So why does the SCS / Steve Liebmann not show us all the video images? Including the MM inside the Conti Pub.Because they have something big to hide. C/mon Bret Christian?; Speak up why is this coverup happening? Why is the ice box image & 2 inside the Conti Pub by the stairs not shown to the public? Speak up mate. We all know you & others are watching this blog?
Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #4
- Thread starter enzeder
- Start date
- Status
I have massive doubts that branches were chainsawed to gain evidence.. Dunno where you got this one from?
No, they have VS commodore, series 1, possibly stationwagon locked in(the Station wagon part because of a possible sighting that may, may not be true, according to a poster claiming to be one of the three witnesses). It is not a VR you are misinformed, again.
The VS and VR (VR is misinformed you mean VS) are NOT connected to Karrakatta, they are connected to Jane Rimmer (the fibres found after the review 6 or so years later, eg. Around 2008 they were finally tested), again you are misinformed, or not keeping up, or slow. The vehicle witnessed in the car park by the Karrakatta abductee was a 'commercial Van' later assumed to be a 'panel van' or maybe a 'commercial Panel Van'
And just to hit the trifecta of misinformation and idiocy the rope clue was not a rope, it was later claimed to be a question asking if any washing line had gone missing from a screen printing company, and they questioned this screen printing store on possible techniques used and a part that may have gone missing eg. Maybe the clamp used to knock Ciara in the head with, if what is claimed in this forum is true from he who claimed a fire poker was investigated in the Ciara Glennon case because of a possible head wound, so a clamp could quite possibly be a lead they are following having cause the head wound. This is also around the time they apparently dropped the Lance Williams investigation too so it fits with the timeline.
Never seen such derailment here in all my life, especially from someone the media got excited about as being knowledgable about this case, you are horribly misinformed about what has happened.
And seeing we know how CSK performed his Karrakatta abduction it is damn right idiocy to suggest he abducted the CSK victims any other way other than 'blitz attack'
Excellent post, keep up the good work.
There is also a rumour the CSK was a cop killed in a crash near Kalamunda and is being covered up by the Police as to not disgrace the Police Officer involved. Dont think anyone was able to link the crash to the Police Officers name if this had any truth.
There is a newspaper article posted by papertrail that claims a man with blond hair was in the area offering lifts in a vehicle similar to the one in the CSK case, and the man offering the lifts claimed he was 'the son of a police officer'.
The newspaper article is an official media article too
Hmm.. The blog I saw gave the taxi drivers name and the story checks out that his dad was a cop and he killed him in a drunken rage. The blogger suggested that this drivers girlfriend also died in suspicious circumstances but I can't find anymore to that story..The guy is not blond but has gingery hair and is currently inside for 15 years
Well the article said blond haired with a bobbed hairstyle... Ill attach the write up of papertrails post.. It was definitely a police officers son too and he was offering lifts to people. He could very well be connected, and protected.
If your POI is in prison then you can reveal his name here, I dont see any reason in not revealing it, who was the blogger?
Post 800 in thread #2 papertrail
Peter Kurten
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 141
- Reaction score
- 8
Sprintman, have you seen this ?
But one phone call in particular has stayed with him - the only one he believes is genuine - and which either came from the killer or someone who knows them. It was at 2am on a Sunday morning shortly after Sarah went missing. The caller asked him, "Are you Sarah's father?"
Don won't give details of what the man said but he still believes it wasn't a hoax.
The caller gave him a location - 5600ha of dense land and bush. Don went there but the size of the location and the dense vegetation meant looking was "hopeless".
"I would like them to somehow get in touch with me and verify what they had to say because that has haunted me for 19 years," he said.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-ni...r-will-never-give-up-search-for-sarah-spiers/
Peter, yes I have heard of that. Without more detail it does make it too vague to be of much assistance. I have heard the theories that she was taken East, JR South and CG North. I know that at least one WAPoL officer believes she is probably in the Wellard area and that the CSK probably only changed because JR was found. Based on the known MO, roads and vegetation at the time, if I was a betting man I would put the location near the Spectacles at Wellard BUT there are so many factors that could change this that it makes it virtually useless to do something other than speculate.
Elastic, the taxi driver is called Vernon Silich. I don't know who the blogger is, it was a comment at the end of an article. The person suggested that he had been driving taxis in the 90's, girlfriend had died under suspicious circumstances. He kicked his mother and father to death while they slept ( he says he was sleepwalking after heavy drinking). The commenter suggested that the motive was that the dad, who was a policeman, was going to give him up over his involvement in Claremont. If he was a known taxi driver at the time I would have thought he would have been tested/interviewed.?
Elastic, the taxi driver is called Vernon Silich. I don't know who the blogger is, it was a comment at the end of an article. The person suggested that he had been driving taxis in the 90's, girlfriend had died under suspicious circumstances. He kicked his mother and father to death while they slept ( he says he was sleepwalking after heavy drinking). The commenter suggested that the motive was that the dad, who was a policeman, was going to give him up over his involvement in Claremont. If he was a known taxi driver at the time I would have thought he would have been tested/interviewed.?
Bartholemeus
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 21
1. It is unlikely MM is inside the Conti.I totally disagree;
My say; The head of the Special Crime Squad did not know of the single frame showing MM INSIDE the Conti Pub by the Stairwell until I emailed him the frame just before his transfer. He fwded my email re the photo frame to the new SCS head. And he said for them to contact me. They have not done so as to date. Guess that Pic re this new lot in the SCS can be called Caporns Capers C/ups..To the Previous SCS head; You did a pretty good job with what they gave you to look at. But why won`t they publish the MM frame inside the pub? Because they could have shown us all his image a long time ago, eh?
2. It's even more unlikely that Macro didn't go through that footage with a fine tooth comb.Whether MM was in there or not, Macro would have known.
3. It makes no difference whether they showed the footage inside the pub as there is no clearer view of the person you think is MM
4. It has been shown that footage has been cut from what was shown to the public. This is not a surprise and not unreasonable in itself. But it is highly likely Macro had a front shot of MM when he was outside and decided not to show it. The most likely reason is the whole MM thing is a red herring with an alternate agenda.
Bartholemeus
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 21
I think it's in the DM book. It's not as if there were giant logs but the brush was very thick and overgrown.
Think about it this way;
Major crime scene
Dense overgrown scrub
what is the best way to get clear access to the crime scene so we can get forensics in there
Answer: something with a mechanical blade that can easily and cleanly cut away the bit we want removed, i.e. a chainsaw
I might be wrong, but wasn't JR found after CG was abducted?
Also, JR was found about 200 meters from a rail telecommunication station - possible link into the Telstra theory.
The WAPOL took away the V8's because they were too expensive. They took away the bikes because they were too expensive. Coppers had to catch the bus to work because taking the police cars and bikes home was too expensive. The coppers then had to buy their own coffee and torches, and even batteries because WAPOL couldn't afford to supply them. There was an overtime ban for many years, and they were given time off in lieu - which they rarely got to actually take because they were short staffed. Then they were only issued two rounds for their Glocks, and were only allowed to train with them once a year.
Here is my conflict: How is it that a service which was apparently so short of money could/can afford to commit millions of dollars and literally years of manpower to an investigation for no apparent result, and that still persists with that same investigation 20 years later? Surely at some point their internal review processes would have caused the investigation to be shut down unless there was compelling evidence that the investigation was productive and moving forward. I don't understand. Unless they know who did it.
From Law Abiding Citizen, 'It's not what you know, Clyde. It's what you can prove in court'.
There was obviously an investigation, but the lack of leaks over such a long period of time would suggest that it was actually a small and very well contained investigation. Cops have wives and families. People talk. But not this time.
Why though was someone very high up willing to keep funding it for all these years? That suggests they had someone in mind, and enough evidence to keep an eye on them, just not enough to put before a Jury and gain a conviction. That means a lot of people know what is in the draft Brief of Evidence. The Commissioners of Police and their Assistants, DPP's, Attorney's General, Premiers, people like that. But no leaks. Did someone at the Cabinet level approve special funding? They clearly managed to find major ongoing funding from somewhere.
The Birnies final victim actually hid some of her possessions inside their house before she escaped into the street naked, and gave a detailed description of her abduction and rapes, but even then the police were deadlocked because it was her word against theirs, and it was only after David Burnie was tricked into a confession that the case really broke that day. That says clearly that the burden of proof is extremely high, and that even with a compelling witness and supporting physical evidence it was a very marginal enterprise until a confession was made. We don't have any live victims, and no witnesses. Certainly no confession.
I have read that the FBI has found that many innocent people have agreed to make and sign a false confession (Amanda Knox case) and have been convicted after eager cops have assured them that they only needed to stand up in court and say 'what really happened', and that that 'will clear everything up', but after their statement was admitted as evidence they were falsely convicted. Arguing that your written statement was false just puts two conflicting statements on the table, and you in the middle. Guilty, Your Honor.
The ex agent who wrote the article said his best advice if you are ever detained is to become mute very, very, early in the proceedings. Usually as questioning begins or as soon as you are given your official warning. Then you can't self incriminate, and if there is no compelling evidence the police are obliged to release you after a certain period of time. You won't talk your way out of it. You will probably just make it worse.
They may charge you with a holding charge to string things out and rattle you (say, Resisting Arrest), but as soon as it goes before a Magistrate you would still be entitled to Bail if the charge is minor. If they tried to hit you with something serious but the evidence didn't support it, the Magistrate would probably order you released on the spot, and the police would be pretty shy about trying to charge you again in the future. Magistrates don't like having their time wasted for no good reason, and often one of the first questions out of their mouth is, 'Has the Accused made a statement?' The burden of proof always lies with the accuser. And remember, in court you will have a lawyer, and will be required to say very little yourself in the early stages. That changes later if you are ever put on the witness stand at a trial, but that is much later, and only if there is evidence against you. And it is your lawyers job to dispute all of that sort of thing.
Remember that the police are entirely free to lie to you, but that if you do so you commit an offense. It looks bad that you refuse to cooperate (respectfully reserve your right remain silent until you have received legal representation, Officer), but if you really have something to hide, they are essentially SOL without a smoking gun, and you will be released unless they can make something up - usually something minor that allows them to hold you for a couple of days in the hope that you will start to talk out of fear, fatigue, or intimidation. Once you have a lawyer and if you remain uncommunicative they have big problems.
'Suspicion' is not a chargeable offence, but you can be 'detained upon suspicion of...'. In WA now all questioning must be videotaped, so the good old days of 'verballing', and getting a couple of the boys in to vigorously 'encourage' a suspect to sign a prepared statement are pretty much over. Pretty much...
So, in a nutshell, clamming up won't get you permanently off their radar, but unless they actually have something that they can use against you there is very little they can do except patiently watch. I reckon they have been watching our boy for about 20 years now.
Here is my conflict: How is it that a service which was apparently so short of money could/can afford to commit millions of dollars and literally years of manpower to an investigation for no apparent result, and that still persists with that same investigation 20 years later? Surely at some point their internal review processes would have caused the investigation to be shut down unless there was compelling evidence that the investigation was productive and moving forward. I don't understand. Unless they know who did it.
From Law Abiding Citizen, 'It's not what you know, Clyde. It's what you can prove in court'.
There was obviously an investigation, but the lack of leaks over such a long period of time would suggest that it was actually a small and very well contained investigation. Cops have wives and families. People talk. But not this time.
Why though was someone very high up willing to keep funding it for all these years? That suggests they had someone in mind, and enough evidence to keep an eye on them, just not enough to put before a Jury and gain a conviction. That means a lot of people know what is in the draft Brief of Evidence. The Commissioners of Police and their Assistants, DPP's, Attorney's General, Premiers, people like that. But no leaks. Did someone at the Cabinet level approve special funding? They clearly managed to find major ongoing funding from somewhere.
The Birnies final victim actually hid some of her possessions inside their house before she escaped into the street naked, and gave a detailed description of her abduction and rapes, but even then the police were deadlocked because it was her word against theirs, and it was only after David Burnie was tricked into a confession that the case really broke that day. That says clearly that the burden of proof is extremely high, and that even with a compelling witness and supporting physical evidence it was a very marginal enterprise until a confession was made. We don't have any live victims, and no witnesses. Certainly no confession.
I have read that the FBI has found that many innocent people have agreed to make and sign a false confession (Amanda Knox case) and have been convicted after eager cops have assured them that they only needed to stand up in court and say 'what really happened', and that that 'will clear everything up', but after their statement was admitted as evidence they were falsely convicted. Arguing that your written statement was false just puts two conflicting statements on the table, and you in the middle. Guilty, Your Honor.
The ex agent who wrote the article said his best advice if you are ever detained is to become mute very, very, early in the proceedings. Usually as questioning begins or as soon as you are given your official warning. Then you can't self incriminate, and if there is no compelling evidence the police are obliged to release you after a certain period of time. You won't talk your way out of it. You will probably just make it worse.
They may charge you with a holding charge to string things out and rattle you (say, Resisting Arrest), but as soon as it goes before a Magistrate you would still be entitled to Bail if the charge is minor. If they tried to hit you with something serious but the evidence didn't support it, the Magistrate would probably order you released on the spot, and the police would be pretty shy about trying to charge you again in the future. Magistrates don't like having their time wasted for no good reason, and often one of the first questions out of their mouth is, 'Has the Accused made a statement?' The burden of proof always lies with the accuser. And remember, in court you will have a lawyer, and will be required to say very little yourself in the early stages. That changes later if you are ever put on the witness stand at a trial, but that is much later, and only if there is evidence against you. And it is your lawyers job to dispute all of that sort of thing.
Remember that the police are entirely free to lie to you, but that if you do so you commit an offense. It looks bad that you refuse to cooperate (respectfully reserve your right remain silent until you have received legal representation, Officer), but if you really have something to hide, they are essentially SOL without a smoking gun, and you will be released unless they can make something up - usually something minor that allows them to hold you for a couple of days in the hope that you will start to talk out of fear, fatigue, or intimidation. Once you have a lawyer and if you remain uncommunicative they have big problems.
'Suspicion' is not a chargeable offence, but you can be 'detained upon suspicion of...'. In WA now all questioning must be videotaped, so the good old days of 'verballing', and getting a couple of the boys in to vigorously 'encourage' a suspect to sign a prepared statement are pretty much over. Pretty much...
So, in a nutshell, clamming up won't get you permanently off their radar, but unless they actually have something that they can use against you there is very little they can do except patiently watch. I reckon they have been watching our boy for about 20 years now.
Bartholemeus
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 21
- My understanding is lots of officers have done a stretch on this case
- Is it really that secret in the scheme of things? Macro leaked LW, PW, SR info when it suited them. Now BC has been dropping info for the last 18 months that had to come from the police in one form or the other - either sanctioned or unsanctioned, either true or intentionally misleading.
- Maybe in hindsight they realised leaking info about specific POIs was not the way to go and could risk a conviction once in court?
- Do they know who it is? Maybe. Maybe LW has been #1 the whole time, but one thing that looks apparent - in the last 10 years they have looked at all the different avenues and POIs. Maybe there's a new POI who they are sure is the guy but just don't have the smoking gun? It will be hard for them to get enough evidence to get a conviction this late in the game unless they have a DNA match.
If they had DNA I suspect they would be vigorously testing all and sundry and I don't believe they would be able to hide this from the media. They'd be trying to pass laws that give them access to be able to take the DNA of more people and this would alert the media.
http://forensic-review.com.au/what-you-thought-you-knew-about-the-law/
Once charged, but before being dealt with by a court, a person’s prints may be taken of the person’s hands, feet, and ears, photographs can be taken (including of identifying marks), measurements may be taken of identifying features, and a DNA profile may be obtained but only in relation to a serious offence
WA is the conservative state. They have some very conservative laws including the outrageous law that allows the Govt to confiscate any property that has been used for crime, regardless if the owner had knowledge of the crime. Your tenants run a meth lab in your rental home that you are not aware of - the Govt can confiscate your house.
If they can pass laws like that they can most certainly pass a law that allows police to take your DNA for any offence from DUI to minor theft to minor criminal damage charges.
- Is it really that secret in the scheme of things? Macro leaked LW, PW, SR info when it suited them. Now BC has been dropping info for the last 18 months that had to come from the police in one form or the other - either sanctioned or unsanctioned, either true or intentionally misleading.
- Maybe in hindsight they realised leaking info about specific POIs was not the way to go and could risk a conviction once in court?
- Do they know who it is? Maybe. Maybe LW has been #1 the whole time, but one thing that looks apparent - in the last 10 years they have looked at all the different avenues and POIs. Maybe there's a new POI who they are sure is the guy but just don't have the smoking gun? It will be hard for them to get enough evidence to get a conviction this late in the game unless they have a DNA match.
If they had DNA I suspect they would be vigorously testing all and sundry and I don't believe they would be able to hide this from the media. They'd be trying to pass laws that give them access to be able to take the DNA of more people and this would alert the media.
http://forensic-review.com.au/what-you-thought-you-knew-about-the-law/
Once charged, but before being dealt with by a court, a person’s prints may be taken of the person’s hands, feet, and ears, photographs can be taken (including of identifying marks), measurements may be taken of identifying features, and a DNA profile may be obtained but only in relation to a serious offence
WA is the conservative state. They have some very conservative laws including the outrageous law that allows the Govt to confiscate any property that has been used for crime, regardless if the owner had knowledge of the crime. Your tenants run a meth lab in your rental home that you are not aware of - the Govt can confiscate your house.
If they can pass laws like that they can most certainly pass a law that allows police to take your DNA for any offence from DUI to minor theft to minor criminal damage charges.
No. JR was found in August 1996, CG abducted and found in 1997..
Bartholemeus
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 21
JR found August 1996
CG abducted March 1997
There's more than a reasonable chance that the discovery of JR influenced the CSK to change his drop zone.
GreenDevil
New Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2015
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 6
+1 to point 4, especially when they had Judoman appear on the program. Well I believe he is Judoman.
- Status