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

 

[BonzaRam]

Just a reminder that 7NEWS reported in writing and had Kimdelia claiming in her video story/interview with Kimdelia on this that she spoke to Jane on the
phone the day that Jane disappeared later that night.

Nothing in that article or accompanying video news story/interview that mentioned anything about WAPOL, or any interactions Kimdelia had with WAPOL.
Which pretty much only leaves the West's CSK podcasts as where Kimdelia's interactions or lack of with WAPOL over the CSK case back in 1996, or ay any time since, might have been discussed.

I clearly recall Kimdelia being brought up again in a very recent weeks West's CSK podcast, but no mention or discussion of what was said in this thread/forum.

Stunning new claim Claremont victim Jane Rimmer 'knew her killer'

Jane Rimmer may have known the man who, on Thursday, was convicted of killing her: Bradley Robert Edwards.

7news.com.au

'7NEWS has spoken to the woman who spoke to Jane Rimmer on the phone the night she disappeared.'
'Jane told her friend she was catching up with a new friend, a man she called “Bogsey.”'
'Cole says Jane told her in that phone call she was planning to meet her new friend “Bogsey” in Claremont that night.'

The way the media has passed on her claims is all the over the place.

“It’s just how uncanny the whole thing was ...we’d had a conversation about Sarah, and then six months later, there Jane is.”
6 months later?

 

[BFew]

I clearly recall Kimdelia being brought up again in a very recent weeks West's CSK podcast, but no mention or discussion of what was said in this thread/forum.

Here it is from the 15:35 mark in the West's 12 Oct 2020 podcast.

Did anyone else hear the below in this podcast and take away from this, that Damien Cripp's opinion that 'it's almost impossible that it wouldn't have been investigated, implies that he thinks that Kimdelia would have long ago, spoken to WAPOL about what was publicly revealed by 7News 24 September 2020 as per the below and all the other details that Ch7 revealed about this and that is still publicly available for people to watch exactly what Kimdelia told the camera/reporter that made it to press (or was not edited out)?

How Long Could Edwards Stay Behind Bars? - CLAREMONT: The Trial

Should Bradley Edwards be allowed to participate in rehabilitation programs in prison? Or should the prison just 'throw away the key'? Legal expert Damien Cripps joins Natalie Bonjolo in this last episode until the sentencing, discussing how Edwards might be sentenced, and answer some of your...

omny.fm

'NATALIE BUONGIORNO: Now Tom has a question about Bogsey.
And for those of you who haven't heard that Edwards High School nickname was Bogsey.
Now following the verdict, Channel 7 news spoke to a friend of Janes, and she says that Jane told her in a phone call, that she was planning to meet Bogsey in Claremont that night.
And of course we now know that this is the nickname of Edwards.
And I guess that Tom's question is, he'd like to ask your thoughts on why this wasn't brought up during the trial, and why it hasn't been made into a bigger deal'

'DAMIEN CRIPPS: We don't .... maybe it was investigated Tom.
I mean it's almost impossible that it wouldn't have been investigated.
So, it's not uncommon for things like that to be investigated and the Police not to actually give it any merit.
They might follow it down a Rabbit hole, if you would, if you will, and what they're looking for in the Rabbit hole is not there.
But, I mean, it does seem quite a pertinent piece of information.
It might have been used to take them somewhere.
I mean, I don't recall anything like that coming up in the trial either'

'NATALIE BUONGIORNO: No'

'DAMIEN CRIPPS: Remembering I wasn't there every day, but I didn't hear anything about it.
Perhaps what is helpful, is, that it doesn't take us anywhere, because we got no confirmation that it actually happened.
So perhaps, maybe the view was that it was too circumstantial to actually take anyone anywhere.
That's the best I can give you from where I'm standing.

'NATALIE BUONGIORNO: Yep'

 

[BonzaRam]

Here it is from the 15:35 mark in the West's 12 Oct 2020 podcast.

Did anyone else hear the below in this podcast and take away from this, that Damien Cripp's opinion that 'it's almost impossible that it wouldn't have been investigated, implies that he thinks that Kimdelia would have long ago, spoken to WAPOL about what was publicly revealed by 7News 24 September 2020 as per the below and all the other details that Ch7 revealed about this and that is still publicly available for people to watch exactly what Kimdelia told the camera/reporter that made it to press (or was not edited out)?

How Long Could Edwards Stay Behind Bars? - CLAREMONT: The Trial

Should Bradley Edwards be allowed to participate in rehabilitation programs in prison? Or should the prison just 'throw away the key'? Legal expert Damien Cripps joins Natalie Bonjolo in this last episode until the sentencing, discussing how Edwards might be sentenced, and answer some of your...

omny.fm

'NATALIE BUONGIORNO: Now Tom has a question about Bogsey.
And for those of you who haven't heard that Edwards High School nickname was Bogsey.
Now following the verdict, Channel 7 news spoke to a friend of Janes, and she says that Jane told her in a phone call, that she was planning to meet Bogsey in Claremont that night.
And of course we now know that this is the nickname of Edwards.
And I guess that Tom's question is, he'd like to ask your thoughts on why this wasn't brought up during the trial, and why it hasn't been made into a bigger deal'

'DAMIEN CRIPPS: We don't .... maybe it was investigated Tom.
I mean it's almost impossible that it wouldn't have been investigated.
So, it's not uncommon for things like that to be investigated and the Police not to actually give it any merit.
They might follow it down a Rabbit hole, if you would, if you will, and what they're looking for in the Rabbit hole is not there.
But, I mean, it does seem quite a pertinent piece of information.
It might have been used to take them somewhere.
I mean, I don't recall anything like that coming up in the trial either'

'NATALIE BUONGIORNO: No'

'DAMIEN CRIPPS: Remembering I wasn't there every day, but I didn't hear anything about it.
Perhaps what is helpful, is, that it doesn't take us anywhere, because we got no confirmation that it actually happened.
So perhaps, maybe the view was that it was too circumstantial to actually take anyone anywhere.
That's the best I can give you from where I'm standing.

'NATALIE BUONGIORNO: Yep'

So the West podcast that is owned by channel 7 (Seven West Media ) is speculating on a news article by channel 7. Hmmm.....
" Perhaps what is helpful, is, that it doesn't take us anywhere, because we got no confirmation that it actually happened. "

 

[BFew]

" Perhaps what is helpful, is, that it doesn't take us anywhere, because we got no confirmation that it actually happened. "

IMO' Damien's turn of phrase you have quoted was not very helpful.
Particularly to the public in a public podcast, and probably not at all helpful to whoever asked that question to the podcast team

What is Damien referring to when he says what you quoted above?

No confirmation from WAPOL that Kimdelia ever talked to WAPOL about "it"?
No confirmation by way of phone records that Kimdelia and Jane Rimmer ever spoke in that last week or on the day of the night of her disappearance?
No confirmation that the Prosecution was aware of Kimdelia's claims before they were aired by Channel 7?
No confirmation of the bit about Kimdelia discussing the abscence of Bogsey with others at Jane's Funeral and what others had to say to Kimdelia about why Bogsey was not at the funeral?
Or even no confirmation that Channel 7 reporters had known about Kimdelia's claims for years but were unable to reveal it in public for legal reasons?

Maybe we should speculate about whether Channel 7 reporters are lying about this too, because there is no confirmation from anyone else (including Kimdelia herself, that she told anyone at Channel 7 about it years ago.)

Just because it was not raised at the trial does not mean that "it" did not actually happen.

Whatever Damien is meaning by the word "it", or whatever you or I think that Damien means by the word "it".

All WAPOL have to do is come out and make a short statement to help clear this all up.

Until they do, I will be keeping an open mind, and certainly not pre-judging or judging Kimdelia Cole, until enough other parties credibly and believably give their side of what happened.

And when/if WAPOL eventually do address Kimdelia's claims, with a public statement, or at any inquiries into the CSK/Macro investigations, I'll reassess my views on the matter.

 

[BonzaRam]

IMO' Damien's turn of phrase you have quoted was not very helpful.
Particularly to the public in a public podcast, and probably not at all helpful to whoever asked that question to the podcast team

What is Damien referring to when he says what you quoted above?

No confirmation from WAPOL that Kimdelia ever talked to WAPOL about "it"?
No confirmation by way of phone records that Kimdelia and Jane Rimmer ever spoke in that last week or on the day of the night of her disappearance?
No confirmation that the Prosecution was aware of Kimdelia's claims before they were aired by Channel 7?
No confirmation of the bit about Kimdelia discussing the abscence of Bogsey with others at Jane's Funeral and what others had to say to Kimdelia about why Bogsey was not at the funeral?
Or even no confirmation that Channel 7 reporters had known about Kimdelia's claims for years but were unable to reveal it in public for legal reasons?

Maybe we should speculate about whether Channel 7 reporters are lying about this too, because there is no confirmation from anyone else (including Kimdelia herself, that she told anyone at Channel 7 about it years ago.)

Just because it was not raised at the trial does not mean that "it" did not actually happen.

Whatever Damien is meaning by the word "it", or whatever you or I think that Damien means by the word "it".

All WAPOL have to do is come out and make a short statement to help clear this all up.

Until they do, I will be keeping an open mind, and certainly not pre-judging or judging Kimdelia Cole, until enough other parties credibly and believably give their side of what happened.

And when/if WAPOL eventually do address Kimdelia's claims, with a public statement, or at any inquiries into the CSK/Macro investigations, I'll reassess my views on the matter.

i will wait until a news outlet not owned by SWM covers the story... guess who owns WHO magazine...

 

[BFew]

Just noticed something in the WAtoday CSK live Blog on 11 Dec 2019 that was not mentioned on the West's Live Blog that Day 13 of the CSK trial, and that I don't recall reading at the time and that does not appear to have ever been quoted or discussed in Bigfooty CSK threads.

Obviously something that the prosecution would not have raised at trial.
Possibly something that might be used in any BRE appeal?

Claremont killer trial LIVE: 'Jane refused to get in the taxi with us': Friend

Never-before-seen CCTV of the last moments Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon were seen alive will be played to the court today as accused Claremont serial killer, Bradley Edwards, watches on from the dock.

www.watoday.com.au

'Mr Yovich is now asking Ms Donovan about Jane and Sian having an argument with three men on the night Jane vanished, and that in her police statement at the time she said one of the men "worried her".
Ms Donovan said she has since forgotten about the interaction.'

Claremont serial killings trial - day 13

The West Australian is live blogging the trial of alleged Claremont serial killer Bradley Robert Edwards.

www.24liveblog.com

 

[BFew]

i will wait until a news outlet not owned by SWM covers the story... guess who owns WHO magazine...

Why Seven West Media of course.

We could be waiting a long time, if Kimdelia Cole signed an exclusive agreement with Seven West Media.

We might have to wait until News Corp or CBS (US owners of Ch10) potentially acquires Seven West Media to hear more from Kimdelia.
Or until any exclusivity period expires, that she or any legal advisers acting on her behalf, negotiated/agreed to.

 

[one eyed spy]

So none of the friends that JR went out at that night were JR's work friends?
(I actually don't know the answer to this question at the moment)

They were Lynda's friends & Lynda worked with Jane.

I've CV always believed Jane was supposed to be going to the movies with her brother that night & changed her mind to go out with Linda instead. Her dad picked her up & took her to Shenton Park, she went up to the pub where her mum was working and had a drink there. If she went to the Lacrosse Club it would have been on foot & likely just to see who she might come across, then made her way to the OBH via Peters house who wasn't home, probably just killing time as she knew the people she was meeting in Cottesloe were having dinner first & she probably didn't want to join them I suppose.
As for the Bogsy claim, well, who knows about that either. Have to wait to see the sky news interview where we can see what she actually says, if it hasnt been on already & I missed it? I'd expect that if "Bogsy" was known to her from the outset, it would have been mentioned to her folks and they would have passed it on to police. Then again, Kimdelia said she asked Janes mum Jenny about it at her funeral so knowing whether she had mentioned it before then would be helpful or if this was something just said randomly on the day, in which case, it may have never been mentioned to police. Did Jenny know who this person even was I wonder?

 

[GreyCrow]

Its my belief Kimdelia is mistaken or outright lying

If my friend told me she was meeting a guy that night and then disappeared I would be standing outside the police station blurting this information all over the place

If Kimdelia went to the police then WAPOL have one of the biggest ticking time bombs waiting to explode

Every Bogsy under the sun would have been investigated

 

[BFew]

As for the Bogsy claim, well, who knows about that either. Have to wait to see the sky news interview where we can see what she actually says, if it hasnt been on already & I missed it?

Yes, it was you in the Bunker post #5866 on October 5, 2020

Just saw a promo for a new Sky News Special coming soon "Catching the Claremont Killer - The untold story".
Wonder how much they know thats untold as yet?

The following might explain why you have not missed this Sky News CSK special yet.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

24 Sep 2020 - Herald Sun
'Sky News Australia will broadcast a special investigative documentary CATCHING THE CLAREMONT KILLER: THE UNTOLD STORY later this year.'

Google video search results on ""Catching the Claremont Killer - The untold story" reveal in a swag of News Ltd publications around Australian that same day, running the same article referring to the Sky CSK special at the bottom of the article.

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

No Cookies

www.dailymercury.com.au

'24th Sep 2020
Sky News Australia will broadcast a special investigative documentary CATCHING THE CLAREMONT KILLER: THE UNTOLD STORY later this year.'

 

[BFew]

If my friend told me she was meeting a guy that night and then disappeared I would be standing outside the police station blurting this information all over the place

Even (hypothetical) if after revealing what you knew to Police, Police then told you to keep quiet about it for now, because they did not want that guy to think that he was a suspect, in the hope that him thinking that he was not a suspect, might lead to him providing evidence of 6 months earlier disappearance nearby that he was now also a suspect of?

Would you have blurted it out to all and Sundry before first approaching Police and talking to them about it?
Because even if you would have in this hypothetical scenario, I speculate that others in that position, might have gone to Police first, before telling anyone, possibly in not wanting to destroy the reputation of a maybe innocent guy.

 

[GreyCrow]

Even (hypothetical) if after revealing what you knew to Police, Police then told you to keep quiet about it for now, because they did not want that guy to think that he was a suspect, in the hope that him thinking that he was not a suspect, might lead to him providing evidence of 6 months earlier disappearance nearby that he was now also a suspect of?

Would you have blurted it out to all and Sundry before first approaching Police and talking to them about it?
Because even if you would have in this hypothetical scenario, I speculate that others in that position, might have gone to Police first, before telling anyone, possibly in not wanting to destroy the reputation of a maybe innocent guy.

It was meant to read that I would be telling police

But in your hypothetical I would not wait 20 years

 

[BFew]

But in your hypothetical I would not wait 20 years

We don't actually know how long Ch7 claims to have known about the claims from Kimdelia.
Ch7 claimed they had known for 'many years'
Which could have meant that they knew of Kimdelia's claims as early as the 2nd half of 1996, 24 years ago.

 

[GreyCrow]

We don't actually know how long Ch7 claims to have known about the claims from Kimdelia.
Ch7 claimed they had known for 'many years'
Which could have meant that they knew of Kimdelia's claims as early as the 2nd half of 1996, 24 years ago.

'many years' could mean 3-4

There are many problems with this though

Either WAPOL knew in 1997 and ignored it or dismissed it - which is a time bomb
Channel 7 knew in 1997 which means they held back potential evidence
Channel 7 knew in 2017 and did not inform anyone
Channel 7 knew in 2017 , informed the Prosecution who ignored it even though it strengthened the case

Kimdelia is fos

I know which one I lean towards

 

[one eyed spy]

'many years' could mean 3-4

There are many problems with this though

Either WAPOL knew in 1997 and ignored it or dismissed it - which is a time bomb
Channel 7 knew in 1997 which means they held back potential evidence
Channel 7 knew in 2017 and did not inform anyone
Channel 7 knew in 2017 , informed the Prosecution who ignored it even though it strengthened the case

Kimdelia is fos

I know which one I lean towards

What if it was mentioned to police in the early days.
One of her friends claimed she was meeting someone called Bogsy that night!
Really, are you sure it was Bogsy.
Yeh, pretty sure.
Who is he? No idea.
Do you know his real name? No.

Do you know Janes friend Bogsy? No.
Heard her speak about him? No.
Do you know Bogsy? No.
Anyone know Bogsy? No.

Ok, that went nowhere. What else can they do in that situation?
Maybe why they didnt show the MM video though if 700 people saw it and not one identified MM or anyone else as Bogsy. Perhaps they thought there was a good chance he was Bogsy & no one at all knew him.
Or maybe they always knew who MM was as he was in the pub earlier & is seen several times on video, then when we see him the last time, he continued down the street never actually stopping to talk to Jane at all. Maybe it was simply to get people talking again seeing they got the DNA hit. See what it turns up. They needed an excuse to show the video or people would be asking questions otherwise, MM is as good an excuse as any regardless if he's actually a MM or not.

 

[BFew]

What if it was mentioned to police in the early days.
One of her friends claimed she was meeting someone called Bogsy that night!
Really, are you sure it was Bogsy.
Yeh, pretty sure.
Who is he? No idea.
Do you know his real name? No.

Do you know Janes friend Bogsy? No.
Heard her speak about him? No.
Do you know Bogsy? No.
Anyone know Bogsy? No.

Ok, that went nowhere. What else can they do in that situation?

Heaps more, regardless of whether any WAPOL had a gut feeling that Kimdelia was probably FOS over what she was telling them

For starters

1. Go though all Telstra phone records of incoming and outgoing calls on all the phones that Jane Rimmer might have had access to, and investigate whether any of those numbers were related to either a Bogsey or family or workplace of a Bogesy.
And if in the process all they came up with was a Telstra switchboard number, that's still useful to use to track down who Telstra switchboard staff transferred the call to, or if a Telstra spare mobile not assigned to anyone that Telstra had a record of, that's still useful for further investigations.

2. Interview all Janes friends and family and everyone on Jane's phone records that might lead them to friends that Jane's friends and parents were not aware of, and try and see if any of Jane's family or friends had ever heard of Jane talk about someone called Bogesy, and if so, try and get more info to assist narrow down who Bogsey might have been, how long Jane might have known him since, where they might have been together, how they might have first met.

But I have to agree with you one eyed spy, there's a good chance that some WAPOL were that incompetent back then, that whoever took the initial report from Kimdelia, (possibly someone on work experience in an Esperance cop shop?), somehow either did not pass on the info to the CSK case investigators, as they should have, or did try and pass it on, and something got lost in the process.

Either way, even if any report Kimdelia made to someone at WAPOL either hit a dead end at the point of connection, or somehow, got lost in the process of it being passed along by whoever took the report, and what Kimdelia claimed was bona fide, you'd think that WAPOL would have investigated phone records and who the calls at the other end were or might have been made to/from, as per 1. above (but without the Bogesy bit), and thoroughly interviewed all of Jane's family and friends anyway (including Kimdelia who would have been identified when they went though Jane's phone records) and established through one or more of these interviews, whether Jane had someone she was planning to meet up with later that night, or someone she was seeing, or hoping to further develop a relationship with (that maybe only less than a handful of others knew about).

Surely if Kimdelia was a friend that Jane was known to regularly confide in, some of Jane's family members would have been aware of this, and it would have been evident in Jane's phone records, and Kimdelia would have been interviewed multiple times by WAPOL during the length of investigations?

 

[BonzaRam]

Why Seven West Media of course.

We could be waiting a long time, if Kimdelia Cole signed an exclusive agreement with Seven West Media.

We might have to wait until News Corp or CBS (US owners of Ch10) potentially acquires Seven West Media to hear more from Kimdelia.
Or until any exclusivity period expires, that she or any legal advisers acting on her behalf, negotiated/agreed to.

Hmmm what would they pay for such exclusive content?

As an aside any idea what a case in the NT Supreme Court would cost?

 

[BFew]

Hmmm what would they pay for such exclusive content?

Possibly nothing, if Kimdelia Cole's motivation was just to find any media outlet that would publicise her claims, and there were no other takers she was happy to go with under whatever conditions they put on her if she chose their outlet.

Maybe all the other media outlets refused to touch it, and to get seven West to agree to run with it publicly, she had to agree to a period of exclusivity as part of the bargain and a fee of $0.

 

[Krusty Crab]

We don't actually know how long Ch7 claims to have known about the claims from Kimdelia.
Ch7 claimed they had known for 'many years'
Which could have meant that they knew of Kimdelia's claims as early as the 2nd half of 1996, 24 years ago.

CH7 claimed to have known for many years but only now can release it. did CH7 get this info from Kimdelia direct or from a conversation Kimdelia had with the cops, which was then shared to CH7 at some point by some one unknown? im going to assume that kimdelia spoke direct to CH7, and police interview details were not leaked. put this info against what was happening in the case:

1996 - JR goes missing - Kimdelia tells CH7 about boggsy, and JR organising a night out and getting picked up. The CSK was a major thing in the news at the time, so this would of been a huge exclusive. Kimdelia had talked to CH7 direct, so WAPOL would not of known about the exchange of info between kimdelia and CH7, and would of been unable to deny broadcast of the info.

1997 - CG goes missing - good chance to again pull an exclusive as per above

release of MM video - good time to release the info in conjunction with the video to try and get more leads

when lance williams ruled out as a suspect and case at a stand still - perfect time for release to scoop an exclusive and get more leads

anytime during the case while investigations were at a stand still, again would be a CH7 exclusive

Once BRE was arrested and his nick name of boggsy was known, definitely a good time to release the info by CH7 before suppression orders kick in

the only time i can see that CH7 could learn about this but not be allowed to broad cast it, would be during his trial and after suppression orders were in place.

So it would seem that kimdelia has told CH7 this sometime after BRE was arrested, and suppression orders were in place. If this claim was true, then dont you think Kimdelia would of told CH7 long before this, and it would of been public knowledge since way back in the day? if one of my close friends had plans to meet up with a particular person, and then be picked up by them late at night, at a time and location they then go missing from, im not waiting about 20 years to tell only one media outlet. the cops would be the first avenue, followed by any media outlet that would listen. if the cops told me to keep mum about the info, then after 20 years i decide to spill my guts, i would want to ensure best bang for my buck by telling all and sundry. if i was just after money, and CH7 tried to offer me an exclusivity detail and payment, then i would surely shop the other media outlets to see what they have to offer before signing, yet no other media outlet has had any input on this info.

 

[zedx]

CH7 claimed to have known for many years but only now can release it. did CH7 get this info from Kimdelia direct or from a conversation Kimdelia had with the cops, which was then shared to CH7 at some point by some one unknown? im going to assume that kimdelia spoke direct to CH7, and police interview details were not leaked. put this info against what was happening in the case:

1996 - JR goes missing - Kimdelia tells CH7 about boggsy, and JR organising a night out and getting picked up. The CSK was a major thing in the news at the time, so this would of been a huge exclusive. Kimdelia had talked to CH7 direct, so WAPOL would not of known about the exchange of info between kimdelia and CH7, and would of been unable to deny broadcast of the info.

1997 - CG goes missing - good chance to again pull an exclusive as per above

release of MM video - good time to release the info in conjunction with the video to try and get more leads

when lance williams ruled out as a suspect and case at a stand still - perfect time for release to scoop an exclusive and get more leads

anytime during the case while investigations were at a stand still, again would be a CH7 exclusive

Once BRE was arrested and his nick name of boggsy was known, definitely a good time to release the info by CH7 before suppression orders kick in

the only time i can see that CH7 could learn about this but not be allowed to broad cast it, would be during his trial and after suppression orders were in place.

So it would seem that kimdelia has told CH7 this sometime after BRE was arrested, and suppression orders were in place. If this claim was true, then dont you think Kimdelia would of told CH7 long before this, and it would of been public knowledge since way back in the day? if one of my close friends had plans to meet up with a particular person, and then be picked up by them late at night, at a time and location they then go missing from, im not waiting about 20 years to tell only one media outlet. the cops would be the first avenue, followed by any media outlet that would listen. if the cops told me to keep mum about the info, then after 20 years i decide to spill my guts, i would want to ensure best bang for my buck by telling all and sundry. if i was just after money, and CH7 tried to offer me an exclusivity detail and payment, then i would surely shop the other media outlets to see what they have to offer before signing, yet no other media outlet has had any input on this info.

Although I'm keeping an open mind about Kimdelia's information, i'm erring on the side of it not being totally true. Unless she did tell them in the early days and the Police decided to to set it aside as hearsay or lost it, forgot to pass it on or missed it etc. But with such a critical piece of information I find it hard to believe that could have happened, especially with all the reviews!
Also, it has been reported over and over that no knew why she stayed behind, surely during all this time Kimdelia or JR's parents would have come forward to correct that information and why did she only tell Kimdelia and not tell her other friends.
Heck one of your closest friends has died and you dont remember or think to pass this info on?

 

[BFew]

I've CV always believed Jane was supposed to be going to the movies with her brother that night & changed her mind to go out with Linda instead.

Here's some evidence from the West's live blog on Day 1 of the trial about the movie offer.

Claremont serial killer trial - Day 1

The moment Western Australia has waited 8704 days for arrives today, as Bradley Robert Edwards goes on trial — accused of being the Claremont serial killer

www.24liveblog.com

'The weekend she disappeared was a long weekend. She visited her parents' house that morning to do a load of washing, then went to get her hair done in Shenton Park. After her hair appointment she returned to do more washing at her parents.'

'Later that day she spoke to her brother Adam and asked about his plans for the weekend. He told her he was going to Sizzlers and the movies, she was welcome to join him but she declined.'

 

[one eyed spy]

CH7 claimed to have known for many years but only now can release it. did CH7 get this info from Kimdelia direct or from a conversation Kimdelia had with the cops, which was then shared to CH7 at some point by some one unknown? im going to assume that kimdelia spoke direct to CH7, and police interview details were not leaked. put this info against what was happening in the case:

1996 - JR goes missing - Kimdelia tells CH7 about boggsy, and JR organising a night out and getting picked up. The CSK was a major thing in the news at the time, so this would of been a huge exclusive. Kimdelia had talked to CH7 direct, so WAPOL would not of known about the exchange of info between kimdelia and CH7, and would of been unable to deny broadcast of the info.

1997 - CG goes missing - good chance to again pull an exclusive as per above

release of MM video - good time to release the info in conjunction with the video to try and get more leads

when lance williams ruled out as a suspect and case at a stand still - perfect time for release to scoop an exclusive and get more leads

anytime during the case while investigations were at a stand still, again would be a CH7 exclusive

Once BRE was arrested and his nick name of boggsy was known, definitely a good time to release the info by CH7 before suppression orders kick in

the only time i can see that CH7 could learn about this but not be allowed to broad cast it, would be during his trial and after suppression orders were in place.

So it would seem that kimdelia has told CH7 this sometime after BRE was arrested, and suppression orders were in place. If this claim was true, then dont you think Kimdelia would of told CH7 long before this, and it would of been public knowledge since way back in the day? if one of my close friends had plans to meet up with a particular person, and then be picked up by them late at night, at a time and location they then go missing from, im not waiting about 20 years to tell only one media outlet. the cops would be the first avenue, followed by any media outlet that would listen. if the cops told me to keep mum about the info, then after 20 years i decide to spill my guts, i would want to ensure best bang for my buck by telling all and sundry. if i was just after money, and CH7 tried to offer me an exclusivity detail and payment, then i would surely shop the other media outlets to see what they have to offer before signing, yet no other media outlet has had any input on this info.

For all we know Bogsy was discussed in closed court and because no one can conclusively say that "the" bogsy that was referred to "was" BRE, it was deemed to prejudicial to introduce.

I highly doubt Kimdelia was looking to have the press enter a bidding war over the detail nor to make some money off her friends death & regardless of how it came to be known to police and whether she spoke to them herself or passed it on via her parents or if it was never mentioned at all.

By all accounts from what the media have said since, it seems to me they're alluding they were unable to get any clarification off police as to whether they did know about it nor what was done in that regard, if anything, at any time.

Even if thats not true & they're all aware of the full story, until he's been sentenced for all his crimes and the usual time limits for appeal against that has elapsed, its right that none of the media outlets should be releasing anything at all about what they do know about BRE or the case & regardless how long they've known it or how they came to know it. That extends until the time that any pending matters have officially exhausted the complete court process as it now stands. To do otherwise would be highly unwise & they're fully aware of their responsibilities in that regard, so to the ramifications of not keeping their mouths firmly closed until such time. This is why I suspect the only comments that have been made in the press to date was in reference to these so called "claims made by Janes friend". When they can report the case freely you can bet your boots they'll hammer out all the articles they probably already have lined up waiting to release containing all sorts of things, more than likely precluded by "we haven't been able to release this until now", "so as not to jeopardise" or "we decided not to release this before so as not to interfere with the court process".

 

[Girlnextdoor]

Have we all seen this, BRE's family have already begun appeal preparations?


"The family of convicted Claremont killer Bradley Robert Edwards have already begun preparing to help him appeal his convictions after he was found guilty of murdering two women in the late 1990s. "

"It has now been revealed relatives of the killer have contacted prominent barristers in Perth seeking legal advice, Nine News and WAToday reported. "

Claremont serial killer looking to appeal his murder convictions

The family of Bradley Robert Edwards have reportedly contacted prominent barristers in Perth to appeal the case against the convicted murderer.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[one eyed spy]

Have we all seen this, BRE's family have already begun appeal preparations?


"The family of convicted Claremont killer Bradley Robert Edwards have already begun preparing to help him appeal his convictions after he was found guilty of murdering two women in the late 1990s. "

"It has now been revealed relatives of the killer have contacted prominent barristers in Perth seeking legal advice, Nine News and WAToday reported. "

Claremont serial killer looking to appeal his murder convictions

The family of Bradley Robert Edwards have reportedly contacted prominent barristers in Perth to appeal the case against the convicted murderer.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I hate reporter spin more than almost anything else I can think of that I dislike. Seeking legal advice and "helping him to prepare his appeal" as they've suggested are 2 very different things. They have to firstly identify a valid ground, then seek leave to and be granted the right to launch an appeal, find a QC preferably well versed in the appeal process who agrees to mount a challenge on his behalf, then prepare, present & win the appeal. All with the knowledge its going to cost far more than they can probably imagine and with a good chance the best outcome may be a retrial which could end with the exact same result. Its not as simple as wanting to appeal because they didn't like the decision but nor is the leap from seeking legal advice to preparing to appeal a reliable one to take.

Most people who face the prospect of never seeing their loved one outside of the prison walls again & whilst they're still protesting their innocence despite pleading guilty to other hideous crimes in the same area, would be doing themselves a disservice if they didnt seek legal advice at least, if only for their own understanding & so they know they were fully informed & understood exactly what options where available to them & exactly why that was.

In saying that, I have wondered whether Yovich's apparent lack of any real substance in regard to his defence was always geared towards potentially getting another bite via appeal. We know he forced the prosecution to call additional witnesses they didn't intend to call simply because their evidence didn't suit the narrative they needed to convince Hall of so as to gain a conviction, but who knows what else that file contains that may be stellar grounds to apply for & be granted leave to appeal. If they only cherry picked the portions that were the most damning & could only be seen to go against him, while leaving out a pile of very valid information that may point to an entirely different situation than the one they presented, there's a good chance he will be granted leave to highlight this detail to the court with the hope of a change to the outcome. Whether it actually results in any further action being filed we wait and see, but whatever happens, its simply misleading to correlate the seeking of legal advice with claims they're already assisting him to prepare an appeal, whichever way its spun.

The prosecutions job has never been one to set out to gain a conviction at all cost, its to present ALL the evidence good or bad and allow the courts by way of the trial process, to decide what that evidence means. Too often the prosecutors seems to forget that & time and time again we see them presenting cases that are so clearly one sided and focused on nothing other than getting another conviction under their belt. Which I dont think could be any less fair to anyone regardless of their charges. If that has occured, he has a right to have that corrected.

 

[Girlnextdoor]

I hate reporter spin more than almost anything else I can think of that I dislike. Seeking legal advice and "helping him to prepare his appeal" as they've suggested are 2 very different things. They have to firstly identify a valid ground, then seek leave to and be granted the right to launch an appeal, find a QC preferably well versed in the appeal process who agrees to mount a challenge on his behalf, then prepare, present & win the appeal. All with the knowledge its going to cost far more than they can probably imagine and with a good chance the best outcome may be a retrial which could end with the exact same result. Its not as simple as wanting to appeal because they didn't like the decision but nor is the leap from seeking legal advice to preparing to appeal a reliable one to take.

Most people who face the prospect of never seeing their loved one outside of the prison walls again & whilst they're still protesting their innocence despite pleading guilty to other hideous crimes in the same area, would be doing themselves a disservice if they didnt seek legal advice at least, if only for their own understanding & so they know they were fully informed & understood exactly what options where available to them & exactly why that was.

In saying that, I have wondered whether Yovich's apparent lack of any real substance in regard to his defence was always geared towards potentially getting another bite via appeal. We know he forced the prosecution to call additional witnesses they didn't intend to call simply because their evidence didn't suit the narrative they needed to convince Hall of so as to gain a conviction, but who knows what else that file contains that may be stellar grounds to apply for & be granted leave to appeal. If they only cherry picked the portions that were the most damning & could only be seen to go against him, while leaving out a pile of very valid information that may point to an entirely different situation than the one they presented, there's a good chance he will be granted leave to highlight this detail to the court with the hope of a change to the outcome. Whether it actually results in any further action being filed we wait and see, but whatever happens, its simply misleading to correlate the seeking of legal advice with claims they're already assisting him to prepare an appeal, whichever way its spun.

The prosecutions job has never been one to set out to gain a conviction at all cost, its to present ALL the evidence good or bad and allow the courts by way of the trial process, to decide what that evidence means. Too often the prosecutors seems to forget that & time and time again we see them presenting cases that are so clearly one sided and focused on nothing other than getting another conviction under their belt. Which I dont think could be any less fair to anyone regardless of their charges. If that has occured, he has a right to have that corrected.

Thanks so much for your excellent summation OES. I hadn't seen anything about this happening before this UK report? Maybe I missed it as it mentions Channel 9 and WA Today?