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

 

[ms finch]

BRE could of been expected to work at dumas house on Sunday, but called in sick. It was possibly noted on his time sheet, however as sunday was possibly over time and not standard work hours, he wouldn't be paid any sick leave allowance. so quite possible he took sick leave as he was expected to work, however didn't get paid as he wasn't sick on standard hours.

i also noticed while his parents were away, they flew back home on 12/1/97, and then departed again on 19/1/97. BRE also took bereavement leave on 15/1/97. places ive worked at have only paid bereavement leave for time off when an immediate family member passes, or you attend the funeral of an immediate family member. we know the funeral wasn't BRE mother or father, and his brother is still around, did his sister pass away in early 1997?

I assume his parents were on an extended holiday and broke it up when someone died. If it was an immediate family member such as a child, I can’t see them picking up their trip four days later. I thought maybe a parent of theirs or a sibling of theirs (Bradley’s grandparent or aunt/uncle), most likely the former? My partner worked at Telstra and in the mid 90s was able to take bereavement leave when his grandparent died and also when his best friend died.

 

[ms finch]

Maybe the disability allowance event (assuming that it was not just a fortnightly "disability allowance" for some disability he had, that got put against every Thursday on his payslip. It might have been just singled out in the verdict document, not because it was a once off "disability allowance", but because it might have been so close to the date of the unsuccessful search for evidence that BRE was actually working for Telstra on Saturday 27th January 1996 and that whether there was any record of BRE being paid for either working that day or working overtime that day.
p136 verdict document


I speculate that BRE's disability allowance was a regular fortnightly payment related to a historical workers comp claim and/or work related accident or event that happened? An event or accident that did not happen on Thursday 25 January 1996.

It's also interesting that despite all the stuff on payslips and Dumas house in the verdict document, I can't see anything saying that the payslips produced as evidence for the period ending 7 Feb 1996, stated that BRE worked on Saturday 27 January 1996. Although just because Justice Hall does not appear to state in the verdict document, that the payslips verify be worked on the 27th, BRE's Admission 13. strongly indicates that either from payslips and or witness evidence, the Prosecution felt there was no need to dispute whether BRE actually worked at Dumas House on 27 January 1996, hopefully because there was beyond reasonable evidence that he actually did.

Interesting possibility that it might have been ongoing due to an injury. I hadn’t considered that, but what you are saying makes sense - that it only appeared in evidence because they were so focused on what was happening around that timeframe; it may have been ongoing but they didn’t bother to reference other occasions.

The only thing I can find on a workplace incident is 9 April 1996, after that claim, but it does maybe reference other incidents without specifically noting them, depending on how you read it. It was brought up to note that there was no record of the attack on Wendy Davis.

437. There is a record in the personnel file of the accused of some workplace incidents he had been involved in. The accused sustained an injury at work on 9 April 1996.

 

[ms finch]

Department of Immigration and Border Protection in the period 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1997 for the accused, Bruce Richard Edwards (his father), Elizabeth Kaye Edwards (his mother), his brother and his sister

Why 1988? Or is it just the period a passport is valid for? ie 10 years was my understanding

To encompass the Huntingdale attack, perhaps? So to cover the timeframe from the first crime under examination (Huntingdale) to the last (Ciara).

 

[Krusty Crab]

I assume his parents were on an extended holiday and broke it up when someone died. If it was an immediate family member such as a child, I can’t see them picking up their trip four days later. I thought maybe a parent of theirs or a sibling of theirs (Bradley’s grandparent or aunt/uncle), most likely the former? My partner worked at Telstra and in the mid 90s was able to take bereavement leave when his grandparent died and also when his best friend died.

further research has located the following:

Search Results

it seems there was an Esther Iris Edwards 75 years old that passed away on 11/1/1997. on the cemetery record is also the name Arthur John Edwards. Looks like it could of been BRE grandmother on the fathers side passing away.

 

[Krusty Crab]

Interesting possibility that it might have been ongoing due to an injury. I hadn’t considered that, but what you are saying makes sense - that it only appeared in evidence because they were so focused on what was happening around that timeframe; it may have been ongoing but they didn’t bother to reference other occasions.

The only thing I can find on a workplace incident is 9 April 1996, after that claim, but it does maybe reference other incidents without specifically noting them, depending on how you read it. It was brought up to note that there was no record of the attack on Wendy Davis.

If i recall there was a post way back in the day that said something about BRE being in a car accident in Claremont in a work vehicle. i think it may have been posted by Kurve? cant recall the date of the accident, but could possibly relate to the ongoing disability payments.

 

[ms finch]

further research has located the following:

Search Results

it seems there was an Esther Iris Edwards 75 years old that passed away on 11/1/1997. on the cemetery record is also the name Arthur John Edwards. Looks like it could of been BRE grandmother on the fathers side passing away.

Great find. That all makes perfect sense.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

If i recall there was a post way back in the day that said something about BRE being in a car accident in Claremont in a work vehicle. i think it may have been posted by Kurve? cant recall the date of the accident, but could possibly relate to the ongoing disability payments.

Or Krusty there was another work incident in 1990 that could have resulted in an injury? Poor Young Brad, will he recover?

"Ms Davis told how she managed to twist around and kicked out with her legs."

Wendy Davis believes she was a 'dress rehearsal' for Claremont Killer Bradley Edwards

Ms Davis has told how she thought she was going to die as Bradley Edwards sneaked up behind her, stuffed fabric in her mouth and dragged her out of her chair while she was working at the hospital.

www.watoday.com.au

 

[Kurve]

If i recall there was a post way back in the day that said something about BRE being in a car accident in Claremont in a work vehicle. i think it may have been posted by Kurve? cant recall the date of the accident, but could possibly relate to the ongoing disability payments.

It was on Stirling Highway but I dont recall if we got a date for that and whether he was on the job at the time. I'll chase it up.

It would be handy to know if this disability related to an old injury, exactly when it occurred. He'd be the type to really hurt himself creeping around in the dark prowling, falling the wrong way jumping over a fence, breaking an ankle or some sort of hip injury dumping a car in the surf at Cottesloe for example then showing up at work the next day to fake a fall before morning tea so he can claim it.

 

[Fortune Cookie]

There's mention of a workplace injury on page 137 of the verdict document which may be relevant.

There is a record in the personnel file of the accused of some workplace incidents he had been involved in. The accused sustained an injury at work on 9 April 1996. Telstra does not hold any records relating to the accused's assault on WD on 7 May 1990.283

 

[Kurve]

There's mention of a workplace injury on page 137 of the verdict document which may be relevant.

There is a record in the personnel file of the accused of some workplace incidents he had been involved in. The accused sustained an injury at work on 9 April 1996. Telstra does not hold any records relating to the accused's assault on WD on 7 May 1990.283

Thanks Fortune Cookie. That date falls between Sarah and Jane's murders and 8 days after Marsha was murdered. Hmmm

 

[Girlnextdoor]

One of our caring therapy team!
Does it hurt when I do this Brad? Sorry, can't hear you?

 

[Kurve]

I've just started scrolling through the cctv evidence, on which there was some debate in particular when Carmel said regarding a BankWest withdrawal 'It's what you don't see" and I saw this. Can anybody explain what this actually means?

1152 Det Sgt Geary gave evidence that the footage from The Continental on 8 and 9 June 1996 was checked for accuracy and found to be within 30 seconds of the correct time. This time check was not carried out by him; he reviewed police information about the check. The information is a phone call made by Detective Brandham to a day manager at The Continental on 11 June 1996. The police officer asked the day manager if the time was accurate and was told that the video recorder was within 30 seconds of Telecom recorded time. He is not aware of whether there has been any independent technical check of the time on the footage. The Club Bayview recordings from 8 and 9 June 1996 were not checked for accuracy.946 1153 Det Sgt Geary also gave evidence that the time of the footage recorded on 14 and 15 March 1997 was checked and it was found to be accurate at both The Continental Hotel and Club Bayview. He was asked in cross-examination about the process of checking the times and said as best he knows it was by police contacting someone at the relevant place and asking them if the times were accurate. In re-examination he was asked what he meant by 'found to be accurate' and said that 'they're believed to be by Telecom time'.947 I accept the accuracy of the times and have used the CCTV evidence to confirm the times and sequence of events referred to by witnesses who were in attendance on the relevant nights.

 

[BonzaRam]

I've just started scrolling through the cctv evidence, on which there was some debate in particular when Carmel said regarding a BankWest withdrawal 'It's what you don't see" and I saw this. Can anybody explain what this actually means?

1152 Det Sgt Geary gave evidence that the footage from The Continental on 8 and 9 June 1996 was checked for accuracy and found to be within 30 seconds of the correct time. This time check was not carried out by him; he reviewed police information about the check. The information is a phone call made by Detective Brandham to a day manager at The Continental on 11 June 1996. The police officer asked the day manager if the time was accurate and was told that the video recorder was within 30 seconds of Telecom recorded time. He is not aware of whether there has been any independent technical check of the time on the footage. The Club Bayview recordings from 8 and 9 June 1996 were not checked for accuracy.946 1153 Det Sgt Geary also gave evidence that the time of the footage recorded on 14 and 15 March 1997 was checked and it was found to be accurate at both The Continental Hotel and Club Bayview. He was asked in cross-examination about the process of checking the times and said as best he knows it was by police contacting someone at the relevant place and asking them if the times were accurate. In re-examination he was asked what he meant by 'found to be accurate' and said that 'they're believed to be by Telecom time'.947 I accept the accuracy of the times and have used the CCTV evidence to confirm the times and sequence of events referred to by witnesses who were in attendance on the relevant nights.

I don't remember ever hearing further explanation to that comment, "It's what you don't see".

There no records of withdrawals by BRE at that ATM on that date and the notes taken by the 2nd Wife only show two dates -
The prosecution relied on the notebook because it contains entries which are said to show the use of automated teller machines (ATMs) in Claremont. The particular entries relied on are as follows:
05/12/96 BayView ATM $300 BANKWEST Thur
13/12/96 BayView ATM $300 BANKWEST Fri.

I remember only few things that may fit the comment

In no CCTV footage was BRE or any vehicles associated with him identified.
There is no CCTV footage of CG leaving The Continental.
***The CCTV footage that doesn't show the face of a customer at the Shell(?) Service station.*** I am leaning more towards this footage - you can't see his face but can see his build. The camera was in place on the 8th and 9th June 1996.
I doubt her intent was to expose police incompetence but there is also all that police footage of the camera not picking numbers plates and faces...

How any of this could be of benefit to the prosecutions case is beyond me.

 

[ms finch]

I've just started scrolling through the cctv evidence, on which there was some debate in particular when Carmel said regarding a BankWest withdrawal 'It's what you don't see" and I saw this. Can anybody explain what this actually means?

1152 Det Sgt Geary gave evidence that the footage from The Continental on 8 and 9 June 1996 was checked for accuracy and found to be within 30 seconds of the correct time. This time check was not carried out by him; he reviewed police information about the check. The information is a phone call made by Detective Brandham to a day manager at The Continental on 11 June 1996. The police officer asked the day manager if the time was accurate and was told that the video recorder was within 30 seconds of Telecom recorded time. He is not aware of whether there has been any independent technical check of the time on the footage. The Club Bayview recordings from 8 and 9 June 1996 were not checked for accuracy.946 1153 Det Sgt Geary also gave evidence that the time of the footage recorded on 14 and 15 March 1997 was checked and it was found to be accurate at both The Continental Hotel and Club Bayview. He was asked in cross-examination about the process of checking the times and said as best he knows it was by police contacting someone at the relevant place and asking them if the times were accurate. In re-examination he was asked what he meant by 'found to be accurate' and said that 'they're believed to be by Telecom time'.947 I accept the accuracy of the times and have used the CCTV evidence to confirm the times and sequence of events referred to by witnesses who were in attendance on the relevant nights.

Was that the time synchronisation protocol at the time perhaps?

 

[Kurve]

Was that the time synchronisation protocol at the time perhaps?

Maybe but I wondered if it might indicate wiring connected to Telecom at the time.

Little snippet here, he worked inside Bankwest.

2296 The accused provided a sample of his DNA by way of a buccal swab at 11.52 am and the interview was suspended shortly after. The interview resumed at 2.54 pm. He was then shown some maps and repeated his denials of having been at Karrakatta Cemetery in 1995 and ever having been to Rowe Park. He marked a map of central Claremont showing the location of the Bankwest (or Commonwealth) branch at which he had worked. When asked whether he had worked at any of the locations within that area in 1995, 1996 or 1997, he said 'I'm not sure. I don't think so'. He recalled an occasion when he had worked at the bank to replace a faulty switch on the first floor. This work had taken a couple of hours and was done during the day. He said he knew nothing of the payphone on Stirling Street and was positive he had never been there during the course of his employment.2060

 

[BFew]

I don't remember ever hearing further explanation to that comment, "It's what you don't see".

I thought that the general consensus was that the Prosecution's likely meaning of this was, that because neither CCTV, cameras or witnesses resulted in any clear enough evidence of BRE being at, or on foot near enough to Claremont nightspots on the night's that Jane and Ciara disappeared, it made it even more unlikely that Jane or Ciara might have picked up BRE's DNA, clothing or car fibres, from a secondary transfer scenario. Transfer from person to person, or other people, or from clothing on the floor or any other possible friendly transfer possibility around Claremont those nights.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

I thought that the general consensus was that the Prosecution's likely meaning of this was that , because neither CCTVm cameras or witnesses resulted in any clear enough evidence of BRE being at, or on foot near enough to Claremont nightspots on the night's that Jane and Ciara disappeared, it made it even more unlikely that Jane or Ciara might have picked up BRE's DNA, clothing or car fibres, from a secondary transfer scenario. Transfer from person to person, or other people, or from clothing on the floor or any other possible friendly transfer possibility around Claremont those nights.

Ah so that makes sense thanks BFew! Never could do cryptic puzzles, just give me good ole standard clues.

 

[BonzaRam]

I thought that the general consensus was that the Prosecution's likely meaning of this was, that because neither CCTV, cameras or witnesses resulted in any clear enough evidence of BRE being at, or on foot near enough to Claremont nightspots on the night's that Jane and Ciara disappeared, it made it even more unlikely that Jane or Ciara might have picked up BRE's DNA, clothing or car fibres, from a secondary transfer scenario. Transfer from person to person, or other people, or from clothing on the floor or any other possible friendly transfer possibility around Claremont those nights.

I think the logic behind doing that is flawed. Over 3000 vehicles passed through police cameras and they could only identify 1060 of them, around 30% of them. BRE could have been any one of the other 70%.
All we have on the number of people not identified is " . Many people in the footage have not been identified" from page 301 of the Verdict. That could be because they didn't get a clear picture of them. We know he liked hiding in shadows...

All that aside I think you are right, that seems to be is how it's presented in the Verdict too.

 

[Kurve]

The court sketch artist, Perth illustrator Ann Barnetson.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

The court sketch artist, Perth illustrator Ann Barnetson.

Here's another sketch artist. What a talent, Out of this world!

 

[Mesc]

Stripped of his little athletics award ! That will be the tipping point for him mentally.

 

[Likeamystery]

It was on Stirling Highway but I dont recall if we got a date for that and whether he was on the job at the time. I'll chase it up.

It would be handy to know if this disability related to an old injury, exactly when it occurred. He'd be the type to really hurt himself creeping around in the dark prowling, falling the wrong way jumping over a fence, breaking an ankle or some sort of hip injury dumping a car in the surf at Cottesloe for example then showing up at work the next day to fake a fall before morning tea so he can claim it.

The disability allowance is so very interesting! Sounds like BRE actually has a disability and made sure he got the allowance he was entitled too. Maybe it was for sleep apnea, that might be a real problem which caused him to fall asleep, affecting his work. Whatever it was probably came under the Equal Opportunity Act. He's been diagnozed with some sort of ailment.

The definition of a disability includes

1. a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.

2. a disadvantage or handicap, especially one imposed or recognized by the law

(affliction · physical abnormality · mental abnormality · defect · impairment)

Additional information: If he did have a pre-diagnozed mental disability, I wonder if, Equal Opportunity supported him after the HH attack. At that point, he was probably awarded with the disability allowance. Might be how he kept his job.

 

[Kurve]

The disability allowance is so very interesting! Sounds like BRE actually has a disability and made sure he got the allowance he was entitled too. Maybe it was for sleep apnea, that might be a real problem which caused him to fall asleep, affecting his work. Whatever it was probably came under the Equal Opportunity Act. He's been diagnozed with some sort of ailment.

The definition of a disability includes

1. a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.

2. a disadvantage or handicap, especially one imposed or recognized by the law

(affliction · physical abnormality · mental abnormality · defect · impairment)

Would a disability allowance paid by Telecom/Telstra with his usual pay indicate the injury occurred on the job?

I had him pegged for leg or hip injury actually, he walks as if he favours one side and one of his feet turns out iirc it's been a while since I looked.

 

[Kurve]

There's mention of a workplace injury on page 137 of the verdict document which may be relevant.

There is a record in the personnel file of the accused of some workplace incidents he had been involved in. The accused sustained an injury at work on 9 April 1996. Telstra does not hold any records relating to the accused's assault on WD on 7 May 1990.283

I'm curious as to what these workplace incidents he was involved in are? Could it be suppressed? There was some mention of 'complainants' early in the trial and we didn't know who they were or what it involved.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Would a disability allowance paid by Telecom/Telstra with his usual pay indicate the injury occurred on the job?

I had him pegged for leg or hip injury actually, he walks as if he favours one side and one of his feet turns out iirc it's been a while since I looked.

SNAP! I was just looking at a photo of him from a video showing him loading up stuff in his garage. I saved it so I'll upload it here. Shows his slightly turned right foot.

I remember ages ago on a forum we had a human gait analyst who analysed BRE walking in the video and then said it matched the gait of a guy on the MM video!! All that disappeared, as far as I can see, in unless someone has it stored away (paging BFew, paging BFew?)

Anyone remember what I'm waffling on about?
(I've copied as best I can but you need to hit download and then open on it, sorry not good at this!)

Gait analysis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org