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

 

[JezzaPerth]

Thx for that Jezza.

So how many alleles would normally need to be matched to confirm the presence of a male's DNA profile?

And I guess that they were looking for any actual, or possible/partial DNA matches against the most likely known ppl that might have been present at the crime scene. Like the accused, the finders of Jane Rimmer's body, or anyone known or thought to have actually/possibly gone near to the body, either before official discovery, during the official discovery, police, forensics, and the various labs supply chain involved people?

And by only mentioning Mr Daventhoren and BRE in the male DNA alleles matching, does that mean that they got no DNA alleles matches whatsoever (i.e zero allelles matching) for anyone else from the particular intimate swab examined?

And If that is the case, what is the likelihood that the only two males in the potential group of makes I mentioned above, that had any allele matches whatsoever with this swab, were just Mr Daventhoren and BRE?

If you Don't trust my memory it depends on the kit but 18 - 21 10+2 alleles rings a bell. However the match is exponential so 9 matches is naff all - lots of people would match at 9 allelles while one on 80 million would match at the allele numbers used in the pathwest kit

SGMPlus and Profiler Plus both use 10+2 alleles but slightly different ones. I don't understand why the Rimmer Intimate Swab 1 was insufficient to identify anyone.

 

[BFew]

If you trust my memory it depends on the kit but 18 - 21 alleles rings a bell. However the match is exponential so 9 matches is naff all - lots of people would match at 9 allelles while one on 80 million would match at the allele numbers used in the pathwest kit

So why did they even bother mentioning Daventhoren then regarding this DNA swab?
IMO, It's not really fair on Mr Daventhoren's family/friends/ work mates/bosses etc, if it has no bearing on the case whatsoever from the way you have helpfully explained this.

 

[JezzaPerth]

So why did they even bother mentioning Daventhoren then regarding this DNA swab?
IMO, It's not really fair on Mr Daventhoren's family/friends/ work mates/bosses etc, if it has no bearing on the case whatsoever from the way you have helpfully explained this.

I guess for completeness of evidence and indication of fairness.

Profiler Plus was used in these tests. Here is the manual. I really don't follow it but it may be helpful to someone. https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/manuals/4476688B.pdf

 

[Dustland_fairytale]

Have we worked out exactly how long the cops had him under surveillance for before the arrest? The closest I can get to anything is about five weeks and I think that's probably long enough for them to get right into his financials.

Gosnells Senior High had its 40th birthday open day on the 29th October 2016 - Major crime contacted the school maybe 2 weeks after this to collect year books and other memorabilia from the period of time BRE attended the school - never in our wildest imagination did we think at the time that it would all be connected to the Claremont attacks



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JezzaPerth]

Thx for that Jezza.

So how many alleles would normally need to be matched to confirm the presence of a male's DNA profile?

And I guess that they were looking for any actual, or possible/partial DNA matches against the most likely known ppl that might have been present at the crime scene. Like the accused, the finders of Jane Rimmer's body, or anyone known or thought to have actually/possibly gone near to the body, either before official discovery, during the official discovery, police, forensics, and the various labs supply chain involved people?

And by only mentioning Mr Daventhoren and BRE in the male DNA alleles matching, does that mean that they got no DNA alleles matches whatsoever (i.e zero allelles matching) for anyone else from the particular intimate swab examined?

And If that is the case, what is the likelihood that the only two males in the potential group of males I mentioned above, that had any allele matches whatsoever with this swab, were just Mr Daventhoren and BRE?

I've now done some more research on the topic. The tests used LCN and Profiler plus - both use 10 alleles - though slightly different sets. (Plus amelogen).

Any individual will have one or two 'numbers' at each allele - the number being the number of repeats of short genetic sequences called Short Tandem Repeats (STR). They inherit these numbers from both parents, but sometimes both parents have the same 'number' on an allele. An individual could conceivable only have 10 'numbers', one at each allele, but most people will have much more and could easily have 20 'numbers', two at each allele.

So when the tests for the Rimmer High vaginal swab came back they found nine matches for Daventhorne, and six for BRE out of a potential 20. There will be a table somewhere that says how many matches is significant and it will obviously be more than 10, probably 15ish? Importantly they didn't find any 'numbers' that didn't belong to any of the three.

 

[Goodguy72]

Gosnells Senior High had its 40th birthday open day on the 29th October 2016 - Major crime contacted the school maybe 2 weeks after this to collect year books and other memorabilia from the period of time BRE attended the school - never in our wildest imagination did we think at the time that it would all be connected to the Claremont attacks



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Guess BRE won’t be on the honour board

 

[JezzaPerth]

Guess BRE won’t be on the honour board

I wonder if his teammates at footy ceremonially burned his strip and boots? If not, they damned well should have.

 

[Krusty Crab]

Wasn't the point though of Wife2 hand copies of statements which aren't as good obviously as what hard copies from the actual bank would be, was to draw attention to him not just being in Claremont but "sick of the lies"?.

I'd find it really hard to believe to almost impossible, investigators didn't serve the relevant bank with warrants for his financials.

maybe they did. im sure there would be agencies that can tell the cops what accounts BRE had at the time of his surveillance, and already looked into them. it could be a simple thing such as he was banking with commonwealth bank while with wife #1, and had home loan number #1 with them. after moving in with wife #2 and purchasing house number #2, maybe he swapped banks so his accounts were with the home loan supplier as some sort of deal. then the cops would of only had more recent banking details before the arrest. (not sure how deep the police reach was into POI financial affairs back in the late 90's, maybe info was harder to source due to the primitive nature of the internet?) if the notebook came to light after BRE arrest, that could of been a light bulb moment for the cops to look for account info at another bank, and with the passage of time these records had been destroyed.

Thing is though, there could of been decent enough excuses for the withdrawals. maybe he payed bills in cash, maybe he was paying off some debts, maybe he was making house payments. on the other hand he could of been gambling, had a drug addiction or been seeing hookers. if the withdrawals were innocuous, then that could be the reason for the lack of trial background on them. if it was simply seeing hookers, maybe this was deemed inadmissible early on, or on the other hand, maybe that cash was relative to a criminal endeavor that is still under investigation - he could of been seeing street hookers, and is a suspect in some of their disappearances, he could be supplying info on a drug investigation, maybe he is a future witness in a black mail case. unlikely we will ever know, unless years from now something pops up in a news report.

 

[one eyed spy]

Wasn't the point though of Wife2 hand copies of statements which aren't as good obviously as what hard copies from the actual bank would be, was to draw attention to him not just being in Claremont but "sick of the lies"?.

I'd find it really hard to believe to almost impossible, investigators didn't serve the relevant bank with warrants for his financials.

A statement was read into evidence on day 6 from Michael Chivell from Bankwest which said the police contacted them in 2017 regarding transactions made on BREs account in the 90's & confirmed the records written by wife 2 were accurate. He said the earliest records he could locate were from 1996 and despite the names of some ATM locations having changed in 2014 -15, the location referred to as Bay View was likely 1 of 2 Bankwest ATMs at 36 Bay View Terrace in Claremont.

 

[Kurve]

A statement was read into evidence on day 6 from Michael Chivell from Bankwest which said the police contacted them in 2017 regarding transactions made on BREs account in the 90's & confirmed the records written by wife 2 were accurate. He said the earliest records he could locate were from 1996 and despite the names of some ATM locations having changed in 2014 -15, the location referred to as Bay View was likely 1 of 2 Bankwest ATMs at 36 Bay View Terrace in Claremont.

Thanks heaps OES.

 

[one eyed spy]

I've now done some more research on the topic. The tests used LCN and Profiler plus - both use 10 alleles - though slightly different sets. (Plus amelogen).

Any individual will have one or two 'numbers' at each allele - the number being the number of repeats of short genetic sequences called Short Tandem Repeats (STR). They inherit these numbers from both parents, but sometimes both parents have the same 'number' on an allele. An individual could conceivable only have 10 'numbers', one at each allele, but most people will have much more and could easily have 20 'numbers', two at each allele.

So when the tests for the Rimmer High vaginal swab came back they found nine matches for Daventhorne, and six for BRE out of a potential 20. There will be a table somewhere that says how many matches is significant and it will obviously be more than 10, probably 15ish? Importantly they didn't find any 'numbers' that didn't belong to any of the three.

Calculations mentioning matching alleles are usually matching portions to a partial profile only. If a full match is made to a complete DNA sample, each of the 2 alleles at however many loci the test comprises need to match. In this case at only 10 loci, all 20 alleles would match.

Some repeats are far more frequent than others in a particular population & aren't as equally weighted to determine the probability of a match but the whole concept of determining that likelihood is totally flawed anyway IMO. Numbers in their millions sound very convincing but when its only comparing the chance that every piece of your DNA would match ANY other person if they were randomly plucked off the street, DNA tested & both profiles compared, its far more likely to produce ridiculously high numbers that sound impressive but thats about it. It tells you nothing about how many other people in any 1 database of DNA profiles actually did match & at how many & what loci the match was. That would give decision makers a far better idea of how irrelevant those massive numbers really are based on actual DNA profiles a database contains. Then the concept of DNA being infallible and a foolproof means of identifying a particular person when the DNA is incomplete or degraded or so small that the amount of amplification required to actually produce a result comes via a method only 1 lab still actually uses today, as in this case, perhaps it may be said that its no where near as conclusive as those x amount of millions suggest it is. Its just misleading to the layman and underestimates the amount of weight those numbers logically infer it can safely be given.

Of course we dont have the records of the tests done and relying on the journos to provide non conflicting accurate info is pointless when they have no idea how open to question the majority of the blogs have been left in this regard, nor the level of bias evident in much of the questioning and so to the answers some of the key witnesses provided. IMO.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Calculations mentioning matching alleles are usually matching portions to a partial profile only. If a full match is made to a complete DNA sample, each of the 2 alleles at however many loci the test comprises need to match. In this case at only 10 loci, all 20 alleles would match.

Some repeats are far more frequent than others in a particular population & aren't as equally weighted to determine the probability of a match but the whole concept of determining that likelihood is totally flawed anyway IMO. Numbers in their millions sound very convincing but when its only comparing the chance that every piece of your DNA would match ANY other person if they were randomly plucked off the street, DNA tested & both profiles compared, its far more likely to produce ridiculously high numbers that sound impressive but thats about it. It tells you nothing about how many other people in any 1 database of DNA profiles actually did match & at how many & what loci the match was. That would give decision makers a far better idea of how irrelevant those massive numbers really are based on actual DNA profiles a database contains. Then the concept of DNA being infallible and a foolproof means of identifying a particular person when the DNA is incomplete or degraded or so small that the amount of amplification required to actually produce a result comes via a method only 1 lab still actually uses today, as in this case, perhaps it may be said that its no where near as conclusive as those x amount of millions suggest it is. Its just misleading to the layman and underestimates the amount of weight those numbers logically infer it can safely be given.

Of course we dont have the records of the tests done and relying on the journos to provide non conflicting accurate info is pointless when they have no idea how open to question the majority of the blogs have been left in this regard, nor the level of bias evident in much of the questioning and so to the answers some of the key witnesses provided. IMO.

When the New Zealand lady did her stats she gave match probabilities based on Australian Caucasion population, Australian Asian population, and Australian Aboriginal population. The probabilities were different but not an order of magnitude.

 

[MightyFreo]

A statement was read into evidence on day 6 from Michael Chivell from Bankwest which said the police contacted them in 2017 regarding transactions made on BREs account in the 90's & confirmed the records written by wife 2 were accurate. He said the earliest records he could locate were from 1996 and despite the names of some ATM locations having changed in 2014 -15, the location referred to as Bay View was likely 1 of 2 Bankwest ATMs at 36 Bay View Terrace in Claremont.

The cctv from that Bankwest atm was suspicious "for what it didn't show" iirc prosecution said
Thoughts on what that meant!??

 

[Pamcake1]

The cctv from that Bankwest atm was suspicious "for what it didn't show" iirc prosecution said
Thoughts on what that meant!??

This was not bank cctv. It was the cameras set up by the police that this pertains to.

 

[Likeamystery]

maybe they did. im sure there would be agencies that can tell the cops what accounts BRE had at the time of his surveillance, and already looked into them. it could be a simple thing such as he was banking with commonwealth bank while with wife #1, and had home loan number #1 with them. after moving in with wife #2 and purchasing house number #2, maybe he swapped banks so his accounts were with the home loan supplier as some sort of deal. then the cops would of only had more recent banking details before the arrest. (not sure how deep the police reach was into POI financial affairs back in the late 90's, maybe info was harder to source due to the primitive nature of the internet?) if the notebook came to light after BRE arrest, that could of been a light bulb moment for the cops to look for account info at another bank, and with the passage of time these records had been destroyed.

Thing is though, there could of been decent enough excuses for the withdrawals. maybe he payed bills in cash, maybe he was paying off some debts, maybe he was making house payments. on the other hand he could of been gambling, had a drug addiction or been seeing hookers. if the withdrawals were innocuous, then that could be the reason for the lack of trial background on them. if it was simply seeing hookers, maybe this was deemed inadmissible early on, or on the other hand, maybe that cash was relative to a criminal endeavor that is still under investigation - he could of been seeing street hookers, and is a suspect in some of their disappearances, he could be supplying info on a drug investigation, maybe he is a future witness in a black mail case. unlikely we will ever know, unless years from now something pops up in a news report.

Good thoughts Krusty, if there was to be some type of blackmail case, he probably wouldn't make such a good witness because he's been caught out as a liar. As someone suggested "Liar, liar Kimono on Fire"

 

[Kurve]

The cctv from that Bankwest atm was suspicious "for what it didn't show" iirc prosecution said
Thoughts on what that meant!??

Not sure we ever worked out what that meant. That he knew where all the cameras were and avoided them? Somewhat like MM managed to do at the Conti where we only saw the back of his head.

 

[BFew]

Somewhat like MM managed to do at the Conti where we only saw the back of his head.

We only saw the back of the head, but I'm still wondering if there was footage of the front of the head, and if it was definitely not BRE, whether it was withheld from public view/suppressed for operational reasons?

 

[Sepai]

Agre

Shelly, then this begs the question, who was extracting (?)money from him and what did they "have" on him?

"Was the second wife complaining about being short of money?"
Yes, she was complaining according to BRE, and her parents were supplying meals for them.
I don't know that it would be reported he was a habitual gambler at the Casino, why, how would they know unless they checked all their footage, and for what reason?
Didn't know that about Father Brian, hmm...Sins of the Father!

Maybe he needed a lair for his trophy collection? His perversion was costly. How many crimes has he commited over the years?

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Maybe he needed a lair for his trophy collection? His perversion was costly. How many crimes has he commited over the years?

How many crimes? Hmmm... answer, Lots! We may never know how many Sepai. I'll be watching after September (or even earlier if Judge Hall can give us his decision), to see people coming forward with their BRE stories of horror encounters. (Especially his younger days, late teens?) Like I have said, there may be other charges being worked on as we speak, who knows hey? Dark past!

 

[Krusty Crab]

The cctv from that Bankwest atm was suspicious "for what it didn't show" iirc prosecution said
Thoughts on what that meant!??

i cant recall if they gave us a time and date for the suspicious footage that didn't show anything? could it of been expected to see one of the victims as they left for the night, but they didnt appear as they were abducted prior?

 

[Likeamystery]

Maybe he needed a lair for his trophy collection? His perversion was costly. How many crimes has he commited over the years?

When you think about it, Telstra has lots of buildings and BRE would have had keys or key card access to a majority of them. As the arrest was so swift he didn't have time to pack up his belongings and collect anything that might have been hidden at Telstra.

In the future, perhaps an employee might stumble across something and hopefully take it to management for the police to inspect. Imagine the look on the employees face, when they find something like modified women's clothing and trinkets etc, oh, and I hope for their sake, there's none of those sandwich bags, which he seems to have favoured so much. Oh dear, what a terrible find.

There's also Telstra infrastructure too, such as towers and ground pits. If something is found it's sure to have his finger prints on it.

 

[Likeamystery]

The cctv from that Bankwest atm was suspicious "for what it didn't show" iirc prosecution said
Thoughts on what that meant!??

I would have thought CCTV footage was only kept for a certain period of time, but not twenty years. Back in the 1990s they probably used video tapes for recording, and after a certain amount of time reused the same video again. Video footage degrades after a certain amount of time.
If they kept the tapes there'd be a lot of them to retain and after twenty years it would probably be degraded footage. Would degraded footage be what they were referring too.
Added information: Unless someone else withdrew the money for BRE. Someone from work ran an errand for him.

 

[one eyed spy]

The cctv from that Bankwest atm was suspicious "for what it didn't show" iirc prosecution said
Thoughts on what that meant!??

My interpretation of what they "didnt say" was 'we were a bit dumb to set up a camera trying to capture licence plates when it was too dark to see the majority of them & because of the level it was set to capture the plates resulted in the people who actually walked past the camera not being able to be identified either because their heads were cut off'.
In this case specifically I believe it was the latter they were referring to & it was that someone who's stature and build matched BREs in what would have been a relevant time period was captured on video but unable to be conclusively identified because they couldn't see his face.
I'm not certain if it was in conjunction to the other CCTV they produced from a nearby servo which they also said showed someone who might be BRE but also wasn't conclusive, however that may have been the case when the 2 places they generally focus setvo CCTV is from behind the counter on the persons face, or of the cars, both should have been able to identify someone.
Edit. The camera was in the Picnic clothing store across the road from the bank.

 

[Gpop]

My interpretation of what they "didnt say" was 'we were a bit dumb to set up a camera trying to capture licence plates when it was too dark to see the majority of them & because of the level it was set to capture the plates resulted in the people who actually walked past the camera not being able to be identified either because their heads were cut off'.
In this case specifically I believe it was the latter they were referring to & it was that someone who's stature and build matched BREs in what would have been a relevant time period was captured on video but unable to be conclusively identified because they couldn't see his face.
I'm not certain if it was in conjunction to the other CCTV they produced from a nearby servo which they also said showed someone who might be BRE but also wasn't conclusive, however that may have been the case when the 2 places they generally focus setvo CCTV is from behind the counter on the persons face, or of the cars, both should have been able to identify someone.
Edit. The camera was in the Picnic clothing store across the road from the bank.

Has the footage from the servo or Picnic ever been shown to the public even a still picture?

 

[JezzaPerth]

Has the footage from the servo or Picnic ever been shown to the public even a still picture?

Justice Hall made it very clear he wasn't going to release any video other than the tiny fragments and stills released during the investigation, earlier (police assisted) media coverage, and during the trial.

In any event it's all potato-cam quality. They got far better quality back from the moon in 1967 than they got in Claremont in the 90s