Australia Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #12

JoWa said:

I too have noticed articles going missing and many of the old links from WS CSK forums going nowhere. I wonder if WS and other CSK forum users are tipping them off as to articles they need to remove.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

BReVeTTe said:

yes, possibly, but i'm speculating about SSkeyring, sutton, i think it would definitely be the more likely of items — more so than any personalised item of jewelry.
a sunflower keyring might even have been inconspicuously put to general use in the home, because, at that time in the 90's, sunflower paraphernalia was very common ... i mean, popular and inexpensive ... therefore, as a souvenir, it might not need to be secreted as obviously as a very distinctive item of personalised, more valuable jewelry ... we all know police had a replica of the sunflower keyring, they showed us often enough.
theoretically, "if" his ex had found something to turn in, the police would have wanted to protect her, and there was a mention of a restraint order in an early news article, i was questioned by your good self for mentioning it in a comment i'd made on thread ... then i couldn't cite my source which had disappeared from any article i was able to find.
by the end of that day, i noted JoeD(i think?) had posed that someone should ask @paigetaylor(?) what exactly it was that she had wanted to say, and which her lawyers may have possibly asked her to redact ... this is all from my memory and i hope i'm not violating TOS.
i did mention in a defensive comment, that a restraint order is not always indicative of a DV type scenario, but that an order can be put in place for no more reason than to prevent communication during criminal proceedings (i know this because it's a situation i'v been)
the facts i mention are true, however my theory on the SSkeyring is only speculated, but if you think about it, it would certainly lead to charges outside of those existing.


[emoji887]

Click to expand...

mandy.maree said:

It's very interesting the dates new info was being released by police (2015) . That's basically the time BRE and CG split.


The planned disposal sites is interesting. How could police know it was pre planned? Maybe they were in bush just off walking tracks that you had to be a local to know about (CG seems to have been anyway)

I'm thinking they had to have linked fibres on both bodies to be able to charge BRE with both murders or perhaps there was a specific way in which they were killed/found that proves it had to be one person responsible.

Dna was found on CG I believe. Doubtful any on JR considering the time passed and the weather.

Hope it is all strong enough to prove guilt. Not just stray hair on a jumper or something (unless it's hair that was pulled out of his head from a victim)

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

JoWa said:

I didn't think they could narrow the time of death down to an exact day after weeks out in the elements, isn't there usually a 24-48 hour window. Especially when found a significant time after death. Soon after could be interpreted as anytime over the next couple of days.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

snakesonplanes said:

Subjudice.

There is no media blackout.

Click to expand...

Wyke said:

...

See the attached pics at the bottom of this post at thread #4 by papertrail:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...h-Western-Australia-4&p=12396408#post12396408

Someone mentioned having grabbed those videos - would love to know if they exist.

Click to expand...

BReVeTTe said:

i agree.
I don't believe they'd want to risk him destroying evidence, but if there was any possible substance to earlier police toying - not suggesting that they would toy, only that they'd want to have a watertight case before toying - might the prosecution's case already be much tighter than we've so far been led to believe?
i mean 'we' are still speculating as to how, and on what grounds, police were able to make a link to the accused's DNA, and whether that will stick.
further knowing police definitely won't put all their cards on the table until such time as absolutely necessary during later court proceedings ... just say as a prelude to gathering/matching DNA they had already a trophy/trophies in their "hushed possession" (possible scenario - eg. SSkeyring discovered by ex, handed in to police) this having then given police warranted suspicion to match his DNA to other matters.
might the police be keeping such a trophy as their trump card, intending to present as late evidence in the hope he is still pleading either not guilty, or guilty only as charged?

me not having a legal mind ....could they do that?

[emoji887]

Click to expand...

Spinnaker said:

I am not a Legal Eagle, however my understanding is that the prosecution have a duty to disclose all information/ evidence relevant to the case.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/prosecuting/rofe.pdf

Click to expand...

BReVeTTe said:

thanks spinnaker. if i didn't have a headache before reading that, i'v certainly got one now ...ow... i think i found my answer ...ow again
[emoji887]

Click to expand...

SherlockSleuth said:

Pretty sure everyone's aware that police said something along the lines of 'one of the ways we can crack this case is by locating specific pieces of jewellery'. If the suspect knew they were onto him he'd quickly dispose of said jewellery.

Click to expand...

JoWa said:

<modsnip>

My theory is they got a hit with familial DNA, which apparently they can get from minor crimes like drink driving charges now. Then they focused on that family and got a used coffee cup out of the trash used by BRE. Once they had confirmation, they arrested.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

lampformypath said:

You're right Spinnaker as I asked a similar question in previous post and a legal mind (can't remember who, sorry) answered all evidence must be shown to defence prior to trial, BUT surprise witnesses are allowed, and as this person alluded to, this can "blindside" the defence or prosecution lawyers. Interesting process isn't it?:lookingitup:

Click to expand...

JoeDetective said:

You hardly need the police to tell you that if you have items of a murder victims they were wearing when they were last seen it may incriminate you.

Indeed I'd suspect most killers who keep 'trophies' would be fully aware of the risk, indeed this is a person willing to risk life in prison to commit murder I hardly think they would be scared by some WAPOL comments about jewellery.

Click to expand...

mandy.maree said:

I agree.

This is a man who drove back to a small area that was no doubt under surveillance by police and cameras as two girls had very recently gone missing. ..and brazenly took a third! Right near where people were sitting at a bus stop!
I do not think he could control himself. If he wanted to keep trophies all this time-it would not surprise me.
Yes-it is stupid. ..but many have done it before him.

I'm sure hoping he kept things.


Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

JoeDetective said:

I think the 2 most likely theories based on historical data I am aware of is
1. CSK destroyed/dumped the items shortly after the murders
2. CSK has put the items somewhere for safekeeping

Click to expand...

Spinnaker said:

RE: ClaremontGhost 'hint' videos.

What are the views out there re the ClaremontGhost 'hint' videos? I wonder if BRE was involved in any way?

I too would like to know if anyone has a copy?

Interesting hint 2 & hint 6 which includes the Stirling bridge and Left Bank Hotel.

There are a number of small marinas directly opposite and near the Left Bank Hotel which has small boats. The photo of the boat heading under the Stirling bridge - that is the direction you have to sail to head out to sea or to Rottnest.

Another theory is that CSK met someone at the Left Bank. It has been around for a number of years and was a big Sunday Session venue also.

Click to expand...