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

[Bunnie]

You are correct that he was at the correct statistical age at the time of the two murders he has been charged with. I was more relating to the matters that have been raised many times by others, that occurred between the 1988 offence and the two murders.

I.e rapes, julie Cutler etc that are thought by some members to be the work of the same person?

He would have been 20. Plenty old enough. I always thought the julie cutler car smacked of movie drama overkill.

 

[Claudia Rowe]

When reading Brett Christian's articles in the Post he does seem to present a biased attitude against the police. For example in the article in your post he presents the CG evidence as though it were missed. However, it is just as likely that advances in forensics have enabled DNA to be recovered that was not known to exist in the late 1990s. They can get DNA from a fingerprint now, in the 1990s that would have been impossible.

I'd like to present an opposing view, if I may. Bret Christian is the unsung hero of this case: He would not let it go. He would not allow the Police, in their bumbling ineptitude, to just let the case drop, as they had in a number of cases such as Julie Cutler (I'll get to Julie in a mo'). He was the one who convinced his various media overlords to fund trips to the US to speak to forensic experts and he was the one who tried to impartially present a contrary view when the police insisted they'd "got their man", not once but twice!

In the journo community, it's reasonably well supported that Christian was the dog with the Police bone who "kept the bastards (coppers) honest", to misquote Don Chipp. *mods, this is a well used part of the Australian vernacular - not suggesting that coppers are inherently or explicitly "bastards".

He was relentless. Better, he was relentless and objective and helpful. He was the one who interviewed the FBI profiler, he raised the funds to see that guy, hoping, yes, for a scoop, but, also, to assist the then floundering police with the investigation.

It has to be said that if Christian hadn't kept the police nose to the investigation grindstone, and offered alternative ways to look at the case and then writing about it to keep the pressure up, this outcome may not have happened.

In the case of Julie, dear lovely Julie, the police were initially hopeless. It was the parents of the community who put pressure on the Police to treat her disappearance as serious. The Police were very reluctant. It was the mums really, who had somewhat mothered Julie and her sister after the death of their own mum, who insisted that Julie's disappearance was sinister. It was the dads (not her own; he lived in Kal) who went to Peppermint Grove police and insisted that Julie's disappearance was worrying. The next day her car turned up at the end of Cott groyne. The Police were still reluctant to act.

 

[Claudia Rowe]

... the reason the top people take the jobs is to make sure there is not a mistrial ... if he is guilty of these crimes his lawyers want him locked up as much as anyone else

A little understood part of the legal machine. Lawyers, especially criminal barristers, do not want scum on the same streets as their wives and daughters. Nearly all of them aren't soulless beasts, only interested in winning and money, as the American cop shows would have it. Most of the barristers with whom I'm acquainted try to get serious offenders to plead. If they won't, which is often, they rigorously defend them, but only to a point.

No way an experienced barrister is crusading on behalf of a client who, in all probability, did it. Unless, of course, there's an interesting point of law to be made and then they'll argue until dehydrated to win that point.

 

[Claudia Rowe]

Except for everyone in here so we don't start speculating about the significance of cross dressing clowns and there relation to poetry, yoda and the hoff

Clowns = toooootally plausible, just ask Jodie Foster. You forgot lineal meridians, star signs, the significance of arum lilies and school crests, devil worshippers, writers with a grudge against a taxi driving ex, mayors, ex-mayors, moon cycles, deer-in-the-headlights public servants, taxi drivers (ex or otherwise), the Iona Conspiracy, the round face conspiracy, the blonde/not blonde theory and, let's not discount, "we got our man. We just KNOW we have" TWICE theory.

All toootally plausible in the big scheme of things.

You left out the part about him being a steroid abusing, cross dressing, clown impersonating wife basher with a bung leg.

That too!

 

[Spinnaker]

Clowns = toooootally plausible, just ask Jodie Foster. You forgot lineal meridians, star signs, the significance of arum lilies and school crests, devil worshippers, writers with a grudge against a taxi driving ex, mayors, ex-mayors, moon cycles, deer-in-the-headlights public servants, taxi drivers (ex or otherwise), the Iona Conspiracy, the round face conspiracy, the blonde/not blonde theory and, let's not discount, "we got our man. We just KNOW we have" TWICE theory.

All toootally plausible in the big scheme of things.



That too!

It all makes for a very good book - fiction of course ...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tapdancingbear]

A little understood part of the legal machine. Lawyers, especially criminal barristers, do not want scum on the same streets as their wives and daughters. Nearly all of them aren't soulless beasts, only interested in winning and money, as the American cop shows would have it. Most of the barristers with whom I'm acquainted try to get serious offenders to plead. If they won't, which is often, they rigorously defend them, but only to a point.

No way an experienced barrister is crusading on behalf of a client who, in all probability, did it. Unless, of course, there's an interesting point of law to be made and then they'll argue until dehydrated to win that point.

I had a friend who represented a mass murderer / serial killer in WA several years ago ,

In my ignorance asked him ... Why Would You ... he then explained that if legal aid was paying for the defence they started by offering the case to the most experienced people available and worked down the list from the top until it was taken up ..

. He also said that the first person on the list who could take the case would to ensure that a less experienced did not mess it up ... he said the biggest fear of all was a mistrial ... because a not guilty finding was never going to happen

I can also add that from what I saw representing these people is not a pleasant experience , he was a better man than I could have been if I was in his position

Interestingly , he also knew others that have previously been mentioned in this and other forums as possibly being connected to some crimes that have been associated with the Claremont case ... but Perth is a small place

 

[Spinnaker]

I had a friend who represented a mass murderer / serial killer in WA several years ago ,

In my ignorance asked him ... Why Would You ... he then explained that if legal aid was paying for the defence they started by offering the case to the most experienced people available and worked down the list from the top until it was taken up ..

. He also said that the first person on the list who could take the case would to ensure that a less experienced did not mess it up ... he said the biggest fear of all was a mistrial ... because a not guilty finding was never going to happen

I can also add that from what I saw representing these people is not a pleasant experience , he was a better man than I could have been if I was in his position

Thanks for sharing that TDB - I have often wondered why high profile people take on these cases - there is no room for error and we certainly do not want a mistrial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[anna.w]

A little understood part of the legal machine. Lawyers, especially criminal barristers, do not want scum on the same streets as their wives and daughters. Nearly all of them aren't soulless beasts, only interested in winning and money, as the American cop shows would have it. Most of the barristers with whom I'm acquainted try to get serious offenders to plead. If they won't, which is often, they rigorously defend them, but only to a point.

No way an experienced barrister is crusading on behalf of a client who, in all probability, did it. Unless, of course, there's an interesting point of law to be made and then they'll argue until dehydrated to win that point.

Or their husbands and sons, Claudia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tapdancingbear]

Thanks for sharing that TDB - I have often wondered why high profile people take on these cases - there is no room for error and we certainly do not want a mistrial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes , I think we all wonder how could you represent that person , because we think they are trying to get them off , I know that's what I thought , but like I said , I was ignorant .

 

[DaleCooper]

A little understood part of the legal machine. Lawyers, especially criminal barristers, do not want scum on the same streets as their wives and daughters. Nearly all of them aren't soulless beasts, only interested in winning and money, as the American cop shows would have it. Most of the barristers with whom I'm acquainted try to get serious offenders to plead. If they won't, which is often, they rigorously defend them, but only to a point.

No way an experienced barrister is crusading on behalf of a client who, in all probability, did it. Unless, of course, there's an interesting point of law to be made and then they'll argue until dehydrated to win that point.

I'm an ex-criminal defence lawyer, and I don't think this can be said for the majority of the criminal bar. Barristers have a financial incentive to go to trial rather than convince their clients to plead. They get paid significantly more for doing a trial than they do for a plea of guilty.

No ethical criminal barrister or solicitor will push a client to plead if they think there's scope for reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt is not the same as 'innocent'! Even if you suspect a client is 'in all probability' guilty, you don't know for sure, and they are entitled to a fair defence.

Going to trial and putting the Crown to proof isn't necessarily going to result in the perp running free at the end, endangering the public. Acquittals in murder cases are RARE. Going to trial isn't always about getting an acquittal. For example, in a murder case, you could get the alternative verdict of manslaughter (and lesser sentence) if the Crown can't prove intention to kill, or you can successfully raise a partial defence. This is why most murders are taken to trial. :smile:

 

[DaleCooper]

There are many ways for a mistrial to occur, wrong evidence , dishonest witness , corrupt jury , to many ways

If you take notice of serious crimes like this one , the defendant are always represented by a top soliciter / barrister .... the reason for this is not because they want to get him off if they believe he is guilty ... the reason the top people take the jobs is to make sure there is not a mistrial ... if he is guilty of these crimes his lawyers want him locked up as much as anyone else

I respectfully disagree. A lot of things that can result in a mistrial are out of the hands of the barristers involved. For example, if a juror goes and posts about the trial on their facebook or instagram, or a couple of jurors decide to go visit one of the sites and 'reconstruct' the events subject to the trial.

Top people take notorious cases because they are good for publicity, and often interesting.

 

[tapdancingbear]

I respectfully disagree. A lot of things that can result in a mistrial are out of the hands of the barristers involved. For example, if a juror goes and posts about the trial on their facebook or instagram, or a couple of jurors decide to go visit one of the sites and 'reconstruct' the events subject to the trial.

Top people take notorious cases because they are good for publicity, and often interesting.

I respect your right to disagree, i am not trained in any aspects of law and worded things as best I could from the little I know , but hopefully between yourself and Claudia Rowe I can learn more , feel free to correct me on anything I may say

 

[anna.w]

Damn fine coffee....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaleCooper]

So If he pleads guilty no brief is submitted?

What does the Judge make his sentencing based upon?
What is used in the future should he decide he wishes a re trial based on poor legal advice?
When other matters are referred to the coroners court what evidence is submitted?
When/ If there is an inquiry into the process taken by MACRO to identify failings if any, what evidence is used ? ( There seems to be plenty of people on here who believe it was a stuff up?)

THERE is a brief completed, or over time facts will be lost. I have no doubt
Mr Button, Mr Beamish etc would love to have access to ALL the evidence gathered at the enquiry time of there cases).

"5 And please people if you wish to come to forums such as this pretending to be something you are not ... at least do some homework about your supposed identity , at least make an effort for entertainment value "

I'm sorry you are not entertained, I have offered evidence. I never said I was a legal genius , just a ex copper.

Have you ever dealt with the coronial system?

The judge makes HER or his decision (mate, we've had female judges for decades now - get with the program) based on:

- Submissions from the prosecutor about the appropriate sentence/range (based on previous cases of a similar nature, any aggravating factors present).
- Victim impact statements (if applicable).
- Mitigating circumstances raised by the defence e.g. lack of prior criminal record, defendant has shown remorse.

Usually the prosecution and defence will agree to the same set of facts, and the judge will refer to these facts in sentencing. If they don't agree, the judge will conduct a hearing to determine the disputed facts.

The chance of a retrial due to poor legal advice here is virtually NIL. Plenty of safeguards to stop that from happening in the first place, and totally irrelevant to this case - BRE has first class representation.

No material held by the DPP will be lost: everything contained in the brief of evidence is scanned and stored electronically these days. Not sure when you worked as a cop, but things may have changed since then.

 

[Claudia Rowe]

No 'facts' or evidence will be lost: everything is stored electronically these days. Not sure when you worked as a cop, but things may have changed since then.

If that were true, cases like Rayney would not happen.

 

[DaleCooper]

If that were true, cases like Rayney would not happen.

My response above relates to evidence held by the DPP once the case goes to court. I assumed that was what ambit's post was asking about.

AFAIK the DPP didn't lose any evidence in the Rayney case - correct me if I'm wrong. The issue was that the police investigating the case didn't obtain sufficient evidence to convict Rayney. A different issue.

 

[anna.w]

If that were true, cases like Rayney would not happen.

And cases like Rayney happen because the prosecution is selecting its cases on the right basis - that there are prospects of conviction and it's in the public interest to proceed. Minds can and do differ about how much is enough for reasonable prospects, particularly in hindsight, but the selection should not be made on the basis of only running slam dunks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo.au]

Snip

The chance of a retrial due to poor legal advice here is virtually NIL.

Poor Legal advice
Never happen.....
https://www.lpbwa.org.au/Documents/...ry-Action/Register-of-Disciplinary-Action.pdf

 

[Twenty Mile]

I thought BRE was due back in court tomorrow, cant see anything listed?

 

[Guccigal]

Yes this is correct. Court Listings are only for trials or directions hearings and mainly in the disctrict and Supreme Court. You would have to go down in the morning and check on the boards there which court his videolink will be in?