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

 

[JezzaPerth]

The only thing I would like to know is the reasoning for not putting up an alternative DNA and fibre expert. Obviously it may have been because there was nobody significant who would disagree with the testifying experts, but I would still like to know what the reason was as I would have thought you’d do that solely to preserve the issue for appeal.

Putting up your own witness gives the prosecution a big target to exploit. And the prosecution have the advantage of being able to lead the witness. I'm sure they got advice from DNA and fibre experts. (I recall the defence DNA expert was a colleague of the prosecution witness Dr Whitaker) but tactically chose to not put any witness up.

Actually, there was one defence witness who by agreement was lead by the prosecution, which I thought odd at the time. I can't remember who, and what they said wasn't really important.

I don't think the video had much effect on Hall - he knows people lie in interviews. The video lies would only be legally relevant if BRE gave evidence. The main value of the interview was to get extra information from BRE to help close the investigation.

 

[ms finch]

Putting up your own witness gives the prosecution a big target to exploit. And the prosecution have the advantage of being able to lead the witness. I'm sure they got advice from DNA and fibre experts. (I recall the defence DNA expert was a colleague of the prosecution witness Dr Whitaker) but tactically chose to not put any witness up.

Actually, there was one defence witness who by agreement was lead by the prosecution, which I thought odd at the time. I can't remember who, and what they said wasn't really important.

I don't think the video had much effect on Hall - he knows people lie in interviews. The video lies would only be legally relevant if BRE gave evidence. The main value of the interview was to get extra information from BRE to help close the investigation.

I didn’t mean that the video would have had an impact on Hall; I meant that the defence were limited in where they could go because of it. For example, let’s say a lesser conviction of manslaughter was an alternative. Edwards would almost certainly have had to testify for that, and you’ve got the mess of the video. He (Edwards) was pretty arrogant not to get in a lawyer for that interview, thankfully to his detriment.

I understand all the points about the DNA expert with regard to the trial and verdict. I don’t foresee it having made a difference then. But it MAY have needed to be preserved for the record for a potential appeal (ie an alternative expert stating that the DNA evidence was unreliable can then be used to challenge the judge’s reasoning about why he chose one interpretation of the DNA over another). It may not. But I would be interested in the reasoning as to why that was deemed unnecessary.

 

[JezzaPerth]

I didn’t mean that the video would have had an impact on Hall; I meant that the defence were limited in where they could go because of it. For example, let’s say a lesser conviction of manslaughter was an alternative. Edwards would almost certainly have had to testify for that, and you’ve got the mess of the video. He (Edwards) was pretty arrogant not to get in a lawyer for that interview, thankfully to his detriment.

I understand all the points about the DNA expert with regard to the trial and verdict. I don’t foresee it having made a difference then. But it MAY have needed to be preserved for the record for a potential appeal (ie an alternative expert stating that the DNA evidence was unreliable can then be used to challenge the judge’s reasoning about why he chose one interpretation of the DNA over another). It may not. But I would be interested in the reasoning as to why that was deemed unnecessary.

One of the things Paul Yovich would have done is direct his Solicitors / Legal aid to record his decision to not call particular witnesses, and particularly why they weren't called.

Most likely the proposed DNA expert agreed with Dr Wittaker on all points, and may have been even more of the opinion that BRE DNA on the AJM40/42 wasn't a result of contamination.

 

[ms finch]

One of the things Paul Yovich would have done is direct his Solicitors / Legal aid to record his decision to not call particular witnesses, and particularly why they weren't called.

Most likely the proposed DNA expert agreed with Dr Wittaker on all points, and may have been even more of the opinion that BRE DNA on the AJM40/42 wasn't a result of contamination.

An inadequate defence argument at appeal is not the same as what is involved in suing your lawyer. You can successfully argue the former without having any hope of success in the latter. It’s a technical argument based on what was actually done at trial, not necessarily on the internal reasons for doing so, which may have been completely valid. I am interested in the internal reasons purely for my own curiosity.

 

[one eyed spy]

Using up their budget on hiring consultants to quality control their work, without the quality control resulting in anything whatsoever that quickly led to BRE's arrest?

Plus keeping the highly unusual private purse they had access to flowing by not getting anywhere fast. It was a time where the corruption was ingrained & to look back at it now, it makes you sick.

 

[Pamcake1]

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.

The thought is appalling agreed. It the leagal system has always been a theatre/game played for high stakes. I also agree that his only defence was 'I didn't do it' and a weather report! And with that alone it's a travesty to think of any re-running of the case.

 

[Eaglette01]

60 Minutes: tomorrow night Perth's Liam Bartlett

 

[zedx]

60 Minutes: tomorrow night Perth's Liam Bartlett

So this victim believes he was 'practicing', I can't wait to hear her reasoning. Didn't some one on here say something similar recently?

 

[one eyed spy]

So this victim believes he was 'practicing', I can't wait to hear her reasoning. Didn't some one on here say something similar recently?

Is that the HH victim?

 

[Visions]

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.

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.

Just say that they decide to go down this path, however the reason for the inadequacy was because there was a private confession made of guilt.

Would Yovich have to step in and tell them this then?

 

[ms finch]

Just say that they decide to go down this path, however the reason for the inadequacy was because there was a private confession made of guilt.

Would Yovich have to step in and tell them this then?

No, that is privileged information.

Edited to add:
Let’s say Edwards confessed to Yovich. I don’t believe he did, incidentally, because the first thing even a green criminal lawyer will tell a client is NOT to confess to them. And I don’t believe Edwards, who has kept this completely silent for 20 years, suddenly poured his heart out voluntarily over the urging of his lawyer to shut up. I believe everything strategically that makes it appear that Edwards confessed to Yovich can be explained by Edwards denials and the video and backflip on KK and Huntingdale.

But let’s say he did. In the area of inadequate defence that you’re talking about - the overarching strategy - lawyers act on instructions. They will assess the best defence line based on what they are told and they must get the OK from their client about the overarching strategy. If you say to your lawyer that you didn’t do it but the lawyer goes out to argue self defence, that’s then not acting on instructions.

So what Yovich would say at that point was, “I was acting on instructions.” It would only come out if Edwards waived his right to legal privilege in order to prove that Yovich was not acting on instructions. If he confessed to Yovich, I cannot see him doing that.

Inadequate defence arguments are not usually about the overarching strategy. By this I mean - try to demonstrate manslaughter instead of murder; claim self-defence. It would become an issue early on if a lawyer was trying to go down a path the client objected to, and that would involve at least an attempted change of lawyer. They are usually about specific questioning of witnesses, the manner in which an argument is made, or a decision to put a witness on the stand to support the strategy or not - the nitty gritty execution of the strategy.

 

[BFew]

Is that the HH victim?

Oui

 

[BFew]

In Justice Hall's 619 page verdict summary,
on BRE's lack of an alibi (p70)

In this case the accused filed an alibi notice on 18 October 2019. The notice referred to evidence that the accused may give if he chose to exercise the right to give evidence at the trial. In the event the accused chose not to give evidence, so the contents of the notice are irrelevant. Although the accused did not give any evidence of an alibi ...

What do we think his alibi might have been, and for which of the crimes/alleged crimes?

 

[JezzaPerth]

In Justice Hall's 619 page verdict summary,
on BRE's lack of an alibi (p70)

What do we think his alibi might have been, and for which of the crimes/alleged crimes?

It was certainly the hint about being with wife or girlfriend on one occasion (Australia Day?)

Yovich mentioned it in passing later.

The filing of an alibi notice is one thing that detracts from the confession theory. On the other hand it may have been a tactical exercise with no intention of getting BRE to testify; the objective being to reduce rumours of a confession.,

 

[Chameleon75]

It was certainly the hint about being with wife or girlfriend on one occasion (Australia Day?)

Yovich mentioned it in passing later.

The filing of an alibi notice is one thing that detracts from the confession theory. On the other hand it may have been a tactical exercise with no intention of getting BRE to testify; the objective being to reduce rumours of a confession.,

I never thought he had confessed prior to the trial, but I suspect he may have during it.

 

[BonzaRam]

In Justice Hall's 619 page verdict summary,
on Dr Palmer's fibre evidence (p559)


Reading this, it just dawned on me how important it might have been, that there was no evidence of prior friendship between the two. Because if there was, defence could have argued that any clothing, hair, or car material fibres on Jane could have legitimately come from contact between BRE and Jane on an earlier occasion than the night she was last seen alive. That without BRE's DNA on anything related to Jane, a finding of BRE guilt on Jane charges, might have had to rely even more on circumstantial evidence.

Although as has been mentioned over the last few days by Bigfooty posters, if there was evidence of BRE having had a friendship or relationship with Jane prior prior to the night of her disappearance/murder, this would strengthen the likelihood that BRE was involved in her disappearance/murder on that fact alone, despite there being no publicly produced evidence produced that he assaulted females he knew or who had a relationship with him.

Noting that we can't rule out that there might have been inadmissible or not used evidence, of violent, assault, or consensual sexual acts that BRE committed against women known to him (possibly including BRE family members). Including ones where the victim was too under the influence of one or more substances, to consent.

I thought he knew the Huntingdale victim? Didn't they go to the same school?

 

[Girlnextdoor]

As she was the first to disappear, and JR and CG were found in similar type locations I would tend to agree, as his dumping method would have been consistent across all three.

The only setback is if after the discovery of JR and CG, he felt he needed to move the body of SS to safeguard himself from any possible evidence that may arise from discovery and went back and disposed of it in a more complete manner.

Here's something to perhaps consider V? I remembered reading this Paul Ferguson quote about the dump sites, so i went looking for it. I think it's certainly possible BRE wanted the poor women found?

"Ciara and Jane's bodies were both found dumped in bushland.

"The fact that the body was just dumped could mean a number of things. First and foremost it means he's arrogant... He wanted the body found," Paul Ferguson said."

Why we didn't catch the Claremont killer

The former head of the Western Australian Police task-force responsible for catching the notorious Claremont killer has spoken out about the investigation that never hit its mark.

au.news.yahoo.com

 

[BFew]

I thought he knew the Huntingdale victim? Didn't they go to the same school?

Correct, but my post was nothing about Huntingdale and all about Jane.

 

[BonzaRam]

Here's something to perhaps consider V? I remembered reading this Paul Ferguson quote about the dump sites, so i went looking for it. I think it's certainly possible BRE wanted the poor women found?

"Ciara and Jane's bodies were both found dumped in bushland.

"The fact that the body was just dumped could mean a number of things. First and foremost it means he's arrogant... He wanted the body found," Paul Ferguson said."

Why we didn't catch the Claremont killer

The former head of the Western Australian Police task-force responsible for catching the notorious Claremont killer has spoken out about the investigation that never hit its mark.

au.news.yahoo.com

I agree with Ferguson on this. When you take into account how meticulous he was with keeping the work vehicle clean etc then it was a minimal attempt at hiding the bodies which tells me it was done to delay the finding rather than prevent completely.

 

[BonzaRam]

Correct, but my post was nothing about Huntingdale and all about Jane.

yeah i get that but it does show he was not adverse to attacking people he knew at an early stage in the evolution of the crimes.

 

[Kurve]

In Justice Hall's 619 page verdict summary,
on Dr Palmer's fibre evidence (p559)


Reading this, it just dawned on me how important it might have been, that there was no evidence of prior friendship between the two. Because if there was, defence could have argued that any clothing, hair, or car material fibres on Jane could have legitimately come from contact between BRE and Jane on an earlier occasion than the night she was last seen alive. That without BRE's DNA on anything related to Jane, a finding of BRE guilt on Jane charges, might have had to rely even more on circumstantial evidence.

Although as has been mentioned over the last few days by Bigfooty posters, if there was evidence of BRE having had a friendship or relationship with Jane prior prior to the night of her disappearance/murder, this would strengthen the likelihood that BRE was involved in her disappearance/murder on that fact alone, despite there being no publicly produced evidence produced that he assaulted females he knew or who had a relationship with him.

Noting that we can't rule out that there might have been inadmissible or not used evidence, of violent, assault, or consensual sexual acts that BRE committed against women known to him (possibly including BRE family members). Including ones where the victim was too under the influence of one or more substances, to consent.

Neither the prosecution or the defence was interested in BRE being the Mystery Man. A bit like a Catch 22.

 

[BFew]

Neither the prosecution or the defence was interested in BRE being the Mystery Man. A bit like a Catch 22.

Which is one of the reasons why he might have been the Mystery Man, or if not, was maybe known by Jane to some degree.

 

[Kurve]

Which is one of the reasons why he might have been the Mystery Man, or if not, was maybe known by Jane to some degree.

Well spotted Bfew. The answer as to why Mystery Man in the cctv wasn't introduced as BRE by the prosecution, was tactical.

 

[ms finch]

In Justice Hall's 619 page verdict summary,
on Dr Palmer's fibre evidence (p559)


Reading this, it just dawned on me how important it might have been, that there was no evidence of prior friendship between the two. Because if there was, defence could have argued that any clothing, hair, or car material fibres on Jane could have legitimately come from contact between BRE and Jane on an earlier occasion than the night she was last seen alive. That without BRE's DNA on anything related to Jane, a finding of BRE guilt on Jane charges, might have had to rely even more on circumstantial evidence.

Although as has been mentioned over the last few days by Bigfooty posters, if there was evidence of BRE having had a friendship or relationship with Jane prior prior to the night of her disappearance/murder, this would strengthen the likelihood that BRE was involved in her disappearance/murder on that fact alone, despite there being no publicly produced evidence produced that he assaulted females he knew or who had a relationship with him.

Noting that we can't rule out that there might have been inadmissible or not used evidence, of violent, assault, or consensual sexual acts that BRE committed against women known to him (possibly including BRE family members). Including ones where the victim was too under the influence of one or more substances, to consent.

I have been thinking about this the last couple of days, actually. You’ve articulated the conundrum perfectly - that having some evidence that he knew the women would have explained away some of the fibres but at the same time potentially increased his candidacy as involved in their disappearance.

What I have thought is that Edwards, arrogantly thinking he was being really clever, utterly screwed himself with his police interview.

He made a whole series of denials that left only two possible avenues: deny he had anything whatsoever to do with the women, or get on the stand and explain himself. If he had offered absolutely nothing in that interview, then there would have been scope to consider the possibility that he did know one of them, or at least was casually in Claremont that night, explaining away some of the evidence.

The point you make about him not demonstrating any violence against women he knew (that we know of) is key here. Had he claimed he was involved with any of them it could have been argued that, given his other history, he was therefore unlikely to have harmed her. At the very least, it would certainly have impacted the prosecution’s arguments and theory, because it meant they did not have a consistent MO.

I take some satisfaction in thinking that while he was sitting there smugly thinking he was being smart with his denials and would get away with it, he was actually sealing his fate.

 

[FeelingThroaty]

Here's something to perhaps consider V? I remembered reading this Paul Ferguson quote about the dump sites, so i went looking for it. I think it's certainly possible BRE wanted the poor women found?

"Ciara and Jane's bodies were both found dumped in bushland.

"The fact that the body was just dumped could mean a number of things. First and foremost it means he's arrogant... He wanted the body found," Paul Ferguson said."

Why we didn't catch the Claremont killer

The former head of the Western Australian Police task-force responsible for catching the notorious Claremont killer has spoken out about the investigation that never hit its mark.

au.news.yahoo.com

Once two victims were found the three point line was confirmed. Oh yet to be a four point line...