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

[crabstick]

So if the police had a Kimono, how did they trace ot the current POI?
Anyone? An DC itd not they suspected him nor was it his ex wife.

https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/forensic-science-helps-police-close-in-on-killer-ng-ya-135887

Article from Jan 2016 :

"Under WA law, anyone suspected of involvement in a serious offence can be compelled to provide a DNA sample, even if they are not charged with an offence."

Basically once police brought in BRE, (because they suspected BRE to be the CSK), for questioning- then WAPOL could legally could gain BRE's DNA with or without his consent.

His DNA matched DNA from CG and KK cases.

 

[crabstick]

They don't hand over documents, they make a copy and it usually takes longer than you'd think . True story: I spent over 3wks scanning charts of rats rectal temperatures to pdf for Grey vs UWA.

They probably havd to collate the evidence into a prosecution not hand over z bucket of lucky dips and work ork it out yourself.

 

[crabstick]

Why would you get a gazillion dollar silk to plead guilty?

Been reading about John Glover & Ivan Milat, and there are a few similarities with BRE. Started offending early. Employed in a job that sees them on the road a bit. Police bungling.

Something these monsters did not do is confess to any more killings, even though police were quite certain (certainly in Milat's case) that they'd committed more murders. Be interesting to see if this is the case with BRE too.

FWIW I think BRE will plead guilty. Such a private person won't want his whole life put on public trial.

 

[crabstick]

Always prepared to be proven wrong as well and l hope lm wrong with some of my suspicions. The only thing we know for sure that forces change within big organisations and corporations is when it might cost them money. So l wouldn't bet on the girls families not pursuing them, and it wont necessarily be for a payout.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Currently ISPs are a little blase in handing out peoples personal information requested by forum owners.
And IT engineers often ring ISPs for personal details which are given out way too freely by ISP workers.
However there was a person who tracked someone via a forum and sued them for more than a few bob after they defamed him online.
Maybe some families will litigate to tecover costs.
There is the telecommunications sct that might have been broken.

 

[shovel]

Why would you get a gazillion dollar silk to plead guilty?

The gazillion dollar silk probs offered his services, its a very high profile case and it will cost a lot of money for the best wig's advice 'you're sunk old chap l suggest you plead and we'll try to save your superannuation'

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[crabstick]

To clarify Wyke and Shovel, in both your opinions if BRE is found guilty, the victims family will sue Telstra because Telstra gave BRE a car as part of his job and he was given access to databases in his daily work?

Im not sure how that will work. Firewalls were essentially non existant. Teenagers were hacking into banks with dial up modems which was low level hacking really.
Telstra would have started managing packet data and techs at Telecom would have expanding for the growth on packet data.

 

[Moustachio]

I get the feeling (IMO) that we'll have to wait for ABC, SBS or SKY/FOX to commission a documentary about the case to find anything out at all. Obviously that won't happen unless the accused is found (pending a long drawn out trial) or pleads guilty. 2019 anyone?

I really don't want to see a commercial station do one of their "docudrama" hack jobs either. I want to see a factual documentary.

I'm interested in the investigative process itself.

No, I don't think so. If there is a plea of guilty, firstly, the judge, especially in a case like this, will give a very comprehensive sentencing hearing going through all of the known facts (relevant to the charges). At that point, also, because there is no longer any risk of prejudicing a jury, the police will almost certainly release the background information. They won't, however, give away their investigative techniques - unless they are no longer used - because that would tip off criminals about how to conceal their crimes.

 

[Moustachio]

Although it is important people can post information and be believed, it is also important that there is more than one source for some statements. There are 3000 or 4000 people who work at UWA so I would imagine more information would come of this topic. But until then we have had one person come forward and said BRE worked at UWA.

When did the more > 1 statement rule come into play? Sounded perfectly kosher to me.

 

[Moustachio]

John Glover committed a number of murders and assaults while calling on nursing homes and retirement villages as a sales rep for a pie company. He used a work vehicle. I'm not aware of any civil action taken against his employer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe that the law imposes a duty upon employers to ensure that their employees are not serial killers, nor could it be said that by employing such people that they had caused or contributed to their deaths. The proposition is, with respect, not worth exploring any further. IMO

 

[Moustachio]

I think it's feasible that a case could be made against the police and in effect the govt. particularly if negligence or gross incompetence occurred in the police investigation after the JR disappearance. For example if mystery man turns out to be the killer and they chose not to get him identified by the public or ignored clear evidence because they were blinkered.

I honestly can't see how Telstra would get dragged into this. To me they're in the same position as the family here. Hoodwinked for years by someone very adept at leading two separate lives. They didn't supply him with anything he couldn't have got from the hardware store or car yard.

No, cannot sue police for making mistakes in investigating crimes as a third party. No duty owed to third parties, and no causation linking the loss to negligence. You can sue someone (civilly) for malicious prosecution - but you have to be actually charged and acquitted personally first, and then have some evidence that the prosecution for a wrongful purpose. Very rare. In fact, never heard of it done successfully. This is vexatious litigant stuff.

 

[shovel]

I don't believe that the law imposes a duty upon employers to ensure that their employees are not serial killers, nor could it be said that by employing such people that they had caused or contributed to their deaths. The proposition is, with respect, not worth exploring any further. IMO

Of course not but there most certainly is history of victims of crime successfully suing the employer of the perpetrator in certain circumstances. An example might be ... the CSK was taking Telstra equipment home unchecked that allowed him to tap into the local phone boxes to select his targets. Or the night Sarah Spiers disappeared a Telstra vehicle owned by BRE was towed out of the bush and sent to the repairers. It wasn't reported. Or ... the CSK was Telstra contracted to install surrveillance equipment designed to catch himself and he hooked into the police investigation. Eavesdropped on the investigation using skills Telstra trained him for and their equipment.

Duty of care. These are just examples.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Moustachio]

Of course not but there most certainly is history of victims of crime successfully suing the employer of the perpetrator in certain circumstances. An example might be ... the CSK was taking Telstra equipment home unchecked that allowed him to tap into the local phone boxes to select his targets. Or the night Sarah Spiers disappeared a Telstra vehicle owned by BRE was towed out of the bush and sent to the repairers. It wasn't reported. Or ... the CSK was Telstra contracted to install surrveillance equipment designed to catch himself and he hooked into the police investigation. Eavesdropped on the investigation using skills Telstra trained him for and their equipment.

Duty of care. These are just examples.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

You can sue an employer for some criminal activity of the employee causing damage to said member of public, but that is only where the criminal activity is within the scope of the employment arrangement. i.e. culpable driving causing death where the employee's job involves driving and, say, they had crazy hours to complete; or a bouncer who punches someone out. But what you are suggesting, really, is that an employer is basically an insurer of the general public that their employee will not doing anything at all to hurt them. It is more or less impossible to anticipate that an employee would do something like this, and the law won't attach liability for it.

 

[CP345]

No, cannot sue police for making mistakes in investigating crimes as a third party. No duty owed to third parties, and no causation linking the loss to negligence. You can sue someone (civilly) for malicious prosecution - but you have to be actually charged and acquitted personally first, and then have some evidence that the prosecution for a wrongful purpose. Very rare. In fact, never heard of it done successfully. This is vexatious litigant stuff.

Thanks for clarifying. Looks like nobody is getting sued then. Personally I think the sue Telstra talk is horse feathers.

 

[Moustachio]

An another note, an ex-Plod acquaintance once speculated that a 'good' spot for disposing of a body would be in Mundaring Weir: The crabs would consume everything consumable in 24 hours, so he suggested.

 

[crabstick]

If there is litigation, it wont relate to an employee murdering.
It will relate later on to whether the company failed to protect customers personal data and if such the telecommunications act is broken.
At the time there was no means really of tracking vehicles apart from log books.
Now many people cant stop for a dump due to gprs gps systems.

I don't believe that the law imposes a duty upon employers to ensure that their employees are not serial killers, nor could it be said that by employing such people that they had caused or contributed to their deaths. The proposition is, with respect, not worth exploring any further. IMO

 

[KG1]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...g/news-story/cf04c9884ab6e6992b3749f5737d8554

 

[Moustachio]

An another note, an ex-Plod acquaintance once speculated that a 'good' spot for disposing of a body would be in Mundaring Weir: The crabs would consume everything consumable in 24 hours, so he suggested.

I think he might have said marron (crayfish) actually

 

[crabstick]

An another note, an ex-Plod acquaintance once speculated that a 'good' spot for disposing of a body would be in Mundaring Weir: The crabs would consume everything consumable in 24 hours, so he suggested.

Marron? Access at the time might hsve been easier but public not allowed around the Dr inking catchment.
Carting a body in there would be a risk in facing charges.

 

[CP345]

Of course not but there most certainly is history of victims of crime successfully suing the employer of the perpetrator in certain circumstances. An example might be ... the CSK was taking Telstra equipment home unchecked that allowed him to tap into the local phone boxes to select his targets. Or the night Sarah Spiers disappeared a Telstra vehicle owned by BRE was towed out of the bush and sent to the repairers. It wasn't reported. Or ... the CSK was Telstra contracted to install surrveillance equipment designed to catch himself and he hooked into the police investigation. Eavesdropped on the investigation using skills Telstra trained him for and their equipment.

Duty of care. These are just examples.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Can you give us at least an example of where a third party has successfully sued a killer's employer for the murder of a family member in Australia? If there is 'most certainly a history' of this it should be fairly easy.

Not sure why but that funny old bloke from the tv show kingswood country keeps coming to mind. What was his name again? Oh that's right, Ted Bullpit.

 

[crabstick]

The gazillion dollar silk probs offered his services, its a very high profile case and it will cost a lot of money for the best wig's advice 'you're sunk old chap l suggest you plead and we'll try to save your superannuation'

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

The top 5 silk in town doesnt need the case.