MM turned up was telling. He graduates from a cross dressing peeping Tom. Maybe the number one suspect the Police found made him stop. Maybe he changed his MO. The second wife hand copied his Bank Statements from January 1996 in 2014. What did she know? She hadn't met him in 1996. He reminds me of the accused in the first Prime Suspect TV Series. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. The Sadist appear after days of interrogation. For the sake of all the victims I hope he's found guilty and locked up for good.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

After reading this recent article from The Australian newspaper i thought some things were very telling.

Money was scarce in his childhood and a constant problem in both marriages. Even having to accept meals dropped off to them by parents, that's pretty humbling i would think? Claremont the "affluent" and "privileged" suburb, was this perhaps why he kept returning there to take what he maybe saw as "wealthy girls"? Deep seated hatred perhaps of always having to struggle for money all his life?

He would give cash money to first wife for mortgage payments but they "rarely made it to the bank" and he only discovered this after letters of arrears arrived? What was wife 1 doing with the cash, that is if this is the truth, who knows with BRE?

He had strong bond with his mother and stepdaughter, Dad doesn't get a mention. This seems to confirm what I've always thought that his mother was the "rescuer" for him constantly as she knew he was the "weak" one of her children. Could this explain his early cross-dressing, strong identification with his mother whom he felt "understood" him? Not an expert on this, just pondering.

BRE saying his 2nd wife was "a forceful lady". And yet he was still wearing his wedding ring when arrested?

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[GreyCrow]

He would give cash money to first wife for mortgage payments but they "rarely made it to the bank" and he only discovered this after letters of arrears arrived? What was wife 1 doing with the cash, that is if this is the truth, who knows with BRE?

Does this change the reasons for the bank withdrawals? Or was this after? The timeline is blurry this early

Just on the ''richies' reason. Possibly. Not knowing Perth I expect that the entertainment hubs may have played a part ie more drunk girls around

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Does this change the reasons for the bank withdrawals? Or was this after? The timeline is blurry this early

Just on the ''richies' reason. Possibly. Not knowing Perth I expect that the entertainment hubs may have played a part ie more drunk girls around

Yes agree more drunk girls, but in Perth, Claremont really is one of THE suburbs for wealth and prestige. Here's a bit about the suburb for you GC.

Claremont Suburb Profile | Property Market, House Prices and More - REIWA

Interested in buying, renting or investing in Claremont? View median house prices, growth rates, demographics, schools and more with our suburb profile.

reiwa.com.au

 

[BFew]

My son has seen BRE in person. The MM at the Conte is BRE.

Hopefully, in the not to near distant future, now that during the trial, photos of how BRE looked closer to 1996-97 have been made public,
people that clearly recall him around the Western Suburbs, will be free'er to come forward and recount what/where they believe they saw
of BRE, particularly on the night that Jane Rimmer disappeared.

Interesting that during the trial, no photos of how he actually looked (probably without a beard), during part or all of January 1996 - March 1997,
were produced for public evidence, or made available for the media to publish.

Hopefully photos from this critical period exist, from either drivers or other licences, Telstra related, family members, friends, or from his girlfriend(s) photo collections.

I would expect that the hopefully soon release of any new photos of a beard-less BRE from 1996-97 will result in confirmation of some of those who saw him and what he did, around that time, to come forwards with their BRE tales, knowing that they can be more certain that they are likely remembering the right person.

Remind me, were there any statements made during the trial by the prosecution, or any law enforcement witnesses at the trial saying that to this day, that they were yet to positively identity the "Mystery Man" interacting with Jane outside of the Continental Hotel CCTV on the night Jane Rimmer disappeared?

And if not, why on earth didn't the Defence (Yovich) raise any questions about the identity of this "Mystery Man" (assuming he didn't) to further raise doubt on who else might have been responsible for the disappearance and murder of Jane Rimmer.

Does Yovich possibly know something that we don't know about "Mystery Man?

Has there for some valid reason, been some agreed suppression between Prosecution and Defence and Justice Hall on the identity of this "Mystery Man"?

Or would there be anything that might likely be detrimental or risky for the Defence to have raised any questions about the identity of the "Mystery Man"?

Possibly because they know or suspect that BRE was actually the "Mystery Man", and the Prosecution in not raising it, and the Defence then electing not raising it has further confirmed in both the Prosecution's and Justice Hall's mind, that BRE was this "Mystery Man", and is even more likely to have been Jane's abductor and murderer?

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Hopefully, in the not to near distant future, now that during the trial, photos of how BRE looked closer to 1996-97 have been made public,
people that clearly recall him around the Western Suburbs, will be free'er to come forward and recount what/where they believe they saw
of BRE, particularly on the night that Jane Rimmer disappeared.

Interesting that during the trial, no photos of how he actually looked (probably without a beard), during part or all of January 1996 - March 1997,
were produced for public evidence, or made available for the media to publish.

Hopefully photos from this critical period exist, from either drivers or other licences, Telstra related, family members, friends, or from his girlfriend(s) photo collections.

I would expect that the hopefully soon release of any new photos of a beard-less BRE from 1996-97 will result in confirmation of some of those who saw him and what he did, around that time, to come forwards with their BRE tales, knowing that they can be more certain that they are likely remembering the right person.

Remind me, were there any statements made during the trial by the prosecution, or any law enforcement witnesses at the trial saying that to this day, that they were yet to positively identity the "Mystery Man" interacting with Jane outside of the Continental Hotel CCTV on the night Jane Rimmer disappeared?

And if not, why on earth didn't the Defence (Yovich) raise any questions about the identity of this "Mystery Man" (assuming he didn't) to further raise doubt on who else might have been responsible for the disappearance and murder of Jane Rimmer.

Does Yovich possibly know something that we don't know about "Mystery Man?

Has there for some valid reason, been some agreed suppression between Prosecution and Defence and Justice Hall on the identity of this "Mystery Man"?

Or would there be anything that might likely be detrimental or risky for the Defence to have raised any questions about the identity of the "Mystery Man"?

Possibly because they know or suspect that BRE was actually the "Mystery Man", and the Prosecution in not raising it, and the Defence then electing not raising it has further confirmed in both the Prosecution's and Justice Hall's mind, that BRE was this "Mystery Man", and is even more likely to have been Jane's abductor and murderer?

Great points LAM! I think this one is particularly interesting to consider..

"Has there for some valid reason, been some agreed suppression between Prosecution and Defence and Justice Hall on the identity of this "Mystery Man".

Makes you wonder again about a confession by BRE to Yovich as our Jezza has speculated? I think it's all about BRE being "seen" to have a completely fair trial. As there isn't a jury, maybe everyone is just going through the motions, Prosecution and Defence and Judge playing their parts? Hence Yovich's bravado early on fizzling out to a whimper?

 

[BFew]

Great points LAM!

Boyohboynextdoor, I'm very happy for LAM to to take credit for my post after her insiders disclosure this week in here

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Boyohboynextdoor, I'm very happy for LAM to to take credit for my post after her insiders disclosure this week in here

Whoops! Sorry BFew, wires (and eyes) crossed this mornin' ! Good post by the way!

 

[BFew]

With the defence reportedly disclosing this week in Court (someone needs to confirm on the Court audio recording exactly what was said), that on the afternoon of the evening that Jane Rimmer went missing, BRE was playing social competitive softball, and that BRE can't remember what he did after that, that day/night,
I think we can now be 100% certain that BRE did NOT made a legal admission to the Prosecution or Justice Hall, before or during the CSK trial,
that he was the Continental Hotel CCTV "Mystery Man" on the night Jane Rimmer went missing and is alleged to have been abducted and murdered.

 

[JezzaPerth]

My collection of key facts of the last day of the trial include this from the defence (and my occasional comment) :

Edit: Just to be clear 7,8 means charges over (7) Jane Rimmer, and (8) Ciara Glennon

• No presentation on DNA evidence (seemed to suggest it wasn't that important?)
• No Telstra logo in witness statements strongly suggests BRE not driver (and by implication not the murderer)
• Attack on KJG is not propensity as such (prior irrelevant arguments about differences in specific detail)
• Damage to vegetation at crime scene doesn't necessarily point to a tall man
• BRE had the opportunity for both CG and JR (that is times allowed it and there was no alibi?!)
• BRE didn't have the opportunity in SS due to the tight times and differences in specific detail (yeah right)
• There is reasonable doubt in both counts 7,8 (yeah bloody right)
• There is no smoking gun pointing to fibre contamination (!)
• No SS body doesn't mean the attack on her was intended to be fatal (defence have already admitted she is dead)
• Attacks on CG and JR were intended to be fatal, so charges 7,8 are wilful murder
• Disappearance from Clarement of CG and JR were similar so favouring the same killer (why not SS?)
• The closeness in time of CG and JR favour the same killer (why not SS?)
• The disposal locations are not different from many other murders, so not helpful
• The scenes of the bodies - foliage on bodies etc - is more discriminating making 7,8 likely to be the same killer
• Injuries to the bodies of CG and JR were very similar strongly suggesting the same killer
• The time and place of disappearance was not significantly different to other cases
• Items missing from the bodies wasn't significant
• Connection to a VS commodore (fibres) is a point of similarity
• Telstra fibres on victims is a point of similarity (despite lots irrelevant of argey-bargey about whose Telstra fibres)

 

[BFew]

I wonder what verdict BRE is currently expecting Justice Hall will deliver in his trial?

How certain BRE is of whatever verdict he thinks Justice Hall will deliver in this trial?

Whether BRE has already told his Defence team, whether he intends to appeal any convictions that Justice Hall rules him guilty of?

Finally (in this post), if BRE's expectations on what guilty or not guilty trial verdicts, Justice Hall will deliver, are not met, and the verdict is worse than he hopes for, how badly might BRE take this and cope with this?

Hopefully, he is expecting to be found guilty on all charges for Ciara Glennon, and thus likely won't be disappointed when he most likely (IMO) found guilty on at least all charges for Ciara Glennon.

 

[the dark knight]

I wonder what verdict BRE is currently expecting Justice Hall will deliver in his trial?

How certain BRE is of whatever verdict he thinks Justice Hall will deliver in this trial?

Whether BRE has already told his Defence team, whether he intends to appeal any convictions that Justice Hall rules him guilty of?

Finally (in this post), if BRE's expectations on what guilty or not guilty trial verdicts, Justice Hall will deliver, are not met, and the verdict is worse than he hopes for, how badly might BRE take this and cope with this?

Hopefully, he is expecting to be found guilty on all charges for Ciara Glennon, and thus likely won't be disappointed when he most likely (IMO) found guilty on at least all charges for Ciara Glennon.

Hopefully if he’s been found guilty on 1 or 2 that he decides to make a deal and reveal where SS is.
On the other hand, If he’s found guilty on a couple of murder charges, He might opt for another way out (self harm).

 

[Kurve]

I wonder what verdict BRE is currently expecting Justice Hall will deliver in his trial?

How certain BRE is of whatever verdict he thinks Justice Hall will deliver in this trial?

Whether BRE has already told his Defence team, whether he intends to appeal any convictions that Justice Hall rules him guilty of?

Finally (in this post), if BRE's expectations on what guilty or not guilty trial verdicts, Justice Hall will deliver, are not met, and the verdict is worse than he hopes for, how badly might BRE take this and cope with this?

Hopefully, he is expecting to be found guilty on all charges for Ciara Glennon, and thus likely won't be disappointed when he most likely (IMO) found guilty on at least all charges for Ciara Glennon.

I hope he's convinced himself he'll be handed a 'not guilty' on all the remaining charges, he breaks down on the day and has a massive wobbly.

According to the latest podcast the press will be making application to either televise or livestream judgement day.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Regarding the hood removal of KK and maybe wanting to see her face (and her his face before murdering her?) I found this article which has very detailed information from an SK expert about the remembering of the faces of victims by SKs even decades later.

How and Why Serial Killers Remember Details About Their Victims

Samuel Little murdered as many as 93 women, some almost a half century ago. But all these years later, he still remembers their faces. A&E True Crime spoke with sociology and criminology professor Jack Levin, who explained how serial killers remember their victims and why these details are so...

www.aetv.com

 

[Likeamystery]

My son has seen BRE in person. The MM at the Conte is BRE. Staying away from that saves the Police some blushes. They chased the wrong man for a decade. That footage should never have been held back at the time. That person was never identified. BRE is a sexual predator. He lives on the edge. He enters a room in Huntingdale. The victims parents are in the next room. He tried to drag a lady into the toilets at HH. He grabbed her from her desk. He was well organised when he abducted the Karnataka victim. That's why I believe he met JR at the Conte. The smile on her face when the MM turned up was telling. He graduates from a cross dressing peeping Tom. Maybe the number one suspect the Police found made him stop.

All good points. When you think about it, he did suddenly stop, and at that stage the public weren't aware LW was a POI - it wasn't made public for ages. Could it be possible his family or him to have known someone who worked for WAPOL and the POI information was leaked out. I'm not suggesting anyone from WAPOL knew he was allegedly involved but during a conversation about the CSK hunt, a possible leak occurred, something like, 'they've got someone under surveillance'. I also believe the various stuff ups made by WAPOL are an embarrassment for them, and simple pig-headedness is their biggest problem.

 

[Likeamystery]

After reading this recent article from The Australian newspaper i thought some things were very telling.

Money was scarce in his childhood and a constant problem in both marriages. Even having to accept meals dropped off to them by parents, that's pretty humbling i would think? Claremont the "affluent" and "privileged" suburb, was this perhaps why he kept returning there to take what he maybe saw as "wealthy girls"? Deep seated hatred perhaps of always having to struggle for money all his life?

He would give cash money to first wife for mortgage payments but they "rarely made it to the bank" and he only discovered this after letters of arrears arrived? What was wife 1 doing with the cash, that is if this is the truth, who knows with BRE?

He had strong bond with his mother and stepdaughter, Dad doesn't get a mention. This seems to confirm what I've always thought that his mother was the "rescuer" for him constantly as she knew he was the "weak" one of her children. Could this explain his early cross-dressing, strong identification with his mother whom he felt "understood" him? Not an expert on this, just pondering.

BRE saying his 2nd wife was "a forceful lady". And yet he was still wearing his wedding ring when arrested?

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

All good points GND. I recall in the interview BRE mentioning about the shortage of money. Money shouldn't have been an issue because his father was employed long-term. The parents probably did what everyone else does, such as tighten their belts to pay the bills and put food on the table. The house and acreage at Gay St, Huntingdale would have been expensive to purchase, and I'd think BRE may have considered himself more privileged than other kids his own age. It's probably more like he was a bit spoilt.

Perhaps the first wife did squander some money. She may have spent money because she was unhappy, or because BRE may have had a tendency to waste money. I don't suppose he was entirely honest with the money he spent either.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

It's been bugging me about the girlfriend who was taken on a "detour" to a bush location quite bizarrely by BRE? I went looking and found a reference about it on BF from a post by the amazingly under quoted BFEW! Post #6522 9th Nov 2019 from The West Australian.

"And a former girlfriend of Mr Edwards - who cannot be named after her identity was suppressed by the WA Supreme Court - will also be allowed to tell of their encounters in 1996. The women met Mr Edwards through his brother, and went on several dates to restaurants. Her account how Mr Edwards once took her on unexpected "detour" in his work vehicle to a bush location was earlier ruled out. But her account of how he once took her in what she described as a "heritage looking pub" in"

Let's hope she could remember the suburb and even roughly the bush area he took her to as this is strange behaviour and would indicate he was perhaps reliving where he'd dumped a victim? Maybe helped him to get excited? IIRC he asked her to get out
of the car but she refused, so he drove her away? Hope WAPOL really checked that location out, if at all possible?

 

[Likeamystery]

It's been bugging me about the girlfriend who was taken on a "detour" to a bush location quite bizarrely by BRE? I went looking and found a reference about it on BF from a post by the amazingly under quoted BFEW! Post #6522 9th Nov 2019 from The West Australian.

"And a former girlfriend of Mr Edwards - who cannot be named after her identity was suppressed by the WA Supreme Court - will also be allowed to tell of their encounters in 1996. The women met Mr Edwards through his brother, and went on several dates to restaurants. Her account how Mr Edwards once took her on unexpected "detour" in his work vehicle to a bush location was earlier ruled out. But her account of how he once took her in what she described as a "heritage looking pub" in"

Let's hope she could remember the suburb and even roughly the bush area he took her to as this is strange behaviour and would indicate he was perhaps reliving where he'd dumped a victim? Maybe helped him to get excited? IIRC he asked her to get out
of the car but she refused, so he drove her away? Hope WAPOL really checked that location out, if at all possible?

My thoughts are the lady concerned has probably thought about the incident a lot. Analyzing in her own mind what his intentions might have been.
She may have thought, what if I'd got out of the car, is it possible I may have become a victim too.

I've read of another instance, unrelated to the accused CSK whereby a former girlfriend of a SK advised they'd been driving along when he suddenly stopped in the bush and wanted to make out. After the arrest she realized it was probably where he'd taken a prior victim - the VC wanted to relive the moment.

 

[Goodguy72]

Hopefully if he’s been found guilty on 1 or 2 that he decides to make a deal and reveal where SS is.
On the other hand, If he’s found guilty on a couple of murder charges, He might opt for another way out (self harm).

Well let’s say he won’t be seeing his WCE in the flesh again unless he bumps into Cousins in the food line

 

[Likeamystery]

My collection of key facts of the last day of the trial include this from the defence (and my occasional comment) :

Edit: Just to be clear 7,8 means charges over (7) Jane Rimmer, and (8) Ciara Glennon

• No presentation on DNA evidence (seemed to suggest it wasn't that important?)
• No Telstra logo in witness statements strongly suggests BRE not driver (and by implication not the murderer)
• Attack on KJG is not propensity as such (prior irrelevant arguments about differences in specific detail)
• Damage to vegetation at crime scene doesn't necessarily point to a tall man
• BRE had the opportunity for both CG and JR (that is times allowed it and there was no alibi?!)
• BRE didn't have the opportunity in SS due to the tight times and differences in specific detail (yeah right)
• There is reasonable doubt in both counts 7,8 (yeah bloody right)
• There is no smoking gun pointing to fibre contamination (!)
• No SS body doesn't mean the attack on her was intended to be fatal (defence have already admitted she is dead)
• Attacks on CG and JR were intended to be fatal, so charges 7,8 are wilful murder
• Disappearance from Clarement of CG and JR were similar so favouring the same killer (why not SS?)
• The closeness in time of CG and JR favour the same killer (why not SS?)
• The disposal locations are not different from many other murders, so not helpful
• The scenes of the bodies - foliage on bodies etc - is more discriminating making 7,8 likely to be the same killer
• Injuries to the bodies of CG and JR were very similar strongly suggesting the same killer
• The time and place of disappearance was not significantly different to other cases
• Items missing from the bodies wasn't significant
• Connection to a VS commodore (fibres) is a point of similarity
• Telstra fibres on victims is a point of similarity (despite lots irrelevant of argey-bargey about whose Telstra fibres)

All good points Jezza, I've provided some thoughts.

No SS body doesn't mean the attack on her was intended to be fatal (defence have already admitted she is dead). Can they downgrade that to manslaughter?

The closeness in time of CG and JR favour the same killer (why not SS?). Because SS body wasn’t available for autopsy in order to substantiate which manner she was killed. Nobody knows if her death was in the same manner as CG & JR.

I strongly doubt he will be proven guilty for SS murder and that she will go down in history as WAPOL strongly believe her murder was the work of the accused CSK but were unable to prove it. A similar situation to the Birnies with regard to Cheryl Renwick and Barbara Western.

BRE didn't have the opportunity in SS due to the tight times and differences in specific detail (yeah right). Yes he certainly did have the time and doesn’t have an alibi for the time SS went missing. He only has an alibi to prove he was at Dumas house at 8am. He was a young man and would have been able to operate with little sleep.

BRE had the opportunity for both CG and JR (that is times allowed it and there was no alibi?!). The facts are that he doesn’t have credible alibis for any of the times in which the abductions/killings were conducted. In my mind, if someone had intentions of committing a crime they’d think of a suitable alibi, but due to the passage of time, those alibis would have forgotten what took place. After the arrest BRE wasn’t in a position to remind them either.

No presentation on DNA evidence (seemed to suggest it wasn't that important?) The DNA under CGs fingernail puts BRE at the scene, and there's no valid explanation as to why it was there other than the accused was at the scene. Any claims suggesting it was due to contamination, will surely be disregarded, and Hall might claim it as the defence’s attempts at ‘clutching at straws’ so to speak.

No Telstra logo in witness statements strongly suggests BRE not driver (and by implication not the murderer). That's a good point, why didn't any of the Burger Boys see a Telstra Logo - was that due to poor lighting or had the Logos been covered with something. Thinking back, before there was any mention of the accused working for Telstra, it was the Burger boys who had told the police about the white station wagon. Odd they waited 10 years to put it on the TV.