Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt3 - The Verdict

[Kurve]

Here is
- Claremont Murders - Part One and Part Two
- Media
- The Bunker
- Hey Bret? Stalking Claremont the book.
- Justice Hall's Decision 619 pgs

 

[Girlnextdoor]

How's his response when he was questioned by police about the Huntingdale attack? While denying he was responsible for such a low act, played the victim himself by accusing her little brother of nearly drowning him in their pool. Waaaaaah poor Bradley was scarred for life he's now terrified of water. Pathetic.

Bradley the penguin on the receiving end! Hope he's got his water wings!

 

[JezzaPerth]

Any challenge to the case will be about DNA evidence. These are the key elements in the decision.

I can't see any reasonable appeal without getting a DNA expert to contest these findings. And I note that defence did not find or was unable to find such an expert.

1558 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the DNA of the accused
is in the AJM40 and AJM42 mixed sample. The evidence in that regard
was clear, consistent and largely uncontested. I have given a general
summary of this evidence because it was not seriously in dispute that the
DNA of the accused was in the mixed sample – the real issue was how it
got there.

1582 In my view contamination has been excluded as a rational
possibility. There remains only one reasonable inference available and
that is that the DNA of the accused was present in one or both of AJM40
and 42 at the time that they were collected. The only rational explanation
for the presence of the DNA at that time is that it was deposited under the
nails of Ms Glennon as she fought against her attacker shortly before her
death. This is consistent with the state of the nails, and in particular the
left thumbnail from which AJM40 was taken. Because this is a critical
element of the prosecution case I consider it is necessary for it to be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Applying that standard, I am satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. DNA of the accused was found in the sample derived from the
nails on the left hand of Ms Glennon;

2. DNA was not present as a result of any contamination incident;
and

3. DNA was deposited at the time of the fatal attack upon
Ms Glennon as a result of her attempts to defend herself from the
person attacking her.

 

[zedx]

They and Brad probably thinking "what have we got to lose?"

Currently it looks like he'll be in jail until he dies. The odds are very slim that an appeal would change that but the odds are very slim buying a lotto ticket is a good investment too and hundreds of thousands of people buy them every day.

At this moment certain members of his family are just trying to find out if there is any course of appeal, Hall was very very thorough, so it may not be possible.

 

[Eaglette01]

This nutjob: hadn't even read the Judgement

BRE's family are pinning their hopes on this bloke Johnno boy - aka Jonathon Davies

3.2K views · 14 reactions | CLAREMONT: THE VERDICT | The Claremont killings case centred around DNA evidence found beneath Ciara Glennon’s fingernails, described as “one-fifth of one-billionth of a gram.”... | By 9 News Perth | Facebook

The Claremont killings case centred around DNA evidence found beneath Ciara Glennon’s fingernails, described as “one-fifth of one-billionth of a gram.”...

www.facebook.com

 

[Mudman85]

You know whats really sad, Jane telling her friend that meeting Boggsy was a genuine reason to trust and stay,
he obviously impressed her enough for her to hang around...then he killed with no mercy.

That's as evil as it comes.

Massive risk on his part, to abduct and kill a girl that he had planned to meet up with. She could have told any number of people about it during the night and he would have been toast.

Doesn’t fit his MO if you ask me.

 

[Mudman85]

The comments from neighbors are interesting, obviously every man and his dog is now going to come out and say what a weirdo he was. Hindsight. Whereas from all previous reports from friends work colleagues, little Aths etc he seemed pretty normal.

I used to drive passed his house daily when I was working in Belmont, I’m waiting for channel 7 to call me and ask what I thought of him any minute now.

 

[Pamcake1]

RE; the possible appeal; let's face it the press have to have something to write about given the interest in the case and their need to sell papers.
I think it is fair enough if his family want to investigate the decision legally.
As distateful as that may be they do have that right and preventing them from it, or having an opinion that they shouldn't exercise that right is over-reaching.
I think we can all be confident that Justice Hall has been asiduous in his judgement and that it will stand.
Back to the press; it would be good if everyone takes the time to watch the chanel 9 item in the press thread of Mr Glennon and what he has to say about how the press that stoked the fires with sensationalist 'news' and how hurtful and harmful that was to the victims families and their memories of the girls.
With consideration the sensationalist articles that are coming out now are just more of the same.
As I pointed out previously we will have to wait for the next chapter, with the victim impact statements, sentancing reports and sentancing and take the mining for 'new angles' with a grain of salt.

 

[Pamcake1]

This nutjob: hadn't even read the Judgement

BRE's family are pinning their hopes on this bloke Johnno boy - aka Jonathon Davies

3.2K views · 14 reactions | CLAREMONT: THE VERDICT | The Claremont killings case centred around DNA evidence found beneath Ciara Glennon’s fingernails, described as “one-fifth of one-billionth of a gram.”... | By 9 News Perth | Facebook

The Claremont killings case centred around DNA evidence found beneath Ciara Glennon’s fingernails, described as “one-fifth of one-billionth of a gram.”...

www.facebook.com

The guy is just looking for his moment in the sun and the 'news report' is just filler to stoke the 'story'. Valueless.

 

[JWS2019]

In the format of this trial and W.A. law it is not a judgement option for him. If it was Scottish law he could also come up with a not proven verdict. In a civil case, say the parents of Sarah Spiers sued BRE for damages, he could judge that as well.

I'm not full bottle on it, but there is now the possibility of a Coroner's investigation on Sarah Spiers which may come to a conclusion about BRE that doesn't require beyond reasonable doubt.

As I said, I'm not full bottle, and it's not clear if a coronial inquiry will be needed after the judgement today that she is dead.

Good point - didn’t think about potential for coronial. I suppose in effect it’s now reinstated to a missing persons case.

 

[Deva]

My guess at who the well known Barrister is that the Edwards rang would have been Tom Percy. The news was broken by Gary Adshead from channel 9 and Tom is a regular with their media platforms, 9 Entertainment.

 

[JWS2019]

Telstra really stuffed up by not having him on the list of vs drivers. What a terrible error. He would have been on the map in 1998

Sorry if this has already been mentioned... but the presser from the cops post trial also mentioned the fact the unfortunately the hospital attack was only submitted as an assault. Take that with a grain of salt.. but

Telstra also stuffed this by allowing an employer to continue on. Should have raised alarm bells. Who does this during work at a clients and gets away with it pretty much without any Discipline or any spotlight on himself.

 

[ms finch]

With regards to avenues for appeal, I can see five main areas. I’m not making any judgement here as to whether they are viable and I’m going to give completely off the wall examples to illustrate the points.

1. The judge made an error in law.
This would relate to his instructions to himself on what was necessary to satisfy a murder conviction or what evidence he deemed admissible. So if, for example, Hall had forgotten to include anything about intent in the judgement.

2. The admissibility hearings
They may consider whether he should have recused himself and had someone else assess the admissibility of certain evidence, on the argument that he really could not have dismissed it from his mind.

3. Inadequate defence
This doesn’t mean the fact that there was a bigger team for the prosecution. It means whether the work done by the defence was of an acceptable standard. For example, if Yovich had not bothered to argue against the admissibility of the pornographic evidence.

4. Misconduct
Let’s say the prosecution had records that showed Edwards was overseas at the time of the disappearances but didn’t hand it over to the defence.

5. New evidence
This is not just new evidence full stop, but new evidence available to the defence. For example, if Ciara Glennon was really alive and had been in witness protection.

Some of this is dependent on what the defence argued and cross examination during the trial. They cannot, for example, go with one strategy at trial and then, upon losing, launch an appeal based on another strategy. For example, they can’t have claimed Edwards was not involved in the deaths and then, on appeal, suddenly claim he was but was insane at the time (unless new evidence came to light or there was misconduct or it fell under inadequate defence).

 

[Kurve]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned... but the presser from the cops post trial also mentioned the fact the unfortunately the hospital attack was only submitted as an assault. Take that with a grain of salt.. but

Telstra also stuffed this by allowing an employer to continue on. Should have raised alarm bells. Who does this during work at a clients and gets away with it pretty much without any Discipline or any spotlight on himself.

Nice try by the cops at the presser but it was no ordinary assault when he was ordered to do a sex offenders course. Most people would expect through twenty plus years and so much money thrown into that investigation, someone would have had an idea 'How about we get a list of everyone who's done a sex offenders course and look at the circumstances?'

Not good enough.

 

[ms finch]

Nice try by the cops at the presser but it was no ordinary assault when he was ordered to do a sex offenders course. Most people would expect through twenty plus years and so much money thrown into that investigation, someone would have had an idea 'How about we get a list of everyone who's done a sex offenders course and look at the circumstances?'

Not good enough.

Agree, especially given it was in the Claremont area. They could have canvassed every sex related crime in that area.

 

[Kurve]

Agree, especially given it was in the Claremont area. They could have canvassed every sex related crime in that area.

It's not even creative thinking, it's basic.

 

[Bring back Drum]

Just on Sarah Spiers, I hate that he was labelled Not Guilty.

They need a new term, something like Not Proven or Not Proven Guilty, something that says we know the tosser did it, we just can’t prove it.

 

[ms finch]

It's not even creative thinking, it's basic.

Exactly. They canvassed violent sexual assaults, which led them to KK (or, more accurately, led a profiler to KK). They apparently tried to track down everyone who was in Claremont on the nights the women went missing, which was an insane task. They had the means and the inclination to look both broadly and at sex crimes in Claremont. When that didn’t go anywhere, the next logical step is lesser sex crimes in the area. They had 20 years.

 

[Pamcake1]

He's spent two nights in jail as a convicted murderer, and the Claremont killer will likely die there

Found guilty of murdering two young women he abducted from the streets of Perth two decades ago, Claremont killer Bradley Edwards will be sentenced in December — and he could be facing a historic non-parole sentence.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Coastie19]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned... but the presser from the cops post trial also mentioned the fact the unfortunately the hospital attack was only submitted as an assault. Take that with a grain of salt.. but

Telstra also stuffed this by allowing an employer to continue on. Should have raised alarm bells. Who does this during work at a clients and gets away with it pretty much without any Discipline or any spotlight on himself.

One of the pitfalls of not releasing clues to the public ie Telstra worker was on the radar. I would assume at a minimum between 5 and 10 people (not limited to victim, guard, probation officer) were aware of the HH attack and if this information was released, one of them would have come forward and said "Hey this happened several years ago". I know investigators don't like releasing certain things that only the perp would know, but I'm certain someone would have put his name forward

 

[ms finch]

RE; the possible appeal; let's face it the press have to have something to write about given the interest in the case and their need to sell papers.
I think it is fair enough if his family want to investigate the decision legally.
As distateful as that may be they do have that right and preventing them from it, or having an opinion that they shouldn't exercise that right is over-reaching.
I think we can all be confident that Justice Hall has been asiduous in his judgement and that it will stand.
Back to the press; it would be good if everyone takes the time to watch the chanel 9 item in the press thread of Mr Glennon and what he has to say about how the press that stoked the fires with sensationalist 'news' and how hurtful and harmful that was to the victims families and their memories of the girls.
With consideration the sensationalist articles that are coming out now are just more of the same.
As I pointed out previously we will have to wait for the next chapter, with the victim impact statements, sentancing reports and sentancing and take the mining for 'new angles' with a grain of salt.

I really like your comment here, and I agree with his right to appeal, but I have a slightly different take.

You have a right to appeal, but you really aren’t supposed to if you’re guilty of the crime of which you have been convicted. The legal system relies on a level of integrity from people. It’s why people typically get shorter sentences if they plead guilty and acknowledge their crime. However, it has been turned in to a game.

So if you do appeal you are saying to the world, “I did not do this” or “I did a lesser crime, not this most severe one” or “I don’t deserve - for some reason - to have been convicted of this.” In Edwards’ case, I regard this as revolting.

If you do what he did, it is beyond question that you deserve to be convicted, and he has never tried to claim diminished capacity or self defence. He has also never claimed he killed them but that it was in the midst of an altercation or that he was provoked or that it was an accident, so he is not in a position morally to claim a lesser crime like manslaughter or (non willful) murder. He has simply denied he did it.

He also denied KK, and Huntingdale and then backflipped. He’s a proven liar and sick, twisted f*** by his own admission.

So after 20+ years of getting away with these crimes, he’s going to sit there and still claim he didn’t do it and put the victims, the families and the community through another laborious process out of what I see as nothing other than a breathtaking sense of entitlement. I’m not surprised, given his history of this entitlement, but I am still appalled.

 

[JezzaPerth]

With regards to avenues for appeal, I can see five main areas. I’m not making any judgement here as to whether they are viable and I’m going to give completely off the wall examples to illustrate the points.

1. The judge made an error in law.
This would relate to his instructions to himself on what was necessary to satisfy a murder conviction or what evidence he deemed admissible. So if, for example, Hall had forgotten to include anything about intent in the judgement.

2. The admissibility hearings
They may consider whether he should have recused himself and had someone else assess the admissibility of certain evidence, on the argument that he really could not have dismissed it from his mind.

3. Inadequate defence
This doesn’t mean the fact that there was a bigger team for the prosecution. It means whether the work done by the defence was of an acceptable standard. For example, if Yovich had not bothered to argue against the admissibility of the pornographic evidence.

4. Misconduct
Let’s say the prosecution had records that showed Edwards was overseas at the time of the disappearances but didn’t hand it over to the defence.

5. New evidence
This is not just new evidence full stop, but new evidence available to the defence. For example, if Ciara Glennon was really alive and had been in witness protection.

Some of this is dependent on what the defence argued and cross examination during the trial. They cannot, for example, go with one strategy at trial and then, upon losing, launch an appeal based on another strategy. For example, they can’t have claimed Edwards was not involved in the deaths and then, on appeal, suddenly claim he was but was insane at the time (unless new evidence came to light or there was misconduct or it fell under inadequate defence).

With your item 3, one thing I'm aware of is defence lawyers, especially counsel, are dead scared of being sued by an usuccessful client. They work quite hard at documenting their decisions before and during the trial.

From some of the stories I've heard some clients are perfectly justified in sueing.

 

[BFew]

They could have canvassed every sex related crime in that area.

By actually getting every cop and police station staff, that had ever worked in the last 10 years in a wide areas of Perth to list any sex related crimes/assaults or possible sex motive ones, they had worked on or knew about.

And got them to do it both verbally and then again in writing, and gone back to all of them every 3 months to ask if they could recall any more.

Some good old fashioned detective work.
Starting with investigating themselves.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

He's spent two nights in jail as a convicted murderer, and the Claremont killer will likely die there

Found guilty of murdering two young women he abducted from the streets of Perth two decades ago, Claremont killer Bradley Edwards will be sentenced in December — and he could be facing a historic non-parole sentence.

www.abc.net.au

"Senior criminal barrister Linda Black said non-parole sentences were only reserved for the most serious of cases."

Are you kidding me Linda? So double murder, kidnap and rape, and attempted rape, that doesn't add up to "serious" enough for you??? What planet are these lawyers on???

 

[BFew]

Agree, especially given it was in the Claremont area. They could have canvassed every sex related crime in that area.

And any assault on women crimes in the area by Telstra workers.
Especially after they had already received all those reports of men in Telstra vehicles.

 

[Kurve]

By actually getting every cop and police station staff, that had ever worked in the last 10 years in a wide areas of Perth to list any sex related crimes/assaults or possible sex motive ones, they had worked on or knew about.

They didn't even have to do that. There was a list for the asking! He would have been a standout, had they just looked at it they would have got him.