Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #21

[petedavo.au]

I'm curious why he didn't come forward immediately she was missing or when her body was found. All others that were at the Conti that night were asked to contact police and saw the cctv.


The cctv came out 12 years later so I'm curious what plausible reasons he might have had not to come forward at the time or when the cctv was publisised?

The Police claim that they identified everyone in Claremont that night is absolute rubbish.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont believe they ever made that claim. My understanding is they claimed all but MM who was on the video was identified.

Maybe he is the type of person that is that self absorbed, that he couldn't recognise himself in reverse colours, or know what day he was there or not, and chatted up so many girls that he wouldn't remember who she was? Or was simply working overseas?
There's all sorts of plausible reasons, more than there are nefarious ones. Of course the nefarious ones are more intriguing.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[BReVeTTe]

The Police claim that they identified everyone in Claremont that night is absolute rubbish.

I dont believe they ever made that claim. My understanding is they claimed all but MM who was on the video was identified.

to identify everyone in Claremont would have been impossible ; just to check the ID's of all present at the Hotel would have been a mammoth task ... and after disclosure of the massive oversight in failing to check vehicle registration numbers from the additional secret CCTV in situ when CG vanished, one has to wonder whether investigators merely accepted word on a person's identity, or whether those interviewed were required to provide proof of ID, and if so, whether their actual proof of ID was checked any further? [emoji848]
[emoji887]

 

[janwa]

Do you mean Triden?

I think started in Queensland but rapidly spread all over.

https://www.tridenttech.com.au/residential-security

Our expert residential security consultants will visit your premises to provide you with the peace of mind that comes with knowing your home is protected by the very best providers of home security Perth can offer. All of our home security systems are easily operated with a different options available as per your requirements.

https://www.tridentservices.com.au/about

Managing Director Perry Dollar founded Trident Services in 1996 after identifying a need in the market for high-standard of specialised security and cleaning services. With a strong focus on customer service, professionalism and leadership, and more than 20 years' experience in the security industry, Perry has successfully

 

[no name]

one has to wonder whether investigators merely accepted word on a person's identity, or whether those interviewed were required to provide proof of ID, and if so, whether their actual proof of ID was checked any further?

Or whether alibis were checked. The guys in the car at the lights for starters.

 

[Kambo]

Or whether alibis were checked. The guys in the car at the lights for starters.

If you were a single guy out in Claremont that night (or maybe you weren’t single and shouldn’t have been there) would you come forward and put your name in the ring. Especially if you had no alibi for later in the night. I doubt I would. I remember being at Harbourside in Freo one night and there was a big bikie brawl that got out of control. We never came forward as witnesses but the cops tracked us down through the ID scanner and then quizzed us at to why we never came forward. Obviously no scanners back in 96 so you could only really ID people who wanted to be identified. Most people would have paid cash at the bar so no bank records etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nbates]

Although I thought MM is BRE, I'd now be interested as to whether BRE actually came forward to say he was there but wasn't MM shown in cctv. If you think you're really clever and that they had nothing on you you might come forward to confuse the issue - might even help your case (although if you're there on your own it might be a little hard to explain). That's if BRE was there at all of course. Just rethinking[emoji849]

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo.au]

Although I thought MM is BRE, I'd now be interested as to whether BRE actually came forward to say he was there but wasn't MM shown in cctv. If you think you're really clever and that they had nothing on you you might come forward to confuse the issue - might even help your case (although if you're there on your own it might be a little hard to explain). That's if BRE was there at all of course. Just rethinking[emoji849]

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, I could see that would be unlikely to deflect police attention, but I like your thinking. Set up a plausible defence with a few half truths. Here is a possible scenario of how such a yarn could've spun if the accused did know MM and was in Claremont on the night, neither of which has been alleged or proven BTW.
"I dropped my mate off at the Pub after leaving the speedway - my mate is MM - Yes I saw him speaking to JR - but he went into the Pub - I saw JR looking around for a taxi afterwards - I even called out to her and she came over - I offered her a lift home, and she sat in my car and we got going, but it became apparent that she was headed in a different direction so I dropped her off up on such and such street - so, JR was safe and well a long way from where MM still was, so you don't need to interview MM after all"
However, IMO their would've been mention in the press, as almost every snippet of witness information about last sightings of the girls, even incorrect one's were wildy reported back in those days.
Therefore, I think not, but you never know, we'll only find out in Court if the accused ever approached police.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Innerchild]

Maybe he is the type of person that is that self absorbed, that he couldn't recognise himself in reverse colours, or know what day he was there or not, and chatted up so many girls that he wouldn't remember who she was? Or was simply working overseas?
There's all sorts of plausible reasons, more than there are nefarious ones. Of course the nefarious ones are more intriguing.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

He wouldn't have seen himself in reverse colours for 12 years on the cctv, so I'm curious why he didn't come forward before that? There was a lot of publicity as soon as she went missing. Also it was connected to the disappearance of SS immediately in the media. Front page of West Australian on Tuesday 11 June 1996 Missing Woman: Video Clue Hope

I like the idea that someone dropped MM off as Jane is looking towards Gugeri St and walking in the middle of Bay View Tce looking towards there or for someone walking from that direction.

If MM was dropped off it could have been a mate dropping Brad off. However IMO if he or they haven't come forward, it looks very guilty. Forgetting you were there or chatting to someone with their photo plastered on the front page of the paper doesn't cut it for me. It also brings up the question for me, if a mate was involved whatever he knew could they be an accessory to the crime?

 

[petedavo.au]

He wouldn't have seen himself in reverse colours for 12 years on the cctv, so I'm curious why he didn't come forward before that? There was a lot of publicity as soon as she went missing. Also it was connected to the disappearance of SS immediately in the media. Front page of West Australian on Tuesday 11 June 1996 Missing Woman: Video Clue Hope

I like the idea that someone dropped MM off as Jane is looking towards Gugeri St and walking in the middle of Bay View Tce looking towards there or for someone walking from that direction.

If MM was dropped off it could have been a mate dropping Brad off. However IMO if he or they haven't come forward, it looks very guilty. Forgetting you were there or chatting to someone with their photo plastered on the front page of the paper doesn't cut it for me. It also brings up the question for me, if a mate was involved whatever he knew could they be an accessory to the crime?

If the accused was dropped off, there's a problem for police, because he's got no car, to allegedly transport JR to where she was found, and there's now a problem to connect the fibres to a car that he didn't arrive in. So no, I don't think MM is the accused, but someone else, that the Accused could've dropped off. IMO

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[lampformypath]

He wouldn't have seen himself in reverse colours for 12 years on the cctv, so I'm curious why he didn't come forward before that? There was a lot of publicity as soon as she went missing. Also it was connected to the disappearance of SS immediately in the media. Front page of West Australian on Tuesday 11 June 1996 Missing Woman: Video Clue Hope

I like the idea that someone dropped MM off as Jane is looking towards Gugeri St and walking in the middle of Bay View Tce looking towards there or for someone walking from that direction.

If MM was dropped off it could have been a mate dropping Brad off. However IMO if he or they haven't come forward, it looks very guilty. Forgetting you were there or chatting to someone with their photo plastered on the front page of the paper doesn't cut it for me. It also brings up the question for me, if a mate was involved whatever he knew could they be an accessory to the crime?

Bingo! "If a mate was involved whatever he knew could they be an accessory to the crime?" My thoughts exactly Innerchild in a post way back! That's what popped into my head about how the police could be certain enough to charge BRE with SS as well (even without finding her body, or have they now?). How could they prove, without a doubt, that she has even been killed, unless they have a witness who was there, didn't take part in the killing, but came forward and described exactly how she was killed? JMO

 

[petedavo.au]

Bingo! "If a mate was involved whatever he knew could they be an accessory to the crime?" My thoughts exactly Innerchild in a post way back! That's what popped into my head about how the police could be certain enough to charge BRE with SS as well (even without finding her body, or have they now?). How could they prove, without a doubt, that she has even been killed, unless they have a witness who was there, didn't take part in the killing, but came forward and described exactly how she was killed? JMO

Interesting theory. I'm reluctant to cast assertions about MM beyond what evidence might support, however if the Police start fossicking around houses in Forrestfield, the bush and the old Forrestfield speedway, then I might revisit MM's involvement or knowledge of the alleged crimes. Until then, good sleuthing to you all, but remember not to prejudice a fair trial.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[DRT]

to identify everyone in Claremont would have been impossible ; just to check the ID's of all present at the Hotel would have been a mammoth task ... and after disclosure of the massive oversight in failing to check vehicle registration numbers from the additional secret CCTV in situ when CG vanished, one has to wonder whether investigators merely accepted word on a person's identity, or whether those interviewed were required to provide proof of ID, and if so, whether their actual proof of ID was checked any further? [emoji848]
[emoji887]

Also someone may not be identified if, they had been driving down Bay View Terrace coming from the speedway, turning right at Stirling Highway, by chance seeing and picking a female up who he was an acquaintance with.

 

[El Gordo]

Interesting theory. I'm reluctant to cast assertions about MM beyond what evidence might support, however if the Police start fossicking around houses in Forrestfield, the bush and the old Forrestfield speedway, then I might revisit MM's involvement or knowledge of the alleged crimes. Until then, good sleuthing to you all, but remember not to prejudice a fair trial.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Thank you for the cryptic on who MM may have been , looking at the previous weeks posts as you suggested I'm pretty sure I know who MM is , without knowing a name if that makes sense , where they came from and where they fit in , a couple of your posts since have confirmed what I was thinking

I have never thought MM was involved In this and now am more convinced of that

 

[no name]

Or whether alibis were checked. The guys in the car at the lights for starters.

If you were a single guy out in Claremont that night (or maybe you weren't single and shouldn’t have been there) would you come forward and put your name in the ring.

No i wouldnt & especially not 12 years later if I had nothing to do with it. I knew people who said they were in Claremont that night who havent been questioned and who didnt come forward either. Why would they. The cops were asking people from the video to name others they recognised on the video and apparently they ID'd all but 1 person that way. The guys in the car did come forward though & I dont believe their story that they thought it unsafe for a girl to be there on her own at the time much less the later reports that claimed they said they thought the car behind must have been her cab. Perhaps that was embellished in the press in hindsight knowing she was missing & had called a taxi, but Id hope they were thoroughly investigated too and not written off by each other simply saying I was with him, he was with me. The cab arrived 3 mins later. Either those guys were lying & they had something to do with it or the cab didnt see her but she was still there somewhere.

 

[lampformypath]

Interesting theory. I'm reluctant to cast assertions about MM beyond what evidence might support, however if the Police start fossicking around houses in Forrestfield, the bush and the old Forrestfield speedway, then I might revisit MM's involvement or knowledge of the alleged crimes. Until then, good sleuthing to you all, but remember not to prejudice a fair trial.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Agreed PD, maybe MM has been eliminated long ago, for all we know. Might be another mate, might be no mate, might be somebody else who's the CSK? Interesting about "fossicking" in Forrestfield...hmm. Keep our minds like parachutes hey, working best when open!

 

[Canning Vale]

Has anyone ever found themself in a situation whereby the person they’ve been with has done something which wasn’t foreseen – you wasn’t forewarned they were about to do something - illegal or immoral?

This is just a hypothetical, if you have any queries please feel free to PM.

What if the CSK socialized at the OBH or elsewhere thus became familiar with one or two local men. Perhaps the CSK was having a drink locally on the nights the three ladies went missing. Possibly the CSK was chummy with one local in particular - AKA person Z.
I’m not talking about person Z being a lure.

What if person Z was a popular local, nice looking but was having a few mental health issues, which were quite noticeable. Person Z being a person who knew a couple of the young ladies - JR and CG.

Perhaps it’s possible JR and CG had actually seen the CSK at a few of the popular pubs, casually chatting with person Z. The CSK occasionally taking person Z home because he’s unable to drive – he’s unwell.

What if person Z realizes the CSK and he had spoken to JR on the night she went missing,and that the CSK was in the vicinity?
Could it be possible person Z informed the police of certain details.

I’m not suggesting person Z is in anyway involved, but simply taken advantage of. If person Z was a witness he’d probably end up dead too.

Reminder: The bricklayer travelling along Wanneroo Rd mentioned someone being in the back of the taxi. https://www.google.com.au/url

Please –sensible replies only – this is just a hypothetical.

 

[nbates]

Bingo! "If a mate was involved whatever he knew could they be an accessory to the crime?" My thoughts exactly Innerchild in a post way back! That's what popped into my head about how the police could be certain enough to charge BRE with SS as well (even without finding her body, or have they now?). How could they prove, without a doubt, that she has even been killed, unless they have a witness who was there, didn't take part in the killing, but came forward and described exactly how she was killed? JMO

Couldn't police have found SS DNA on something suspect owned?

 

[El Gordo]

Couldn't police have found SS DNA on something suspect owned?

The SS charges can be dropped at anytime , hopefully there is evidence of some sort , it could be as simple that the charges were added on in the hope BRE would plead guilty to all ... it may have been seen as the only way of getting resolution if there is no evidence
They could not rely on the new No Body No Parole law they knew would be coming because it will make no difference to parole chances in this case
As usual , guesswork on my behalf

 

[lampformypath]

Couldn't police have found SS DNA on something suspect owned?

Yes, that is a possibility, but DNA alone isn't a very strong case, from what I have been reading. All sorts of ways to debunk it, "mix-up in labs", cross contamination with other DNA from crime scene/s, create a doubt about it being "planted" ala OJ Simpson? If a "trophy box" had been found with items from all the women, and DNA was the link, why not charge BRE with ALL 3 crimes to begin with? But maybe this piece of evidence has just been found somehow, strange the timing of it. I just feel "something" significant has happened since the accused has been arrested to give police the assurance they needed to proceed to lay that extra charge. I'm not a lawyer but I would think if one charge could be completely discredited or enough doubt created, then that would weaken the prosecution case as a whole? Perhaps someone felt "safe" now that BRE was arrested and that person could now tell their story and show what they had "found""? JMO, don't know nothin', just guessin', but then you guessed that!

 

[lampformypath]

The SS charges can be dropped at anytime , hopefully there is evidence of some sort , it could be as simple that the charges were added on in the hope BRE would plead guilty to all ... it may have been seen as the only way of getting resolution if there is no evidence
They could not rely on the new No Body No Parole law they knew would be coming because it will make no difference to parole chances in this case
As usual , guesswork on my behalf

SNAP! I'm typing about guessing whilst you're posting it El Gordo!