Australia Australia - Claremont SK, 1996-97, Perth, WA - #13

[Bunnie]

If that's right, and I'm not challenging it, you shouldn't be on here. You may be a witness.

Nope. Not a witness. I didn't take the call. I retrieved the data, which is not something that can be altered. I didn't listen to the call tape. My bosses did with the police. No conflicts.

 

[CP345]

If that's right, and I'm not challenging it, you shouldn't be on here. You may be a witness.

Maybe at some stage in the future but not until someone is actually charged with the SS disappearance and there is some dispute over whether she called a cab or not.

 

[Perthie]

I thought the Spier correction made it sound truthful to. If there were embellishments I think give him a break, it's hard to remember... he wasn't taking notes thinking this girls getting abducted tomorrow. But because he found out about it all quite soon after the job, he may have implanted the guys face in his mind well enough to say if it was BRE or not. Although it wasn't recorded on the system, he may have picked Sarah up a 2nd time with the taxi being booked under a friends name. I think police had so many calls that they would have been trying to pick holes in stories rather than looking between the embellishments or confused memories to work out the real scenario.

Actually I was looking into this story at the same time as others yesterday too... I went on a tangent from reading the Droc stuff, wondering if these stories crossed paths. Could match up I guess. What do others think?

 

[CP345]

To do fostering, for the right reasons, you have to be an incredible person. And you, I dare way, are.

Yeah I think lamp sounds like a good egg. I'm starting to feel guilty that I said the result of her applying the Benjamin Button treatment to the picture of BE looked like my nanna. 😏

 

[Perthie]

Spooks, SR lived in Embleton
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/24/1095961862193.html

 

[OneSmallStepAtATime]

RSBM

Enlighten me please Lampy.... when did SR pick up SS twice?

Also I know taxi drivers, that towards the end of their shift, like to pick up fares where the fare ends somewhere near the taxi drivers home or depot. Then they don't waste fuel travelling to home or depot.
Or they prefer fares that end at busy places like pubs and clubs so they can easily pick up another fare off the street immediately. Less down time.

Did SR live SOR??

SR lived and still lives about 15-20 mins north east of Perth as far as I know.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Bunnie]

I thought the Spier correction made it sound truthful to. If there were embellishments I think give him a break, it's hard to remember... he wasn't taking notes thinking this girls getting abducted tomorrow. But because he found out about it all quite soon after the job, he may have implanted the guys face in his mind well enough to say if it was BRE or not. Although it wasn't recorded on the system, he may have picked Sarah up a 2nd time with the taxi being booked under a friends name. I think police had so many calls that they would have been trying to pick holes in stories rather than looking between the embellishments or confused memories to work out the real scenario.

Actually I was looking into this story at the same time as others yesterday too... I went on a tangent from reading the Droc stuff, wondering if these stories crossed paths. Could match up I guess. What do others think?

Thing is tough, his whole story of how he received the job is basically not true. He didn't hear it over the two way because it wasnt dispatched like that. He didn't mishear the name because *if* he received a job to pick her up it would be shown on his computer display. He wouldn't contact base to clarify the name because they have no other info other than what the driver has on their screen. The computer system had been in place for more than 7 months before SS went missing. Regular drivers such as SR were very used to the whole system by then.

 

[DRT]

I thought the Spier correction made it sound truthful to. If there were embellishments I think give him a break, it's hard to remember... he wasn't taking notes thinking this girls getting abducted tomorrow. But because he found out about it all quite soon after the job, he may have implanted the guys face in his mind well enough to say if it was BRE or not. Although it wasn't recorded on the system, he may have picked Sarah up a 2nd time with the taxi being booked under a friends name. I think police had so many calls that they would have been trying to pick holes in stories rather than looking between the embellishments or confused memories to work out the real scenario.

Actually I was looking into this story at the same time as others yesterday too... I went on a tangent from reading the Droc stuff, wondering if these stories crossed paths. Could match up I guess. What do others think?

[video=youtube;nNNF1E3mg3c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNNF1E3mg3c[/video]

SS was said to have requested a taxi to Mosman Park on the night she disappeared possibly having arranged it with a friend earlier on that day. This was mentioned in around the 8.20 mark. I am wondering if her Mosman Park destination was mentioned in media articles or even on the taxi gossip circuit.

The other thing is if she was to call a taxi on the night she went missing, you think she would probably be consistent and call one on another night.

For a longer ride from Claremont to South Perth not to be logged seems a bit unusual. IMO it sounds like he might have been competing with the guy that said he had got the call to pick her up. The other option as police considered at the time .. a potential suspect.

 

[Perthie]

Maybe at some stage in the future but not until someone is actually charged with the SS disappearance and there is some dispute over whether she called a cab or not.

What exactly are the rules for a witness? Do they get told directly that they may be called as a witness & that they can't discuss anything... even if it doesn't go to court for over 21 years? Are they allowed councelling at least?

 

[Bunnie]

[video=youtube;nNNF1E3mg3c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNNF1E3mg3c[/video]

SS was said to have requested a taxi to Mosman Park on the night she disappeared possibly having arranged it with a friend earlier on that day. This was mentioned in around the 8.20 mark. I am wondering if her Mosman Park destination was mentioned in media articles or even on the taxi gossip circuit.

The other thing is if she was to call a taxi on the night she went missing, you think she would probably be consistent and call one on another night.

For a longer ride from Claremont to South Perth not to be logged seems a bit unusual. IMO it sounds like he might have been competing with the guy that said he had got the call to pick her up. The other option as police considered at the time .. a potential suspect.

Call logs were checked for past calls from known addresses for a period of time prior to the call on the night.

 

[Bunnie]

What exactly are the rules for a witness? Do they get told directly that they may be called as a witness & that they can't discuss anything... even if it doesn't go to court for over 21 years? Are they allowed councelling at least?

Good question, given someone on here is apparently a witness. I know i am not, and no chance of being called as one as my details were never taken etc.

 

[JoWa]

Good question, given someone on here is apparently a witness. I know i am not, and no chance of being called as one as my details were never taken etc.

So to clarify.

1. SR never had SS in his taxi on either night, as there was no record of any taxis going to known SS addresses, except the one she didn't get to take.
2. Only driver and dispatch knew she had called for taxi (no two way announcement).

So the computer screen only shows details for that taxi, not for other taxis?

Thank you for clearing that up. It takes one scenario off the table.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Moustachio]

Maybe at some stage in the future but not until someone is actually charged with the SS disappearance and there is some dispute over whether she called a cab or not.

Yes, good point. Didn't think that through

 

[Moustachio]

Good question, given someone on here is apparently a witness. I know i am not, and no chance of being called as one as my details were never taken etc.

If you extracted a recording stored somewhere, and the recording ends up in evidence, you are probably going to have to be a witness. A bit of a worry that they didn't in your case. But if it is something anyone could extract, I guess they can get someone else to do it later.

 

[Moustachio]

Yeah I think lamp sounds like a good egg. I'm starting to feel guilty that I said the result of her applying the Benjamin Button treatment to the picture of BE looked like my nanna. 

Jaysus your nanna must have been ugly ;-

 

[petedavo.au]

Maybe at some stage in the future but not until someone is actually charged with the SS disappearance and there is some dispute over whether she called a cab or not.

It's called chain of custody.
These are the sort of things they'll ask in Court:
"Did you receive the tape?"
"How did you do that?"
"How long did you have it?"
"Who did you give it to?"
"Did you alter it?"
That sort of thing, so yeah anyone handling evidence can be called to be examined about chain of custody or evidence tampering.
Especially after the Mallard Inquiry and Rayney Trial. IMO it's almost expected nowadays.

 

[Spinnaker]

< Who knows, just funny that both myself and Spinnaker were both checking out the same information again at the same time and wondering, hmmm... that's weird? At least I was!

SNAP again Lampy! - I think all taxi avenues should be explored - it certainly was a focus for Macro, but maybe something was overlooked.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

SNAP again Lampy! - I think all taxi avenues should be explored - it certainly was a focus for Macro, but maybe something was overlooked.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good idea TEAM CSK!
It's not like we got anything else to look at!!!
The media blackout is soooooo frustrating!

Kinda like waiting for the kettle to boil to make your morning coffee - but you forgot to press the 'to boil' button!!!!

Waiting
Waiting
Waiting .......

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

For those having difficulty sleeping tonight:

Stumbled across this article on the "statistical analysis of birth charts of serial killers"
http://www.nvwoa.nl/pdfart/ruis/ruisen.pdf

"It is found that serial killers are frequently born when celestial factors are inMutable signs ..... The frequency of planets in the 12th house issignificantly high ..... and thefrequency distribution of Moon aspects deviates from the theoretical distributionin the whole sample... and in the dataset with known birth time.......It is concluded that, based on the two datasets, some of the claims ofastrologers cannot be rejected."

Basically this article states that there are patterns noticeable in the astrological charts of serial killers.



PS: this article is like another language for me, but someone here may appreciate its worth.

 

[Perthie]

It's called chain of custody.
These are the sort of things they'll ask in Court:
"Did you receive the tape?"
"How did you do that?"
"How long did you have it?"
"Who did you give it to?"
"Did you alter it?"
That sort of thing, so yeah anyone handling evidence can be called to be examined about chain of custody or evidence tampering.
Especially after the Mallard Inquiry and Rayney Trial. IMO it's almost expected nowadays.

Hmmm... sounds like I shouldn't be here. Even though macro don't seem remotely interested in what I have to say & I think they should be & that I should be a witness & maybe in a SS case I will be.