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

 

[Fifty n Closing]

I recorded it and have just finished watching it now, I'll likely re-watch it again over the weekend just to re-clarify a few things maybe, I'd also like to refresh back over a lot of the 2013 cold case review as well, this is what we've basically been told as to how/why this review came about at that time. "The review was established in 2013 to try to establish whether there were any crimes in the lead up to the killings that could be linked to them"

During this 2013 - 2016 cold case period it would be interesting to know at what point ie: the dates in which they specifically started looking into the Huntingdale offences, for memory its been mentioned that the Kimono was retrieved from storage in 2013 and I further thought also that it was mentioned on one of Tim Clarkes podcasts during the trial that this Kimono was also suppose to be DNA re-tested that year as well but due to many other items considered as a higher priority that it then got put on the back burner and subsequently was only tested by Scott Egan at Pathwest on November 23rd 2016, interestingly though on this documentary tonight that Liz Kirkby mentioned she was contacted by cold case detectives during July 2016 and they wanted to speak with her about the attach that occurred with her whilst living at her Huntingdale house in 1988.

Given some other very key known dates/time frames such as 2014 when they had established exactly what model car the specific fibres related to down to what sections/compartment area's of the car, to the well known dates about the second wife and the bank statement info she was copying down, along with her fearing for her life and moving out from the Kewdale home obviously despite the daughter still remaining there.

Would be nice to see how all of this tie's in a little better and see if a bigger picture starts to appear/take shape.

 

[one eyed spy]

Just posted a rundown of the show over in the bunker. Nothing to be concerned about missing, very little new info given at all. Most footage rehashed from CI vid, press conferences & trial.

Just read the above post, maybe I'll have to watch again too as I dont recall seeing anything about the dates specified that are mentioned in the 3rd paragraph.

Edit - rewatched, total waste of time. Realised I misread the above post. Nothing new, no details provided aside from the basic timeframe of the crimes. Total rehash of old stuff we know already with errors. Paul Ferguson saying 7mins between SS phone call & taxi arrival, Pennells repeats that, we know it was 3. Don't bother if you expect to learn anything new relating to his ultimate arrest or the evidence.

 

[Two Planks]

The glaring thing I took out of the show was that he should have been stopped way earlier. Luck and ordinary follow up work meant this dragged on for way too long. If the 88 victim said she thought it was the Telstra man, how wasn't he followed up on. And then the Hospital attack occurs 4 years later by a Telstra worker, well surely the alarm bells were ringing.

This entire fiasco could have and should have been stopped well before he began killing.

 

[Likeamystery]

The glaring thing I took out of the show was that he should have been stopped way earlier. Luck and ordinary follow up work meant this dragged on for way too long. If the 88 victim said she thought it was the Telstra man, how wasn't he followed up on. And then the Hospital attack occurs 4 years later by a Telstra worker, well surely the alarm bells were ringing.

This entire fiasco could have and should have been stopped well before he began killing.

I recorded it and have just finished watching it now, I'll likely re-watch it again over the weekend just to re-clarify a few things maybe, I'd also like to refresh back over a lot of the 2013 cold case review as well, this is what we've basically been told as to how/why this review came about at that time. "The review was established in 2013 to try to establish whether there were any crimes in the lead up to the killings that could be linked to them"

During this 2013 - 2016 cold case period it would be interesting to know at what point ie: the dates in which they specifically started looking into the Huntingdale offences, for memory its been mentioned that the Kimono was retrieved from storage in 2013 and I further thought also that it was mentioned on one of Tim Clarkes podcasts during the trial that this Kimono was also suppose to be DNA re-tested that year as well but due to many other items considered as a higher priority that it then got put on the back burner and subsequently was only tested by Scott Egan at Pathwest on November 23rd 2016, interestingly though on this documentary tonight that Liz Kirkby mentioned she was contacted by cold case detectives during July 2016 and they wanted to speak with her about the attach that occurred with her whilst living at her Huntingdale house in 1988.

Given some other very key known dates/time frames such as 2014 when they had established exactly what model car the specific fibres related to down to what sections/compartment area's of the car, to the well known dates about the second wife and the bank statement info she was copying down, along with her fearing for her life and moving out from the Kewdale home obviously despite the daughter still remaining there.

Would be nice to see how all of this tie's in a little better and see if a bigger picture starts to appear/take shape.

From what I’ve read they started looking at the archived evidence in 2013. Strange, if they contacted Liz Kirby in July 2016. It sounds as though, the Gosnells evidence had been shoved in various tubs and was slowly found, and enquiries made once it was found – piecing the puzzle together.

As for the fiasco which has taken place, we can’t change history. I lived in Huntingdale and remember seeing BRE, riding his bike after school. The police were looking for him back then, myself and other locals had reported him for performing indecent acts. There’s a whole series of prowling which never got mentioned.

Probably the kind of questions you should be asking, is who cleaned up after BRE. What contacts did they have in the police force?

 

[Kurve]

Meshel Laurie on Australian True Crime podcast interview with Bret Christian. I haven't listened through yet, confirmation there is a school of thought that MM could well have been BRE and a bit of chat about BRE liked to raise the murders among his friends to get their thoughts.

Stalking Claremont | Australian True Crime Podcast

The Claremont Serial Killer. Bret Christian is a journalist from Perth, in fact he's a newspaper owner and he's been following the Claremont serial killer case from the very beginning.

australiantruecrimepodcast.com

Edit: There's a little bit more about what Wife 2 might have been about to say in court and why she was stopped, I think Bret believes she suspected him.

 

[Fifty n Closing]

Meshel Laurie on Australian True Crime podcast interview with Bret Christian. I haven't listened through yet, confirmation there is a school of thought that MM could well have been BRE and a bit of chat about BRE liked to raise the murders among his friends to get their thoughts.

When watching the Sky News documentary last night - Catching the Claremont Killer, the footage of Jane on the CCTV with MM was shown, that was the first time I personally have seen that footage on a TV as such ie: your pretty standard type of lounge room flat screen, previously ive only watched it on my laptop/phone, I don't know if it was just due to the fact that I saw it in a much larger scale for the first time or whether it might have been a much better/clearer version of it (as in one of the versions that they had edited and cleaned up as best as possible when they were going to great lengths over the years) and it was one of those that was used last night or if it was just something else, and the last thing that any of us who have spent many hours researching this case over the years want to do or make a thought process/decision by is with a kind of "placebo effect" type mindset i guess you could say, but honestly after seeing that footage last night and just a couple of little quirks about him/his actions combined with having the benefit of a fair bit more insight to BRE from the trial that we got along with as to what you would think/picture him to be like/perhaps act like/have some characteristics of, from back in that era and at that age I seriously don't think I could be anymore certain than ever now that this was him in that CCTV footage hey! Just IMHO of course.

 

[Likeamystery]

When watching the Sky News documentary last night - Catching the Claremont Killer, the footage of Jane on the CCTV with MM was shown, that was the first time I personally have seen that footage on a TV as such ie: your pretty standard type of lounge room flat screen, previously ive only watched it on my laptop/phone, I don't know if it was just due to the fact that I saw it in a much larger scale for the first time or whether it might have been a much better/clearer version of it (as in one of the versions that they had edited and cleaned up as best as possible when they were going to great lengths over the years) and it was one of those that was used last night or if it was just something else, and the last thing that any of us who have spent many hours researching this case over the years want to do or make a thought process/decision by is with a kind of "placebo effect" type mindset i guess you could say, but honestly after seeing that footage last night and just a couple of little quirks about him/his actions combined with having the benefit of a fair bit more insight to BRE from the trial that we got along with as to what you would think/picture him to be like/perhaps act like/have some characteristics of, from back in that era and at that age I seriously don't think I could be anymore certain than ever now that this was him in that CCTV footage hey! Just IMHO of course.

I think it was BRE in the JR footage, but that's only my thoughts. Perhaps BRE had been stalking JR. I'd suggest that BRE frequented the places where JR went, and kept bumping into her - making it look accidental, JR unaware she was being stalked. As BRE had such poor confidence and was going through a separation, he probably didn't have the courage to ask someone out - incase he was rejected. When BRE approached JR outside the hotel, she may, have thought, oh, no, but was still pleasant, and once he was gone, made an effort to hide. Thinking he'd probably drive past, so remained hiding until he was gone. BRE didn't go home, instead probably drove around looking for her. That might explain why JR was seen later on the Stirling Hwy, and accepted what she thought was to be a ride home.

 

[BFew]

When BRE approached JR outside the hotel, she may, have thought, oh, no, but was still pleasant, and once he was gone, made an effort to hide. Thinking he'd probably drive past, so remained hiding until he was gone. BRE didn't go home, instead probably drove around looking for her. That might explain why JR was seen later on the Stirling Hwy, and accepted what she thought was to be a ride home.

I'd have hoped that if JR was in the least bit worried about whoever it was that interacted with her outside the Conti, she'd have said something to one of the people on the door, or anyone she knew that was still around the Conti, possibly paired up with any female she could find for safety, and/or waited as long as it took for a taxi right out the front of the Conti, where it was safer than anywhere else around there.

 

[Likeamystery]

When you think about it, it's a good thing BRE didn't make an application for an appeal, and throughout this whole ordeal the only time he's done the right thing.

Well done BRE, for once, you've managed to do something right! Perhaps he's starting to learn, the eyes of the world are on him. He can't do anything without it being scrutinized and discussed at length.

As the appeal window has expired, does that mean the Suppression orders are completely off?

 

[Hai_Newman]

I was listening to the audio-only of the Sky News documentary, and I wasn't very impressed. Besides the new interview with the 88' prowler victim, it was mainly a rehashing of the 2008 documentary right down to what I could tell were recycled re-enactments and interviews. The few interviews that were new mainly covered old ground with questions that had already been asked and answered time and time again.

The only shining lights were a brief interview with a woman who was one of the witnesses to Jane's screams and some interesting, if fairly obvious, psychological insights which sounded like they were from Xanthe Mallett (I missed the first few minutes of the doco).
The whole thing felt quite light-weight and produced on the cheap.

I found it ironic that at the end, the newly interviewed 88' prowler victim said that she dislikes being referred to as a 'surviving victim', explaining that she doesn't feel it's respectful or appropriate as at that time he had not yet escalated to the level of a serial killer. Quite ironic, given that the primary promotional hook for the documentary referred to her along those lines.

My main point of interest at the moment is Bret Christian's mention of the possibility that Edwards engaged in a 'cat and mouse' game with victims - untying them to see how they would react, knowing that he could easily overpower them. I think that a case can be made for it, although we'll probably never know for sure.

Real shame you listened to it and came to this conclusion because you missed heaps, heart breaking real life witness accounts, great interviews with personal friend and contacts, and lots of old photos and stock footage from the era.

The 3 girls Dads pleas for help especially heart breaking.

Added in quite a few missing pieces for readers of Stalking Claremont, really hope we can hear from BRE ex wife soon.

 

[Kurve]

As the appeal window has expired, does that mean the Suppression orders are completely off?

No, they stay.

 

[Kurve]

When you think about it, it's a good thing BRE didn't make an application for an appeal, and throughout this whole ordeal the only time he's done the right thing.

Well done BRE, for once, you've managed to do something right! Perhaps he's starting to learn, the eyes of the world are on him. He can't do anything without it being scrutinized and discussed at length.

As the appeal window has expired, does that mean the Suppression orders are completely off?

He can still appeal outside the date depending and his legal people will be looking for reasons and imo he will. I never heard of a lifer with nothing to lose, not lodging an appeal.

 

[Fifty n Closing]

He can still appeal outside the date depending and his legal people will be looking for reasons and imo he will. I never heard of a lifer with nothing to lose, not lodging an appeal.

The reasons as to why in my mind I disagree with a few of the things mentioned in general here, is because its unlikely he would of made any ethical or moral choices as to why he hasn't chosen to appeal, in fact knowing what he appears to be like and the whole "innocent victim" persona he's continually portrayed one would have to imagine it was an automatic assumed yes in his mind that of course he would be appealing his convictions/sentence etc.

From what i can make of this (imo) and if my understanding and assessment of the appeals process is correct then I guess there would have been some very large stumbling blocks for him that they very likely just couldn't or weren't able to overcome or achieve, from the legal perspective and no doubt they would have been consulted and advised on this, but its very likely they couldn’t uncover any flaw’s/area’s/errors of his trial that the could flag as to the reason(s) for their appeal, whether that be against his conviction or his sentence.

But in all honesty I firmly believe that the key sticking point here was simply due to the fact that they wouldn’t be able to financially afford to pay for (how many of us could either really) his legal representation for an appeal, it was stated that his application for Legal Aid was rejected by the State Government on December 1st last year and that also as a brief guide that as Tax Payers of this state it has already cost us 3.3 million in legal fee’s to fund his defence team for his 95 day trial, and im totally fine with that, we all too would be extended the same opportunity if ever found in this position remember that the police and prosecution have always got it right either and there’s been plenty of innocent people found in this position before as well.

So in finishing I think that given, you’re not just automatically entitled to be able to lodge an appeal “just because” along with likely not being able to establish and genuine ground for one, followed by the significant financial cost to do so IMO is some of/the only reason(s) as to why an appeal couldn’t be made rather than wasn’t made.

Lastly as to whether he might or will appeal in time, I think again he’s still going to be faced with all or some of the same issue’s ive just mentioned above, the only way I can really ever see an appeal being made is if new significant and comprehensive information/evidence comes to light really because if it is that genuine and significant then a) on that basis he very likely would be entitled to appeal by law and the Court of Appeals would have acknowledged this and granted it in conjunction on that basis and b) where previously this would be a financial issue for them to overcome, in this event that would then largely all but be removed is my understanding due to the old Tax Payer forking out for it again on the same basis as with the first trial in which everyone is entitled to fair and equal representation and therefore as we can pretty much see here based on the first time, it’s a significant amount of money to pay for these things, and usually these amounts are not what most have surplus just laying around therefore on the basis of achieving a fair, reasonable and equal trial they are afforded this privilege.

 

[Pacman Carney]

He can still appeal outside the date depending and his legal people will be looking for reasons and imo he will. I never heard of a lifer with nothing to lose, not lodging an appeal.

he has to fund his appeal. Legal aid has been withdrawn.
no law firm will pick it up, unles pro Bono, and clearly that hasn’t been the case, hence no appeal.
cant use his house as legal aid will recoup a smidgen of fees for the trial from the sale
he‘s done.

 

[Kurve]

he has to fund his appeal. Legal aid has been withdrawn.
no law firm will pick it up, unles pro Bono, and clearly that hasn’t been the case, hence no appeal.
cant use his house as legal aid will recoup a smidgen of fees for the trial from the sale
he‘s done.

It doesn't work quite like that. If he can find a legitimate point of appeal, someone will pick it up to represent him and it will be funded because he is entitled to it. Whether we like it or not.

 

[Pacman Carney]

It doesn't work quite like that. If he can find a legitimate point of appeal, someone will pick it up to represent him and it will be funded because he is entitled to it. Whether we like it or not.

I did leave out one point, he has to have grounds to appeal.
If he did then perhaps, perhaps, a law firm would take it on.
However what I’ve read and heard is no legal aid is available.
so are you saying, if he did find valid grounds to appeal then legal aid would be reinstated?

Can’t appeal for the sake of it, oh I lost I’m appealing

 

[Kurve]

so are you saying, if he did find valid grounds to appeal then legal aid would be reinstated?

Yes, of course. The vast majority of appeals are funded by legal aid in every state.

Francis Wark, convicted after judge only trial in 2017 for the 1999 murder of Hayley Dodd, just won an appeal in the WA High Court for a retrial.

Legal Aid to be sure, funded that.

 

[Likeamystery]

I'd have hoped that if JR was in the least bit worried about whoever it was that interacted with her outside the Conti, she'd have said something to one of the people on the door, or anyone she knew that was still around the Conti, possibly paired up with any female she could find for safety, and/or waited as long as it took for a taxi right out the front of the Conti, where it was safer than anywhere else around there.

JR may have simply, not wanted to interact with MM (who I think was BRE). Thinking after the CCTV interaction outside the hotel, JR quickly went somewhere out of sight for half an hour or so. Remember the image Badge666 uploaded with, what looked like a young female dropping from the balcony. I think JR may have hidden upstairs, then ventured down, thus hoping to avoid MM. MM possibly gave off a creepy vibe and JR simply wanted to avoid him.

 

[one eyed spy]

JR may have simply, not wanted to interact with MM (who I think was BRE). Thinking after the CCTV interaction outside the hotel, JR quickly went somewhere out of sight for half an hour or so. Remember the image Badge666 uploaded with, what looked like a young female dropping from the balcony. I think JR may have hidden upstairs, then ventured down, thus hoping to avoid MM. MM possibly gave off a creepy vibe and JR simply wanted to avoid him.

If Jane was seen anywhere other than where shes known to have been within either of the hotels, at a later time, she would have been seen on CCTV somewhere & I doubt any additional footage of her last moments would have been withheld considering it formed part of the evidence in the official murder investigation & trial.

However, MM & everyone else on the footage who are all presumed to have had no involvement, are irrelevant for the purpose & if you've kept track of all the reporting of MM, I think its fairly safe to conclude the footage we've seen publically of him is not all the footage they have despite the narrative. The few articles that appear to suggest he did not actually stop at Janes position, but continued walking straight past her down the street & out of view, are probably accurate.

I don't believe the footage switched cameras at that exact moment he came into view nor that he was the only person who remains unidentified. I think they're lying to us & as if their intention was to identify him, it was convenient to suggest. If they'd said he was one of many unidentified people who walked past her he'd have generated zero interest despite their obvious, but brief interaction.

Its one issue I was hoping Bret would have confirmed for us outright at some point & whilst I don't recall seeing it exactly, I think it's been implied enough to convince me it's what actually occured.

I highly doubt MM is BRE. He has no business cruising areas with cameras on foot where he risks being seen & potentially identified just prior to abducting someone he intended to kill. His confidence may have been building due to not having been caught, but I don't think he'd have been that plainly arrogant or stupid, or he probably would have been caught alot earlier.

 

[zedx]

If Jane was seen anywhere other than where shes known to have been within either of the hotels, at a later time, she would have been seen on CCTV somewhere & I doubt any additional footage of her last moments would have been withheld considering it formed part of the evidence in the official murder investigation & trial.

However, MM & everyone else on the footage who are all presumed to have had no involvement, are irrelevant for the purpose & if you've kept track of all the reporting of MM, I think its fairly safe to conclude the footage we've seen publically of him is not all the footage they have despite the narrative. The few articles that appear to suggest he did not actually stop at Janes position, but continued walking straight past her down the street & out of view, are probably accurate.

I don't believe the footage switched cameras at that exact moment he came into view nor that he was the only person who remains unidentified. I think they're lying to us & as their intention was to identify him, it was convenient to suggest. If they'd said he was one of many unidentified people who walked past her he'd have generated zero interest despite their obvious, but brief interaction.

Its one issue I was hoping Bret would have confirmed for us outright at some point & whilst I don't recall seeing it exactly, I think it's been implied enough to convince me it's what actually occured.

I highly doubt MM is BRE. He has no business cruising areas with cameras on foot where he risks being seen & potentially identified just prior to abducting someone he intended to kill. His confidence may have been building due to not having been caught, but I don't think he'd have been that plainly arrogant or stupid, or he probably would have been caught alot earlier.

I'm sitting on the fence, it could well be BRE, but we can't tell by that small bit of footage they have released. i hope one day they will release more footage, we might be surprised as to what it shows. Was BRE ever that slim?
I also do not believe they were able to identify every single person that night, I think it would have been near impossible. I know quite a few guys that go out by themselves and just stand around and 'chum up' with people for the evening, then they are off, no one would know who they are. In fact ( I have just remembered) as young person when I spent a few months over east staying with a friend, I would often go night clubbing by myself if my friend was unable to come. I would make friends and hang out with them for the evening then I would be off, they would not know who I was and I didn't know who they were (except for first names). WOW, in hindsight that was probably very unsafe !!

 

[Likeamystery]

If Jane was seen anywhere other than where shes known to have been within either of the hotels, at a later time, she would have been seen on CCTV somewhere & I doubt any additional footage of her last moments would have been withheld considering it formed part of the evidence in the official murder investigation & trial.

However, MM & everyone else on the footage who are all presumed to have had no involvement, are irrelevant for the purpose & if you've kept track of all the reporting of MM, I think its fairly safe to conclude the footage we've seen publically of him is not all the footage they have despite the narrative. The few articles that appear to suggest he did not actually stop at Janes position, but continued walking straight past her down the street & out of view, are probably accurate.

I don't believe the footage switched cameras at that exact moment he came into view nor that he was the only person who remains unidentified. I think they're lying to us & as their intention was to identify him, it was convenient to suggest. If they'd said he was one of many unidentified people who walked past her he'd have generated zero interest despite their obvious, but brief interaction.

Its one issue I was hoping Bret would have confirmed for us outright at some point & whilst I don't recall seeing it exactly, I think it's been implied enough to convince me it's what actually occured.

I highly doubt MM is BRE. He has no business cruising areas with cameras on foot where he risks being seen & potentially identified just prior to abducting someone he intended to kill. His confidence may have been building due to not having been caught, but I don't think he'd have been that plainly arrogant or stupid, or he probably would have been caught alot earlier.

On another forum someone suggested JR may have headed home via the post office, which is opposite the hotel. There's a laneway next to the post office. If JR was to have taken that route home, would there have been much, if any, CCTV.

 

[Krusty Crab]

I recorded it and have just finished watching it now, I'll likely re-watch it again over the weekend just to re-clarify a few things maybe, I'd also like to refresh back over a lot of the 2013 cold case review as well, this is what we've basically been told as to how/why this review came about at that time. "The review was established in 2013 to try to establish whether there were any crimes in the lead up to the killings that could be linked to them"

During this 2013 - 2016 cold case period it would be interesting to know at what point ie: the dates in which they specifically started looking into the Huntingdale offences, for memory its been mentioned that the Kimono was retrieved from storage in 2013 and I further thought also that it was mentioned on one of Tim Clarkes podcasts during the trial that this Kimono was also suppose to be DNA re-tested that year as well but due to many other items considered as a higher priority that it then got put on the back burner and subsequently was only tested by Scott Egan at Pathwest on November 23rd 2016, interestingly though on this documentary tonight that Liz Kirkby mentioned she was contacted by cold case detectives during July 2016 and they wanted to speak with her about the attach that occurred with her whilst living at her Huntingdale house in 1988.

Given some other very key known dates/time frames such as 2014 when they had established exactly what model car the specific fibres related to down to what sections/compartment area's of the car, to the well known dates about the second wife and the bank statement info she was copying down, along with her fearing for her life and moving out from the Kewdale home obviously despite the daughter still remaining there.

Would be nice to see how all of this tie's in a little better and see if a bigger picture starts to appear/take shape.

Who is Liz Kirby? i dont have access to foxtel so havent seen the doco.

 

[Krusty Crab]

Just finished Bret Christians book. Few points of interest I noted below - (if your still reading here's the warning to skip this post). some are simple errors, however errors like the below in my opinion make the book feel rushed, and makes me feel that if small details aren't correct, then can we fully trust the big details?

page 85 - burger boys see car, describe it as a very recent commodore - a VN series 1. the VN was from about 1990, BRE car was a VS series 1. in the book BRE then becomes a VS later on

page 202 - green silk fibre found on CG. was the origin of this fibre ever found? don't recall hearing about this before, does anyone remember anything about it?

page 202 - foreign hairs found on CG. I don't recall hearing about this either, were the hairs ever DNA tested, and if so did they match BRE? were these brought up in the trial either as a match or not?

page 203 - underpants at the cemetery. the underpants start out as being left by an unknown, and have 1 x male and 1 x female DNA on them. later in the book they have 2 x male DNA on them, then later again they were now left by the murderer. (page 261) so who's DNA was on the underpants, and was the DNA ever compared to BRE? if it matched BRE why was this not allowed at the trail as circumstantial evidence? if it didn't match BRE then how can Bret claim it was left by the murderer when anyone could of put them there?

page 236 and 238 - email sent to Det. Stanbury on January 9 2009. (page 236) January 16 is then described as 4 days after the email (on page 238) shouldn't that be 7 days?

page 330 - 1st paragraph says trial lasted nearly 6 months, then the fifth paragraph says it lasted 7 months.

page 239 - talks about no national DNA database, so DNA was sent to other states to check against their database. it also says "Attempts at interstate matches had been made several times since 1999, but police held hope the culprit had been picked up for another crime in the intervening years" what DNA were we sending, on several occasions since 1999, to check against interstate data bases? DNA on CG wasn't discovered until late 2008. They wouldn't of been sending the DNA from KK, as no one thought that crime was linked until much later (around 2007 according to Bret's book, page 219.)



The main piece of interest for me was on page 279. it seems CG worked at the restaurant ************ (wife #2) as a waitress in 1988, while she was studying at uni. from ages given at various points, BRE was born in 1968, ***********************. that gives wife #2 an age of about 23/24 when CG was waitressing at the restaurant. ********************

Maybe I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist, but I don't buy the official line of the kimono story. ************* she apparently went through BRE bank statements in 2014 and wrote down transactions in a book. BRE's copies of the statements for the period when CG was murdered 'disappeared'. Wife #2 says she was sick and tired of all the lies.... in court before being cut off (page 313). Wife #2 says she was scared stiff as her marriage broke down around 2014/2015. Wife #2 "feared for her life". Wife #2 recalled the exact date (not an estimate) she left BRE, in court about 4 years later. Wife #2 didn't come back for a lot of her stuff, apparently there were boxes of hers piled up in the entry hall way when BRE was arrested. wife #2 left July 2015, BRE arrested end of 2016, just 18 months later.

from Bret's book the official line is that the kimono and assorted files of the Huntingdale shenanigans were all misplaced in a storage tub with items for Jack van Tongeren (a racist wannabe politician that was committing hate crimes around the same time). These were discovered in November 2016, with the kimono sent for DNA testing. the results were run through the database on December 1, with a match for the KK attack, and CG. seems a bit convenient that they went from nothing in November to having BRE arrested in late December. So in a space of about 4 to 7 weeks they found the kimono/files, looked at what they had and found the stain on the kimono, tested the kimono, ran the results through the database, got a match, researched the files they found, compared the prints and matched to HH, took the name of the HH offender and researched BRE, spoke to the victims from the Huntingdale shenanigans again, tailed BRE to get an empty sprite bottle, tested the sprite bottle, got a match on that DNA, and arrested him. During all of this there has also been unsubstantiated reports of cops chatting to BRE workmates, and chatting to people at his high school (Gosnells senior high school)

I'm more inclined to believe they found the items earlier than the time line of the official story, the question is was it chance or were they helped?

 

[one eyed spy]

On another forum someone suggested JR may have headed home via the post office, which is opposite the hotel. There's a laneway next to the post office. If JR was to have taken that route home, would there have been much, if any, CCTV.

The alley just went to the carpark behind the post office so she'd have only gone through to the carpark specifically. Even then, straight across the road past the phone boxes and through the garden would have been the most likely route for her to get to there regardless. I've never discounted thats exactly where he was lurking anyway, right behind the phone boxes, out of view of people by the pub, taxi rank in sight so he knows whats happening there too, called her over, Telstra bloke working late at night, you couldnt give me a hand for a sec could you, just gotta grab xxx out my car, sure, why not. Wham! Got her, out of sight & unless someone was pulling in at that exact moment, no one saw a thing.
It makes sense to me seeing thats the last place they can confirm she was & she literally vanished.
Its also assuming she hadn't met him before & she wasnt actually waiting for him. In which case he just had to pull into that carpark & she'd have seen him, run over & jumped in. Which I absolutely think is possible too & at the risk of this being a reeallly long post, which I apologise for, I'll tell you why.

I cant even recall where the detail about Kordelia thinking she was meeting someone called Bogsy that night came from now, but if you consider there may be some truth to it, it gives the lacking perspective to some other things that have so far confused me. She'd spoken to her recently so its possible Jane may have mentioned it. It also may explain Lynda's, (I thought) totally bizarre comments on the CI ep too.

She effectively said, Jane hated CBV and didn't want to go there, she may have come in with us anyway, but the line was too long so we pulled the pin & headed home because there was no where else to go. We all went to get a cab when Jane decided she'd rather stand outside a closed pub for no reason instead, so we just left her there, even though Sarah had just gone missing, coz "she just wanted to meet someone special".

WTF?!! Does that sound legit to anyone? I mean, who doesn't stand outside a closed pub just hoping to get lucky & pick up someone “special” anyway? It did then & it still sounds as fishy as fk to me!

But, lets assume they all (cops & close friends) had knowledge of a dude called Bogsy who she was hoping to & expecting to catch up with that night, but who hadnt arrived yet & its not so strange she may have decided to wait a little bit longer before then getting her own cab home if he didnt show. And importantly, they were ok leaving her there for that reason. "Cool, call me tomorrow".

If her friends hadnt met him or werent certain of his real name let alone what he did for a living or where he worked & the cops don't know if this Bogsy (if thats even the right nickname) ever did show up, whether she went with him or if he's someone of interest to them or not, what do they do?

Do they put out a media call asking for Bogsy, the potential murderer to give 'em a call?
Do they publically narrow the attention to a phantom who may be nicknamed Bogsy & risk a potentially incorrect or irrelevant fact being foremost in everyones mind?
Do they do park it for a while & see if this Bogsy fella rears his head anywhere else in their investigation?
Maybe casually ask the people they did show the "secret" footage to if they know Bogs? Ever met Bugs? Heard of Bugsy? Seen Flogsy around? Put some feelers out & see what pops up.

He doesn't & years later he still hasn't, what to do now? Who & where is Bogsy & how do they find him? At the least they need to generate some discussion about Jane & a male person they suspect she casually knew specifically, but how......?

Hello “Mystery Man”! Who are you? Of course we know your not Bogsy because she was waiting for you & you walked straight past her, but no one can identify you anyway from behind so it doesnt matter. It serves its purpose which was to get the public focus back to someone Jane possibly knew.

Release the video, cut it just as a "MM" Mystery Man gets to her. Tell everyone hes the only person still unidentified. Jane knows him, she's happy to see him, (I also don't believe they think that about MM either) but thats what they need us to believe because I think they may have thought that exactly about Bogsy & it was a clever way to try to get some talk generating about that situation exactly. Bring the focus back to Jane & a unknown/unidentifiable male that she supposedly knew, who they dont know how to find otherwise. It may jog someones mind years later that Jane spoke of a bloke to them as well and they knew who he was, or, that a mate mentioned a chick they were going to meet in Claremont that night. Doesnt matter at all that hes not the bloke on CCTV, it serves its purpose without hindering them to brush off any new info they receive & decide is irrelevant to them. They're not going to get calls about someone whose been spoken to before or anyone identifying anyone else on the video because hes the ONLY person of interest & hes someone she already knew. I think they'd have been quite pleased with themself coming up with it.

Thats the only explanation that makes sense to me & if by some utterly unbelievable chance the MM story was real, exactly as they told it, then I want to know why the hell Lynda or anyone else with her, thought it was perfectly normal that Jane wanted to “hang around here for a while”, alone, when there was nowhere for Jane to go anyway if she didnt go to CBV, just 5 months after SS disappeared. And if that was how it went, why didnt she seem the least bit remorseful of that fact when she appeared on CI? Its not a normal thing for anyone to do. Especially at that time. I dont buy it!

 

[one eyed spy]

Who is Liz Kirby? i dont have access to foxtel so havent seen the doco.

Huntingdale women who found him in her loo.