Current Julie Cutler - Murder - 1988 - Cottesloe WA *To the Coroner

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

The following days should be very interesting, I've been of the belief that Julie wasn't in the car when it went in to the sea and given her body, shoes and other items that might have been on her person didn't wash up, to this point I still don't think she was in it.
 
My idea is that why we never heard about the possibility of suicide from the police was because detective senior constable Ron Carey who was part of the original team at Cottesloe Beach took over the case and didn't believe it was. He was also the source of bringing publicity back to the case multiple times.

www.watoday.com.au

What happened to Julie Cutler? 30 years on, the question still remains

Nothing would make Ron Carey happier for the case of Julie Cutler to be solved.
www.watoday.com.au www.watoday.com.au


The other thing I thought about was perhaps the car nearly wiping her off the road was just some hoon being a hoon or perhaps exaggerated a bit given what has been said at the inquest.
 
FTY1 said:
My idea is that why we never heard about the possibility of suicide from the police was because detective senior constable Ron Carey who was part of the original team at Cottesloe Beach took over the case and didn't believe it was. He was also the source of bringing publicity back to the case multiple times.

www.watoday.com.au

What happened to Julie Cutler? 30 years on, the question still remains

Nothing would make Ron Carey happier for the case of Julie Cutler to be solved.
www.watoday.com.au www.watoday.com.au


The other thing I thought about was perhaps the car nearly wiping her off the road was just some hoon being a hoon or perhaps exaggerated a bit given what has been said at the inquest.
Click to expand...
Yeah they really didn't make much of a point out of talking about that incident, and when they did they just described it as Julie believing somebody had followed her home in a car not the kind of major road rage event that conventional wisdom on the case holds. I imagine they'll address that more tomorrow. Also re: Ron Carey, I was sat next to him today and he was a very sweet old man honestly. I didn't ask him anything about the case though.
 
FTY1 said:
My idea is that why we never heard about the possibility of suicide from the police was because detective senior constable Ron Carey who was part of the original team at Cottesloe Beach took over the case and didn't believe it was. He was also the source of bringing publicity back to the case multiple times.

www.watoday.com.au

What happened to Julie Cutler? 30 years on, the question still remains

Nothing would make Ron Carey happier for the case of Julie Cutler to be solved.
www.watoday.com.au www.watoday.com.au


The other thing I thought about was perhaps the car nearly wiping her off the road was just some hoon being a hoon or perhaps exaggerated a bit given what has been said at the inquest.
Click to expand...
Good on Ron ! Still needs to be looked into even if she had suicidal tendencies. Often a cry for help - can’t just write it off IMO.
 
JWS2019 said:
Good on Ron ! Still needs to be looked into even if she had suicidal tendencies. Often a cry for help - can’t just write it off IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree there, and it does sound a bit like she was prone to cries to help. Then again I'm not gonna pretend I know her behaviour better than her family and friends did.
 
bigwood69 said:
Yeah they really didn't make much of a point out of talking about that incident, and when they did they just described it as Julie believing somebody had followed her home in a car not the kind of major road rage event that conventional wisdom on the case holds. I imagine they'll address that more tomorrow. Also re: Ron Carey, I was sat next to him today and he was a very sweet old man honestly. I didn't ask him anything about the case though.
Click to expand...
I am certainly not criticising Ron Carey because he certainly did a lot of the investigation. There were a few interesting articles which he provided contributions to.
 
bigwood69 said:
Yeah they really didn't make much of a point out of talking about that incident, and when they did they just described it as Julie believing somebody had followed her home in a car not the kind of major road rage event that conventional wisdom on the case holds. I imagine they'll address that more tomorrow. Also re: Ron Carey, I was sat next to him today and he was a very sweet old man honestly. I didn't ask him anything about the case though.
Click to expand...

Not all of us in here saw the incident with a car tailgating or harassing Julie on the roads before her disappearance as significant or connected, while I didn't dismiss it out of hand, never thought it was connected.

I'll be very interested if the teacher who was staying at the Motel across the road from the beach appears at the inquest, it was reported she heard a woman screaming in the early hours of the morning and which I think may be important.
 
Kurve said:
Not all of us in here saw the incident with a car tailgating or harassing Julie on the roads before her disappearance as significant or connected, while I didn't dismiss it out of hand, never thought it was connected.

I'll be very interested if the teacher who was staying at the Motel across the road from the beach appears at the inquest, it was reported she heard a woman screaming in the early hours of the morning and which I think may be important.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of people wove that incident into their theory of a connection between Julie and the Sheraton woman (yellow Toyota, rally car, etc.) but as far as was mentioned yesterday it didn't even sound like a road rage incident. It just sounded like Julie thought someone followed her home, but maybe they'll elaborate on what happened today. I presume we'll be hearing police evidence today too.

As for the scream they didn't talk a lot about it, and if the teacher was there I didn't notice her (not that I would know what she looks like). However, they mentioned that in passing but said that somebody had called one of Julie's family members (sorry I can't remember! Maybe her uncle) to report hearing a scream in Cottesloe that night but hung up before given their contact info. God knows whether it was the same people the police were trying to track down about it, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that those screams turned out to be from an unrelated altercation.

Last thing for now, I apologise if these two things have been mentioned already in the thread since I just woke up and haven't read back yet:
1. Pearce, who was the man who saw her turn onto Mill Point Road, indicated that Julie stopped to ask if he was okay or needed a ride. Seems an odd thing to do if you're going out somewhere rather than going home, but she was almost certainly drunk and generally being friendly.
2. Roger told a story about how around the time of the initial investigation (iirc, may have been later down the years but fairly sure he said it was early on) he received a weird phone call from a woman claiming to be an investigator. He said the woman sounded like she was in her 30s or 40s and asked him whether he had any info regarding cinderblocks that had been in the car, e.g., if they'd been found/when/where. He asked other investigators about it later and they said they didn't know who she was or what she was talking about. My money is that it was an unscrupulous journalist or a crank call, but curious nonetheless.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

They haven’t brought up the guy who confessed, according to the Post article, or the guy who got in trouble for steroids that Julie told her friend about in a letter just before she went missing.
 
bigwood69 said:
As for the scream they didn't talk a lot about it, and if the teacher was there I didn't notice her (not that I would know what she looks like). However, they mentioned that in passing but said that somebody had called one of Julie's family members (sorry I can't remember! Maybe her uncle) to report hearing a scream in Cottesloe that night but hung up before given their contact info. God knows whether it was the same people the police were trying to track down about it, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that those screams turned out to be from an unrelated altercation.
Click to expand...

There were reports of kids or party goers on the beach that night as well and who I'd felt at one stage may have seen Julie's car without her in it and rolled it in to the surf for a prank but iirc to the police, the school teachers report of screaming was separate to that as a sole female screaming and more to the rear of the motel.

It might be bad information, we've seen a bit of it so glad to see the Coroner finally sorting it all out.
 
Detective Inspector Hamilton testimony:

The polish guys were reinvestigated.

Phone calls to family could have been made by one of the polish guys who’s mental health began to decline, the calls stopped when he left the country.

They couldn’t get DNA off the blouse found at kebab shop.

It hasn’t been confirmed that it was a parmelia blouse.

Evidence taken from the vehicle went missing. They have nothing.

They haven’t established whether items found in the dunes belonged to Julie.

They think either murder or suicide.

Spoke to around 300 witnesses.
 
Almost home now, the inquest concluded about 12pm. Mrskafoops and I had a lot of interesting discussion around certain details and can answer questions of course but these are the major takeaways from my perspective:

-The coroner will almost definitely rule that Julie died between 12.30am and 5.30am June 20th 1988, but give an open finding on the manner of death. She said there's basically a 50/50 split in the evidence to indicate either murder or suicide.

-In the event of a murder there is basically one major suspect, and maybe 2 other potential suspects.

-Police were extremely thorough both in the initial investigation and the cold case review but their practices around storing evidence has meant they've lost most of it sadly. This is pretty consistent with what we've head in the Claremont case.

-There's no genuine belief either now or in the past that Julie was a victim of Edwards. Her initial connection to Claremont was due to the 2008 review, iirc, in which they noted her connection to Iona and her overlapping WAIT units with then-suspect Lance Williams. They found no evidence of her being connected to the girls, and they apparently questioned Edwards about her and felt he wasn't involved.

-Very little was made of either the road incident or the break-in at her flat prior to her disappearance. Both were basically written off as coincidence. As were a student film from WAIT about a car driving into the ocean in 1986 and the items discovered in 1996.

-Re the car: The car went in off the retaining wall, NOT the groyne. The rear and front passenger doors were locked. The driver's side door and window were both open, the car was in neutral and the only contents discovered were from the glove compartment: two champagne flutes wrapped in a tea towel and some RAC/license documents. A name and address written on these docs was followed up and found unrelated. The damage to the car, including the detached rear seat and the battery (both of which washed up later) was believed to be a result of being tossed in the ocean.

-There was simply not enough information from the time to map potential drift of the items in the car that became dislodged - including Julie's body. Overall, forensic science around drift/currents and effects of ocean damage on vessels at the time was not well developed at the time. It was however said to be possible that Julie's body may have entered the water despite the fact it never washed up like other items in the car.

-It was determined that it was possible that Julie's car picked up enough speed to enter the water and get carried out (about 50m off shore they said) after rolling down the hill, i.e., it didn't necessarily have to be driven in at speed.

-Julie's relationships: She appeared to have been involved with numerous men at various points, including a hotel owner/manager.

That's all off the top of my head right now.

Edit: Oddly there was no mention of cigarette butts being in the car or of the alleged confession from a bouncer. We could only assume that these areas were investigated and found to be immaterial one way or another. There was a TON of work done on this case and I do feel the need to say this, given some theories and speculation in this thread and elsewhere: the police took this case very seriously and worked hard on it. I do not believe there was any kind of "inside job" around losing evidence. Never assume malice, etc...
 
bigwood69 said:
Almost home now, the inquest concluded about 12pm. Mrskafoops and I had a lot of interesting discussion around certain details and can answer questions of course but these are the major takeaways from my perspective:

-The coroner will almost definitely rule that Julie died between 12.30am and 5.30am June 20th 1988, but give an open finding on the manner of death. She said there's basically a 50/50 split in the evidence to indicate either murder or suicide.

-In the event of a murder there is basically one major suspect, and maybe 2 other potential suspects.

-Police were extremely thorough both in the initial investigation and the cold case review but their practices around storing evidence has meant they've lost most of it sadly. This is pretty consistent with what we've head in the Claremont case.

-There's no genuine belief either now or in the past that Julie was a victim of Edwards. Her initial connection to Claremont was due to the 2008 review, iirc, in which they noted her connection to Iona and her overlapping WAIT units with then-suspect Lance Williams. They found no evidence of her being connected to the girls, and they apparently questioned Edwards about her and felt he wasn't involved.

-Very little was made of either the road incident or the break-in at her flat prior to her disappearance. Both were basically written off as coincidence. As were a student film from WAIT about a car driving into the ocean in 1986 and the items discovered in 1996.

-Re the car: The car went in off the retaining wall, NOT the groyne. The rear and front passenger doors were locked. The driver's side door and window were both open, the car was in neutral and the only contents discovered were from the glove compartment: two champagne flutes wrapped in a tea towel and some RAC/license documents. A name and address written on these docs was followed up and found unrelated. The damage to the car, including the detached rear seat and the battery (both of which washed up later) was believed to be a result of being tossed in the ocean.

-There was simply not enough information from the time to map potential drift of the items in the car that became dislodged - including Julie's body. Overall, forensic science around drift/currents and effects of ocean damage on vessels at the time was not well developed at the time. It was however said to be possible that Julie's body may have entered the water despite the fact it never washed up like other items in the car.

-It was determined that it was possible that Julie's car picked up enough speed to enter the water and get carried out (about 50m off shore they said) after rolling down the hill, i.e., it didn't necessarily have to be driven in at speed.

-Julie's relationships: She appeared to have been involved with numerous men at various points, including a hotel owner/manager.

That's all off the top of my head right now.

Edit: Oddly there was no mention of cigarette butts being in the car or of the alleged confession from a bouncer. We could only assume that these areas were investigated and found to be immaterial one way or another. There was a TON of work done on this case and I do feel the need to say this, given some theories and speculation in this thread and elsewhere: the police took this case very seriously and worked hard on it. I do not believe there was any kind of "inside job" around losing evidence. Never assume malice, etc...
Click to expand...
Great update thanks so much guys for sharing your thoughts!
 
bigwood69 said:
Almost home now, the inquest concluded about 12pm. Mrskafoops and I had a lot of interesting discussion around certain details and can answer questions of course but these are the major takeaways from my perspective:

-The coroner will almost definitely rule that Julie died between 12.30am and 5.30am June 20th 1988, but give an open finding on the manner of death. She said there's basically a 50/50 split in the evidence to indicate either murder or suicide.

-In the event of a murder there is basically one major suspect, and maybe 2 other potential suspects.

-Police were extremely thorough both in the initial investigation and the cold case review but their practices around storing evidence has meant they've lost most of it sadly. This is pretty consistent with what we've head in the Claremont case.

-There's no genuine belief either now or in the past that Julie was a victim of Edwards. Her initial connection to Claremont was due to the 2008 review, iirc, in which they noted her connection to Iona and her overlapping WAIT units with then-suspect Lance Williams. They found no evidence of her being connected to the girls, and they apparently questioned Edwards about her and felt he wasn't involved.

-Very little was made of either the road incident or the break-in at her flat prior to her disappearance. Both were basically written off as coincidence. As were a student film from WAIT about a car driving into the ocean in 1986 and the items discovered in 1996.

-Re the car: The car went in off the retaining wall, NOT the groyne. The rear and front passenger doors were locked. The driver's side door and window were both open, the car was in neutral and the only contents discovered were from the glove compartment: two champagne flutes wrapped in a tea towel and some RAC/license documents. A name and address written on these docs was followed up and found unrelated. The damage to the car, including the detached rear seat and the battery (both of which washed up later) was believed to be a result of being tossed in the ocean.

-There was simply not enough information from the time to map potential drift of the items in the car that became dislodged - including Julie's body. Overall, forensic science around drift/currents and effects of ocean damage on vessels at the time was not well developed at the time. It was however said to be possible that Julie's body may have entered the water despite the fact it never washed up like other items in the car.

-It was determined that it was possible that Julie's car picked up enough speed to enter the water and get carried out (about 50m off shore they said) after rolling down the hill, i.e., it didn't necessarily have to be driven in at speed.

-Julie's relationships: She appeared to have been involved with numerous men at various points, including a hotel owner/manager.

That's all off the top of my head right now.

Edit: Oddly there was no mention of cigarette butts being in the car or of the alleged confession from a bouncer. We could only assume that these areas were investigated and found to be immaterial one way or another. There was a TON of work done on this case and I do feel the need to say this, given some theories and speculation in this thread and elsewhere: the police took this case very seriously and worked hard on it. I do not believe there was any kind of "inside job" around losing evidence. Never assume malice, etc...
Click to expand...
Very nice summary Bigwood69. So you did actually meet Mrskafoops?
 
bigwood69 said:
Almost home now, the inquest concluded about 12pm. Mrskafoops and I had a lot of interesting discussion around certain details and can answer questions of course but these are the major takeaways from my perspective:

-The coroner will almost definitely rule that Julie died between 12.30am and 5.30am June 20th 1988, but give an open finding on the manner of death. She said there's basically a 50/50 split in the evidence to indicate either murder or suicide.

-In the event of a murder there is basically one major suspect, and maybe 2 other potential suspects.

-Police were extremely thorough both in the initial investigation and the cold case review but their practices around storing evidence has meant they've lost most of it sadly. This is pretty consistent with what we've head in the Claremont case.

-There's no genuine belief either now or in the past that Julie was a victim of Edwards. Her initial connection to Claremont was due to the 2008 review, iirc, in which they noted her connection to Iona and her overlapping WAIT units with then-suspect Lance Williams. They found no evidence of her being connected to the girls, and they apparently questioned Edwards about her and felt he wasn't involved.

-Very little was made of either the road incident or the break-in at her flat prior to her disappearance. Both were basically written off as coincidence. As were a student film from WAIT about a car driving into the ocean in 1986 and the items discovered in 1996.

-Re the car: The car went in off the retaining wall, NOT the groyne. The rear and front passenger doors were locked. The driver's side door and window were both open, the car was in neutral and the only contents discovered were from the glove compartment: two champagne flutes wrapped in a tea towel and some RAC/license documents. A name and address written on these docs was followed up and found unrelated. The damage to the car, including the detached rear seat and the battery (both of which washed up later) was believed to be a result of being tossed in the ocean.

-There was simply not enough information from the time to map potential drift of the items in the car that became dislodged - including Julie's body. Overall, forensic science around drift/currents and effects of ocean damage on vessels at the time was not well developed at the time. It was however said to be possible that Julie's body may have entered the water despite the fact it never washed up like other items in the car.

-It was determined that it was possible that Julie's car picked up enough speed to enter the water and get carried out (about 50m off shore they said) after rolling down the hill, i.e., it didn't necessarily have to be driven in at speed.

-Julie's relationships: She appeared to have been involved with numerous men at various points, including a hotel owner/manager.

That's all off the top of my head right now.

Edit: Oddly there was no mention of cigarette butts being in the car or of the alleged confession from a bouncer. We could only assume that these areas were investigated and found to be immaterial one way or another. There was a TON of work done on this case and I do feel the need to say this, given some theories and speculation in this thread and elsewhere: the police took this case very seriously and worked hard on it. I do not believe there was any kind of "inside job" around losing evidence. Never assume malice, etc...
Click to expand...

Well done, thank you.

Just for the record though, I don't think there was ever any suggestions made in this thread of an inside job, or criticisms of the police around this case.

Edit: Some discussion around the handbag found in the sand being thrown out thinking it wasn't Julie's.
 
Last edited:
Refused the interview according to the ABC.

Detective Inspector Hamilton said police had also considered whether Claremont killer Bradley Edwards, who murdered Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon in 1996 and 1997 and is suspected of killing Sarah Spiers around the same time, could have been involved in Ms Cutler's disappearance.

Edwards had declined to be interviewed about the case, but Det Insp Hamilton said while he could not be ruled out, he was not considered more likely than other suspects to have been involved.

www.abc.net.au

Claremont killer declined to be interviewed about 1988 disappearance of Perth woman

Claremont killer Bradley Edwards refused to be interviewed by detectives reinvestigating the mysterious disappearance of a Perth woman in 1988, as a coroner concludes she is dead.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
OK, i was of the understanding that BRE did not attend WAIT or university

'Edwards also attended the same university as Ms Cutler at the same time – the WA institute of Technology (now Curtin University) – and they took some of the same units, including psychology.'

www.abc.net.au

Claremont killer declined to be interviewed about 1988 disappearance of Perth woman

Claremont killer Bradley Edwards refused to be interviewed by detectives reinvestigating the mysterious disappearance of a Perth woman in 1988, as a coroner concludes she is dead.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Current Julie Cutler - Murder - 1988 - Cottesloe WA *To the Coroner

Similar threads

zedx
Current Shooting Murder of Chloe Mason * Two arrests with claims of self defence
Replies
22
Views
368
Macca180
Macca180
Redacted
Kerryn Tate unsolved murder Western Australia 1979
Replies
3
Views
767
stormbird
stormbird
Kurve
Current Sherriff Murders Judge in the Courthouse Chambers * Kentucky
Replies
13
Views
930
Butters and Pepper
B
PatsFitztrick
Current Murder of 19yo Brunswick Local Isla Belle *Two men in their 50s arrested
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Paul Kersey
Paul Kersey
Kurve
Current Murder of Mother & Infant - Perth
Replies
1
Views
859
jason_recliner
J
Kurve
Current Woman found wrapped in plastic Sydney - Identified as Sally Li * Husband Rex also murdered
Replies
14
Views
380
ms finch
M
Spectrix
Brisbane man charged with double murder following drug overdoses
Replies
2
Views
325
Rob R
R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top