Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt3 - The Verdict
- Thread starter _Mike_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Feb 11, 2018
- 988
- 3,233
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Helped for sure is my belief.
- May 14, 2012
- 8,275
- 13,119
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Everything it seems that BRE did was random and to strangers, doubt he risks doing anything to somebody he knows. And has there been any evidence that any of the attacks were committed without him being in his car, doubt he is wandering streets with only luck stopping him from being identified on CCTV.
BFew
K9
- Mar 5, 2017
- 18,153
- 44,567
- AFL Club
- West Coast
And completely destroyed the prosecution's narrative/theory/assertion for BRE and his victims having not known each other, or barely them at all.
Jeopardising the slim chance of getting a conviction for Sarah Spiers, and possibly risking even getting guilty verdicts for Ciara Glennon and Jane Rimmer, should evidence that BRE attacked women he hardly knew, or did not know need to be hold true to secure convictions.
If you go back through the pre-trial CSK case WASC publicly available documents, the trial itself, and then the Justice Hall 619 page verdict document, it is interesting to note the continual claims about BRE's claimed propensity for attacking women strangers, unknown to him, or barely known to him.
Which raises a big elephant in the Court room.
If it was known to WAPOL all those years ago, that Jane Rimmer and a "Bogsy" were meeting up that night, is it at all conceivable that WA Police would have decided not to provide this information to the Prosecution or someone else in the Justice System in handing over all of their evidence?
Or that if the Prosecution was aware of this "Bogsy" evidence from being provided it by WA Police, that the Prosecution would have repeatedly claimed that part of their case was based on BRE's propensity to attack strangers, unknowns or hardly knowns?
Would WAPOL Prosecution have been breaking any laws, by either withholding evidence from the Prosecution, or the Prosecution claiming something that was contrary to the evidence?
Or were either WAPOL and the Prosecution possibly not too concerned about this, if they ever had to explain why they did they did (hypothetical): with
1. WAPOL being able to say that they could not verify Kimdelia's claims or thought that they were bogus, mistaken, or in some other way not credible, and thus did not consider them credible enough to provide to the Prosecution as evidence.
2. The Prosecution being able to use a similar line to 1. above, if they were presented with the Jane planned meetup with a "Bogsy", in claiming that WAPOL presented it to them along them with the Police conclusion that they did not believe it was accurate. And that the prosecution accepted the judgement of WAPOL on this matter, and agreed that the State/Crown case would continue to be in part, on the basis of BRE's propensity to attack strangers, unknowns or hardly knowns.
???
IMO, to just blindly dismiss the guts of Kimdelia's claims at this point, without having all of the facts around this, is falling into a similar trap that had most of Perth thinking that Lance Williams was the Claremont Serial Killer.
IMO, that no media outlet, CSK book, or anyone representing the WA Police or Jane's family or friends, has come out and publicly refuted the guts of Kimdelia's claims (correct me if I am wrong on this), is a pretty good sign that they should not be just dismissed based on feelings, emotions, and whether what we have heard and read about Kimdelia fits in with our neat little theories about the trust worthiness of someone in general.
BFew
K9
- Mar 5, 2017
- 18,153
- 44,567
- AFL Club
- West Coast
He appears to have had a propensity to lose control and get extremely violent.
We don't know everything BRE did.
- Feb 11, 2018
- 988
- 3,233
- AFL Club
- Sydney
It's heresay that muddies their waters unessessarily & particularly if its not a name he is generally known by or widely known. They'd have only put every man & his dog on the stand just to ask them about it and if the majority werent familiar with it, it only casts doubt he's the person she was meeting & her friends were happy to leave her there waiting for.
They didnt seek to explain how or where he got her in the car at all and didnt want to. Adding she willingly got in as she knew him is a big spanner that doesnt serve any clear purpose to introduce by either side.
- Feb 11, 2018
- 988
- 3,233
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Doesn't necessarily have to be "Bogsy", just the idea she was possibly meeting "someone" that night. Its not withholding anything not introducing it as no one saw her leave & they have no proof she left with anyone she knew.
For me, it explains the lies about MM vid & the stupid explanation that she "just wanted to meet someone".
I can accept she returned to the pub and stood outside at closing time because she was waiting for someone.
None have come out and backed her up, either. Bizarrely NO ONE has said ANYTHING !! Has every one been 'gagged' regarding this evidence?
I still find it strange not one of her friends stayed behind with her, to keep her company, safe, were they her close friends? I personally would never have let one of my friends stay behind alone, regardless of whether there was a CK around or not.
The early 90s pub/club scene was so different to now. If one of the girls went home with a guy she'd met that night or wanted to hang about to see if this months crush turned up, no-one gave it a second thought (besides a bit of sl-t shaming perhaps). We didn't think anything sinister would happen, unless you were drop dead drunk or hitchhiking alone. I can see how the friends let her stay behind as, as wrong as it seems now, you never got in the way of a girl and a prospective boyfriend. It's just the way it was before Jane went missing that is!!
Kurve
Moderator
- Dec 27, 2016
- 31,846
- 65,433
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #1,510
I just made a terrible mistake and checked in to a FB group on this subject where every second post is factually incorrect, so much wrong after wrong it would make your head explode but it does also make our thread look absolutely first class. 
Deva
Cancelled
- Dec 18, 2019
- 172
- 618
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- New York Yankees,
Definitely no Internet allowed in Prison.
- Feb 11, 2018
- 988
- 3,233
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Its not that it was wrong, it was bizarre that she'd have claimed Jane didnt want to go to CBV as she hated it, there was nothing else open in Claremont & the pub was closing. Why on earth would Jane decide to "just hang around here for a while" if she had no intention of going to the nightclub anyway, particularly on her own & just after the group had decided not to go, which no doubt Jane was happy not to do. She must have had another reason to stay behind and the fact that Lynda said "she just wanted to meet someone special" isnt so strange if she knew that Jane was "expecting" someone to arrive who she hoped may then have become her special someone. If Jane had simply not wanted to go with them back to wherever they were going, surely she'd have said I'm going to go home instead & stayed at the taxi rank, no doubt with her friends allowing her to take the first cab that arrived and not left her there alone. There's just no logical reason for Jane to have returned to a pub at closing time to stand outside alone had she not been hoping to & expecting to catch up with someone specific.
Girlnextdoor
All Australian
- Mar 12, 2018
- 643
- 3,220
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Didn't he know the Huntingdale victim through his brother, and had visited before, or am I getting things mixed up again?
No can't agree, I would be very worried if my friend had wanted to go off with some random guy. Also I would have been highly suspicious if he had wanted to meet her after every thing was finished/closed. What - wasn't she good enough to go out with in public? So he had fun all night some where else and didn't want her company there too? It would have sounded to me like he was only after a 'bit' !!
BFew
K9
- Mar 5, 2017
- 18,153
- 44,567
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No mix up.
But it appears that both Justice Hall and the Prosecution put the Huntingdale victim in the 'barely known to him' category.
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- EDWARDS [No 7] [2020] WASC 339
Prosecution case
43 The prosecution case is that the similarity of the circumstances relating to the disappearance of the three victims, Sarah Spiers, Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon, establishes that they were killed by the same person.
...
53 The State's case also relies on propensity evidence. It is the State's case that on 15 February 1988 the accused man broke into a house in Huntingdale in the middle of the night. He there attacked a young woman in her bed whilst she was sleeping. He attempted to stuff a stocking into her mouth. When he fled he left behind a silk kimono which had DNA on it. That kimono was seized and held in police storage for the next 18 years. The accused's conduct in respect of the Huntingdale offences is said to demonstrate a propensity on his part to attack vulnerable women who are effectively strangers to him, from behind and without warning, using force to physically restrain them and using some type of fabric or material in or over their mouths to stifle sound.
...
54 The State also relies on an offence committed on 7 May 1990 at Hollywood Hospital. On this occasion the accused attacked a woman unknown to him without warning and unprovoked. He grabbed her from behind, forced a piece of cloth or fabric over her mouth and dragged her backwards towards a toilet cubicle. She struggled, fought him off and broke free. The accused was apprehended at the time and pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault. The State says that his conduct in this regard again demonstrates a propensity on his part to attack vulnerable women who are effectively strangers to him, from behind and without warning, using force to physically restrain them and using some type of fabric or material in or over their mouths to stifle sound.[12]
...
55 The State also relies on the offending conduct known as the Karrakatta offences. On 12 February 1995 the State alleges that the accused drove a Telstra van to Rowe Park in Claremont in the early hours of the morning. He there waited in darkness, prepared and ready to attack, subdue, abduct and sexually assault a female stranger...
The State says that this conduct demonstrates a propensity on the part of the accused to attack vulnerable women who are strangers to him from behind and without warning using force to physically restrain them and using some type of fabric or material in and over their mouths to stifle sound.
64 The State's case as opened also relied on evidence of motive. It was suggested that the evidence was capable of supporting an inference that when the accused experienced emotional turmoil in his life he was motivated to attack women who were strangers to him. There was said to be evidence that the accused was in a state of emotional upset at a time proximate to each of counts 6, 7 and 8. However, at the conclusion of the State's case the prosecutor accepted that the evidence was incapable of establishing this motive and this aspect of the prosecution case was abandoned.[22]
Motive
134 Motive is not an element of any of the offences charged. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused had a motive to kill any of the alleged victims. The reasons why a person may have committed an offence may be unknown and a person is guilty of an offence if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he or she committed it, even if no motive is established. However, evidence of motive, whilst not necessary, can be relevant because it may make it more likely that the accused committed the offence alleged. A motive or interest in committing an offence is never enough on its own, but it can be a piece of circumstantial evidence which, when added to all the other evidence, may persuade the finder of fact that an accused person is guilty of an offence.
135 In this case the prosecution opened its case by saying that the accused was motivated by feelings of emotional upset or distress. They argued that when having such feelings the accused was motivated to commit a sexual offence with violence against an unknown female. However, at the end of the prosecution case the State accepted that the evidence did not establish that the accused was in such a state at or around the relevant times and, accordingly, this aspect of the prosecution case was not pressed. Since, as noted above, motive is not an element of the offences charged, this meant that the State had to prove its case by relying on other evidence.
136 The effect of the State's concession was to render some of the evidence given at the trial irrelevant. In particular, evidence regarding potentially upsetting events in the accused's life and his response to those events was irrelevant. Evidence as to what the accused had told a psychologist and a pre‑sentence report writer regarding his reasons for committing the Hollywood Hospital offence was also irrelevant. However, some of the evidence regarding the background of the accused remained relevant because it bore on the issue of whether the accused had an opportunity to commit each of the offences. The irrelevant evidence has not been referred to in these reasons and has not been taken into account by me in coming to any conclusions.
137 In some cases the absence of any motive on the part of the accused, or the existence of positive reasons why the accused would not wish to commit offences of this type, may be a relevant consideration. That is not a factor here, because all the indications are that whoever killed each of the victims was a stranger to them. Whatever the reasons of the killer or killers were they were not related to any existing relationship with the victims. It is highly unlikely that the responsible person would have any apparent reason for committing offences of this kind. The absence of any obvious motive would thus not assist in this case in considering whether a person was likely to be the killer of any of the victims.
138 In any event, it is important to distinguish between absence of proven or apparent motive, on the one hand, and proven absence of motive, on the other. The fact that there is no proven motive is not the same thing as proven absence of motive.
'Conclusions – propensity evidence – Huntingdale, Hollywood Hospital and Karrakatta
528 The accused has pleaded guilty to offences arising from each of the Huntingdale, Hollywood Hospital and Karrakatta incidents. There was no significant dispute regarding the facts of those incidents. I accept that each incident occurred as described by the victims. The significant question is precisely how that evidence can be used. This requires identification of what propensity or tendency is proven by the evidence.
529 If the three incidents are viewed together any propensity or tendency which is drawn from them must reflect features that are common to all. The defence accepted that these incidents in combination can be taken to establish that the accused had, and acted upon, a tendency to attack women unknown or barely known to him, from behind, using force and the use of a cloth to stifle any sounds and with a sexual motivation.'
Amanda Barnard – evidence summary
...
1301 On 12 February 1995 Dr Barnard was on call. At 11.15 am on that morning she examined KJG, who she understood had been sexually assaulted at Karrakatta Cemetery. Dr Barnard said that she had some limited independent memory of the examination. She said that the matter stuck in her mind because it was a violent assault by a stranger.
Interpretation of the results
Ray Palmer – evidence summary
...
2171 In evaluating the significance of fibre evidence Dr Palmer said that there were a number of resources a person conducting a forensic examination could call upon. The first of these is peer‑reviewed research as to the frequency of certain fibre colour combinations. Second, the examiners own experience. Third, the known circumstances of the case, because fibre evidence, like all forensic evidence, is context sensitive. The circumstances of the case will often condition what it is expected. He gave the example of a date rape as opposed to a stranger rape; in the former case fibres might not be particularly probative because the parties are likely to have been in legitimate contact whereas in the latter case they may be more probative because there is no suggestion of legitimate contact.[1979]
I think the ''meeting Bogsy' evidence would have outweighed most of the other evidence, including him attacking people unknown or barely known to him. It doesn't really make that much difference whether he attacked people he knew or not, especially when he'd forever silence them afterwards. Compare that with people knowing who was with her when she died.
I saw it more that perhaps Jane and BRE had made plans to meet at the Conti on the Saturday night and she was waiting for him thinking he was held up. If BRE was MM then possiblity he told her to wait where she was as he had to go and do something and would be back in 5 minutes to pick her up.
BFew
K9
- Mar 5, 2017
- 18,153
- 44,567
- AFL Club
- West Coast
But if WAPOL/Prosecution were already supremely confident that they already had enough evidence to convict BRE of Huntingdale, Karrakatta, Jane and Ciara, without any evidence that might exist that showed that BRE was neither unknown or barely known Jane, then IMO, having even more evidence to convict BRE for one or more of the Huntingdale, Karrakatta, Jane or Ciara crimes, was not as important as making sure that they did not introduce evidence that would likely ensure that they could not convict or possibly even charge BRE with the Sarah crimes.
Likeamystery
All Australian
- Aug 11, 2019
- 990
- 2,761
- AFL Club
- West Coast
When the MM walked up to JR, it wasn't the first time they'd spoken. Judging by the smile, the MM had said something which JR liked, or she was being polite.
If they'd met earlier that evening, he should have been spotted on CCTV at some stage.
To me it looked like she had been waiting for him and was happy to see him. Something could have been arranged the week before, hence Kimdelia's bogsy comments!
- Jan 5, 2019
- 578
- 1,298
- AFL Club
- West Coast
if JR returned to the pub and decided to wait around for someone, then you would have to think that meeting would of been organised previous. either during her time while partying that night, or sometime previous. she didn't have a mobile phone, so how would she be able to communicate to someone to meet her at that location if it was a spur of the moment idea? if she knew the person she was waiting for was inside the bar, then why not enter and strike up a conversation?
no one has come forward though to say they had an arranged meeting with JR at that location, and none of the other people that were known to be partying that night have said they organized to catch up later. if she was hoping to find a random bloke from previous nights out at the bar, then surely being inside would offer a better chance of finding the guy? it looks to me like she was either waiting for MM, who was legit (could of been a married man so hesitant to come forward), or waiting for MM who was the CSK, or waiting for someone else who turned out to be the CSK, or (in my opinion a very low probability seeing as no one has come forward in this extent after all these years) she was waiting for someone else unknown that has never come forward. i cant see any other reasons why JR would turn down going home with her friends in favour of standing around in front of a bar.
- Feb 11, 2018
- 988
- 3,233
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I really cant see anyway it may have benefited either side to introduce. Yovich said all along the case would go to a question of identity.
What it may have potentially done to the prosecutions case was weakened it considerably if anything, by introducing a legitimate reason for the fibres to be found on JR which wasnt consistent with their theory that they could only have been deposited in the course of her murder. It may have been the reasonable doubt Hall needed to deliver a not guilty on JR and wipe out any slim chance for SS.
For Yovich to have used it to his advantage he'd need to have convinced them that BRE knew JR & she was in his car, but she was very much alive when they parted company. Which blows his defence sky high.
Better that neither touched it IMO.
It might be a legitimate reason for the fibres but he was also the last person to see her alive. Last person to see someone alive is always at the top of the list of suspects. If they knew for a fact she was meeting a Bogsy they'd have honed in on him years (maybe even two decades) earlier, depending on when it was reported to them, hence why I don't believe it happened.
BFew
K9
- Mar 5, 2017
- 18,153
- 44,567
- AFL Club
- West Coast
As per the Justice Hall Final Verdict 619 page document section which refers to fibres and date rape v stranger rape (see below), that I quoted in a lengthy WASC 339 series of quotes post earlier tonight.
- Status
