So THIS is new ... The Australian's report by Paige Taylor about BRE's court appearance - should we make anything of the first par and third-last pars about the victims not being random?
----
The technician charged over two of the three Claremont serial killings has opted to delay his plea, a week after a detective told a separate court that the victims were not killed randomly.
Bradley Robert Edwards, 48, appeared yesterday at a special early sitting of the WA Supreme Court by video link from Hakea maximum-security prison.
The former Telstra technician spoke only to confirm his name and say he understood the eight charges read out against him. He is charged with murdering 23-year-old childcare worker Jane Rimmer in 1996 and 27-year-old lawyer Ciara Glennon in 1997.
The two women were last seen in Claremont. There are no charges against Mr Edwards in relation to the disappearance of Sarah Spiers, 18, long regarded by police as the first victim in the Claremont serial killings. *Spiers has never been found.
Police have said little about the case since heavily armed officers stormed the house Mr Edwards shared with his adult stepdaughter on December 22.
But in a separate court case last Tuesday, Detective Sergeant Ian Moore of the Major Crime Squad was giving evidence in a defamation trial brought by barrister Lloyd Rayney when he was asked by Mr Rayneys lawyer Martin Bennett: Do you accept that the Claremont serial killer killings were random attacks the only thing linking Sarah *Spiers, Jane Rimmer, Ciara Glennon being an attendance in *Claremont?
Sergeant Moore replied that he did not accept that: I have knowledge of that particular job that I cant particularly enlighten the court about and those no, I cant accept that proposition.
Mr Edwards is due to return to court in October.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk