Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #16

[petedavo.au]

Are you shouting at me with all your capitals Spooks? Is that necessary?

I have video clips of a car in the high impact wave zone (remember force is being applied to front of car and not roof as well) for 2 hours with no damage and car after being underwater with no damage. I've calculated repeated forces applied directly to roof of car by waves onto rocks, when the car would have had to be lifted one metre into air and dropped 30 to 40 times on its roof to get close to the damage that occurred.

Your scenario of waves onto a sand bar, is not going to cause that damage. You couldn't generate the acceleration needed to produce the force to cause that damage IMO. The car underwater weigh possibly two tons and the waves would not be moving that car and accelerating it (not just moving it a constant speed).

Fiat has a buoyancy factor of 10 (imagine getting a 100kg person to hold an extra 700kg and see how far they move underwater or how long they would float to get an idea of that buoyancy factor) and likely to sink very close to where it went into water.

The control video where exact forces can be calculated and compared to damage that occurred in controlled crash experiments is very helpful in determining forces and correlating to damage that occurred within limits of error.

And of course the back seat was found two days before the car entered the water from the evidence. Back seat would have contained possible evidence if JC was abducted, especially if the man and woman that Katich was looking for were responsible. The woman driving and the man subduing JC in the back seat. However there is is no logical explanation for how this happened.

Only that it did and that it seemed to be very important to someone that JC's car ended up in the ocean at Cottesloe Beach.

http://www.rainbowcoast.com.au/areas/rainbowcoast/swells.htm

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Mo Joe]

eaglesnest.org.au

I guess you have already discussed this? I don't want to upset the poster Twist....

 

[PCS]

Ok. I haven't been in that one. Only District Court. Will BRE appear in the Magistrates Court? Do BIG cases go there?

 

[Twist]

eaglesnest.org.au

I guess you have already discussed this? I don't want to upset the poster Twist....

you misunderstand me, it is the chest pounding from people about their own opinions and their constant rehashing of their options for no real result but to brow beat people with different opinions into submission.

 

[petedavo.au]

Ok. I haven't been in that one. Only District Court. Will BRE appear in the Magistrates Court? Do BIG cases go there?

All cases are initially brought before the magistrates court (petty sessions). Indictable matters are handed up after the committal mention. However, having said that there is now a magistrates Court in the Supreme Court. I don't know how that works as it came in after I transferred departments, but I imagine is a similar process. Summary offences can go up too, but that's usually upon a Section 32 application for fast track sentencing with indictable matters, so that the defendant can get concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive. However, in this instance that's probably not relevant, as I'll wager it'll go to trial, unless something comes up in the directions hearing.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[PCS]

I think you have been quite good for many years at this S pooks. An Evil laugh echoes throughout the forums since 2008... Kidding Love...

 

[meticulously]

From a doctor of Physical Oceanography ,

Wind directions detailed synoptic modelling from 15th june to 26th june 1988 .

It was stormy wild wet winter weather conditions before the 21st and after the 23rd which must have made searching very difficult .
Not suprisingly the car was found during the (only) finest day of all the period 15th-28th june 1988.*

The sources of this information.*

http://www.ecmwf.int/en/resear...climate-reanalysis/era-interim


This is a very detailed weather plot that required a fee to create,
Especially for the JC car mystery sleuths and whoever else maybe interested .

As long as you can read synoptic charts its easy to plot wind and current paths .
A lot of the guesswork is eliminated.

For example the night of the 20th when jc first dissappeared, the waves would have been banging loudly and the waves possibly up to 2-3 metres high .
Therefore creating a situation where a car went in unnoticed .

There had been a ferocious storm the preceeding 3 days so there was less chance of swimmers and fishermen than normally , Imo
.

Weather Details in link below ;

https://www.dropbox.com/s/64on835amvect38/ECMWF_wind_pressure_june_15-26_1988.pdf?dl=0

 

[Xyz]

SS and CG both went missing after spending a Friday night out.
JR went missing after spending a Saturday night out.

There was something different about JRs disappearance.

What night of the week was the KK rape?
Do we know what nights the other incidences in Claremont (e.g. Woman jumping from taxi and breaking ankle; woman attacked in laneway with skirt torn off etc) occurred?

Excuse my laziness in not looking these up myself, hoping someone knows and can answer easily!

 

[Canning Vale]

What night of the week was the KK rape?
Do we know what nights the other incidences in Claremont (e.g. Woman jumping from taxi and breaking ankle; woman attacked in laneway with skirt torn off etc) occurred?

Excuse my laziness in not looking these up myself, hoping someone knows and can answer easily!

Xyz,

Here's the timeline which was produced by either Spinakker, Sutton or GROK. It looks like most the days are indicated.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?335464-Australia-Claremont-SK-1996-97-Perth-WA-14/page34

 

[Annalise]

SS and JR both went to OBH before going to Claremont. In fact they probably spent more time there than Claremont. Were they followed by someone from OBH? Also both of these ladies left their friends and appeared to be waiting for someone. MOO

 

[Canning Vale]

SS and JR both went to OBH before going to Claremont. In fact they probably spent more time there than Claremont. Were they followed by someone from OBH? Also both of these ladies left their friends and appeared to be waiting for someone. MOO

My thoughts are the same. As though they'd met someone beforehand. Perhaps they'd been told lies, and not to tell anyone about who they'd met beforehand.

 

[Annalise]

My thoughts are the same. As though they'd met someone beforehand. Perhaps they'd been told lies, and not to tell anyone about who they'd met beforehand.

There was never much reported about the OBH. Were there security cameras there that might have shown the girls socialising with people one of which might have been CSK. Since they spent most of the evening there you would expect more information about seeing the girls there. Even just the people they socialised with. But nothing! No mention of OBH in the documentaries on tv. They may have said they were there earlier but that's it. MOO

 

[meticulously]

Quote reply failure.

 

[Xyz]

IMO the idea that the CSK (whether the current accused or not) knew Jane through her work at the chilcare centre is a very plausible reason for why Jane didn't tell her friends she was meeting a man later.

I've read other theories along the lines of her not telling her friends because he (if 'he' even exists! Maybe she was just hopeful of meeting someone. Anyone! But gave up, left, and was nabbed)...was married, or older etc, but they never seemed like really good reasons (to my mind) for being secretive with your close friends about planning to meet someone later.

BUT - if the man was the stepfather (or even in a new relationship) of a child at your work - whoa! That could be grounds for losing your job. And maybe something you'd not share with your friends because it seems a little 'un-nice' - ... 'oh I'm just meeting up with the boyfriend of one of the mum's whose child I look after'...!!!

Of course, the theory all depends on some big IFS - if the stepdaughter was even born at that time; if she attended childcare at that centre; if BRE & 2nd wife were in a relationship at that stage - one where it was at the stage that he'd be trusted to pick up the stepdaughter from childcare.

All these points are easily tracable and I'd assume (hope!) it was an avenue considered by WAPOL as a potential link between Jane and the accused.

(Phwoar, sorry, lengthy post. Brain is over-tired!)

 

[meticulously]

What night of the week was the KK rape?
Do we know what nights the other incidences in Claremont (e.g. Woman jumping from taxi and breaking ankle; woman attacked in laneway with skirt torn off etc) occurred?

Excuse my laziness in not looking these up myself, hoping someone knows and can answer easily!

Unfortunately thats unlikely as the details are very scarce.

 

[Annalise]

With regards SS using the public phone to call a taxi - I thought Telecom were able to trace calls back then. Perhaps SS used the phone to call someone else before calling for taxi. I'm sure they would have checked all that out though. MOO

 

[Annalise]

IMO the idea that the CSK (whether the current accused or not) knew Jane through her work at the chilcare centre is a very plausible reason for why Jane didn't tell her friends she was meeting a man later.

I've read other theories along the lines of her not telling her friends because he (if 'he' even exists! Maybe she was just hopeful of meeting someone. Anyone! But gave up, left, and was nabbed)...was married, or older etc, but they never seemed like really good reasons (to my mind) for being secretive with your close friends about planning to meet someone later.

BUT - if the man was the stepfather (or even in a new relationship) of a child at your work - whoa! That could be grounds for losing your job. And maybe something you'd not share with your friends because it seems a little 'un-nice' - ... 'oh I'm just meeting up with the boyfriend of one of the mum's whose child I look after'...!!!

Of course, the theory all depends on some big IFS - if the stepdaughter was even born at that time; if she attended childcare at that centre; if BRE & 2nd wife were in a relationship at that stage - one where it was at the stage that he'd be trusted to pick up the stepdaughter from childcare.

All these points are easily tracable and I'd assume (hope!) it was an avenue considered by WAPOL as a potential link between Jane and the accused.

(Phwoar, sorry, lengthy post. Brain is over-tired!)

Hi Xyz - you could be right about the SD being in the same daycare that JR worked in. A verified member of Websleuths called Trueblue was asked when BE and CG got together and they said 98'ish. The baby was about two or three (I think) when they got together (need to check that). If so the baby's age would fit with being in daycare. All just supposition. MOO

 

[DRT]

IMO the idea that the CSK (whether the current accused or not) knew Jane through her work at the chilcare centre is a very plausible reason for why Jane didn't tell her friends she was meeting a man later.

I've read other theories along the lines of her not telling her friends because he (if 'he' even exists! Maybe she was just hopeful of meeting someone. Anyone! But gave up, left, and was nabbed)...was married, or older etc, but they never seemed like really good reasons (to my mind) for being secretive with your close friends about planning to meet someone later.

BUT - if the man was the stepfather (or even in a new relationship) of a child at your work - whoa! That could be grounds for losing your job. And maybe something you'd not share with your friends because it seems a little 'un-nice' - ... 'oh I'm just meeting up with the boyfriend of one of the mum's whose child I look after'...!!!

Of course, the theory all depends on some big IFS - if the stepdaughter was even born at that time; if she attended childcare at that centre; if BRE & 2nd wife were in a relationship at that stage - one where it was at the stage that he'd be trusted to pick up the stepdaughter from childcare.

All these points are easily tracable and I'd assume (hope!) it was an avenue considered by WAPOL as a potential link between Jane and the accused.

(Phwoar, sorry, lengthy post. Brain is over-tired!)

I had considered that maybe SD could be in JR's childcare centre but the location of the child care centre did not make sense. If you were living Southside you generally would not travel Northside to Child care. It would make more sense if the family still had the business in Mosman Park where perhaps her parents picked the SD up from Child care and brought her back to the Restaurant or perhaps picked her up on the way to help out at the restaurant. The SD was born after 1994.

The restaurant being closed in 1994 means that it was not likely someone would want to pick up a child from an out of the way location. JMO.

 

[Annalise]

I had considered that maybe SD could be in JR's childcare centre but the location of the child care centre did not make sense. If you were living Southside you generally would not travel Northside to Child care. It would make more sense if the family still had the business in Mosman Park where perhaps her parents picked the SD up from Child care and brought her back to the Restaurant or perhaps picked her up on the way to help out at the restaurant. The SD was born after 1994.

The restaurant being closed in 1994 means that it was not likely someone would want to pick up a child from an out of the way location. JMO.

Hi DRT - maybe CGE lived and worked in the Claremont area. MOO

 

[Questions123]

CG is the one that stumps me. By what people have stated on here in earlier threads she would never have got into the car with a stranger. There is no log of her calling for a taxi and she was walking. Was she planning on hitch hiking home. Perhaps after travelling for a period of time she was confident with trusting people she didnt know. Even if the accused met her prior through some law event with his ex how would you even come to that conversation and stop the car in the middle of the night 'Hey i recognized you we met at so and so' that even sounds creepy. I just don't know and she left the venue earlier than her other colleagues because she was tired she had another lift on offer but she didnt want to stay on. Surely she would have heard through other people even colleagues about the previous 2 missing girls. It was massive news and I'm sure it must of come up in passing conversation as they were at the establishment the others were last seen. I don't understand it.