Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #2

[papertrail]

does anyone have a contact with whom they could find what the shift change times were at the hospitals located on Monash? Kitchenhands, doctors, nurses, cleaners, whoever?

 

[papertrail]

That's not what the article says. Let's not read into what we want to read into rather than what is actually there.

my advice is to stop jumping the gun so damned soon and wait to see what other articles are posted. Other articles indicate they DID HAVE CCTV OUTSIDE CLUB BAYVIEW. GOT THAT

 

[papertrail]

I am of a mind to stop posting on here. Getting a bit sick and tired of certain remarks. No thanks from that person at all not worth the effort

 

[papertrail]

That's not what the article says. Let's not read into what we want to read into rather than what is actually there.

read VERY CAREFULLY what the 2nd paragraph details. "the 23yo child-care worker appears on a video tape from one of the Club's surveillance cameras but police are still trying to confirm whether she went inside".

To me that is saying very clearly they have Jane outside the club on surveillance footage, but they don't know at that stage didnt see her inside the club. Stop bloody nitpicking for the sake of it and give a bit of gratitude and latitude. .

 

[papertrail]

There's an easy explanation for that article:

"Police investigating the disappearance of Wembley woman Jane Rimmer say she was outside CBV in Claremont shortly before she went missing".

The journos got their information wrong. It's highly likely the article should have read Conti instead of CBV. Keep in mind this was a massive media event from the start and police would have been caught on the hop wondering how serious this case was going to get and what information should they provide to journalists. This would have been pre-Macro and hence before everything was locked down like Paul Roos footy match. Journos would have been scrambling for information over the phone and to get it to copy. Both these journalists would have been mid-20s at the time and reasonably early in their careers.

If you read the rest of the article it is in line with the current know information. I noticed it says "unconfirmed reports she was on Stirling Hwy". If they had been confirm you can bet that would have appeared in the media.

Luke Morfesse was a highly experienced journo at this stage and wasn't prone to making errors like you insinuate.

 

[Bartholemeus]

This article has sent chills up my spine. Police stated that they had received 13 witness reports from people who had witnessed a woman fitting JR's description walking alone in Claremont. Take note the previous article I posted today was dated 14 June (friday). This article is dated 17 June (monday). It could well be that these witnesses came forward after reading the 14 June article.

WA police put out an appeal for anyone that saw a woman walking between Bay View Terrace and Dalkeith Road between 12.10am and 2am last Sunday. Crikey this is so important given the CIA doc had Jane's last moments outside the Conti at around 12.10am. We have never been told what time Jane's friends left in the taxi have we; it is still possible Jane went to Club Bayview after they left?

I guess it comes down to this;

Early in the investigation there were unconfirmed reports that JR was at CBV (one employee) and that a person matching her description (i.e. anyone of 100s of young blonde women in the area that night) was seen on Stirling Hwy (13 people). No doubt police investigated this. Subsequently police have maintained since that JR was last seen at Conti.

For what reason would this be incorrect?

Does anyone know what the Hollywood Villages were; they were situated at corner of Smyth, Monash and Karella? QE11 hospital in on Monash so too the Hollywood Repatriation Hospital

[/B]

Retirement homes. Self containers units, a communion hall with rooms coming off it, bowling green etc

 

[Bartholemeus]

my advice is to stop jumping the gun so damned soon and wait to see what other articles are posted. Other articles indicate they DID HAVE CCTV OUTSIDE CLUB BAYVIEW. GOT THAT

Do you need me to take you through that article step by step and interpret the contents for you?

 

[Bartholemeus]

I am of a mind to stop posting on here. Getting a bit sick and tired of certain remarks. No thanks from that person at all not worth the effort

I see. So you want to post stuff but don't want to discuss anything that doesn't agree with your interpretations. This is a forum not a blog. It would be easier if you didn't take my posts personally. I'm just throwing up a different interpretation to discuss but you're sort of making it into an argument and think I'm bullying you or something.

You can't just turn up, off load a heap of articles (good articles I might add) and then subjectively interpret them without some saying "hang on a second, I think you have that part incorrect".

This is a forum. It's interactive and not everyone is going to agree with what you post.

 

[Bartholemeus]

read VERY CAREFULLY what the 2nd paragraph details. "the 23yo child-care worker appears on a video tape from one of the Club's surveillance cameras but police are still trying to confirm whether she went inside".

To me that is saying very clearly they have Jane outside the club on surveillance footage, but they don't know at that stage didnt see her inside the club. Stop bloody nitpicking for the sake of it and give a bit of gratitude and latitude. .

No need to take a patronising tone considering it is you who is unable to interpret the article. Let me dissect it for you:

Police investigating the disappearance of Wembley woman Jane Rimmer say she was outside CBV in Claremont shortly before she went missing
This is written by the journalists who have second hand information.

The 23 year old child worker appears on a video from one of the club's surveillance cameras but police are still trying to confirm whether she went inside
1. Words from journalist. Second hand information. Could be incorrect.
2. This could be talking about Conti and jouranlists have their information incorrect (very easy to do on new media events where there's huge public interest and information is being trickle fed as it becomes available. This is no different to any other high profile media event from the Malaysina Airways disappearence to 911 to the Beaconsfield Mine accident. It's par for the course.
3. This could have been earlier in the night when Jane and her friends went to line up


On Tuesday police said they had only established that Miss Rimmer was last seen outside the Conti at 12:10am on SundayLooks like this conflicts with the stuff already been written. There's a good explanation for this that I have already explained - journo's easily had their information mixed up between Conti and Club and JR's earlier visit to club.

The ones who were in the know said she was last seen at Conti yet you are absolutely convinced that she was last seen at Club? You have chosen what you want to believe.


We know she came out of Conti. We know she went to CBV with her friends. They walked back to Conti. Friends left. We don't know if she went back to ClubStatement by Paul Ferguson.

This again constradicts the opening paragraphs and surely quotes from the head of Macro have to take precedence over contradicting statements made by journalists?

 

[Bartholemeus]

Luke Morfesse was a highly experienced journo at this stage and wasn't prone to making errors like you insinuate.

Have you noticed you tend to make absolute statements around things that are clearly inconclusive because they back up your theory? It's called confirmation bias.

Putting on my objective hat, the evidence suggest these highly regarded journalists (and I mean that with utmost respect) did get it wrong. In the opening paragraphs they claim JR was seen at CBV and then a couple of paragraphs later quote Paul Ferguson saying "the last time she was seen was outside Conti".

Sorry, but that's hard to dispute.

 

[Sutton]

Both of you have interpreted the articles in opposite ways. We ALL bend things to fit our own viewpoint, at times. Usually it isn't even conscious.

And we don't know which articles are true, which were intentionally misleading, which were later proven false. Arguments can be made for almost any article published at any point in time.

Many of the ideas posted here are wacky, IMO. But maybe they only appear ludicrous because I don't know the three or four other details that would would explain everything.

Y'all don't need me to referee.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Police have always maintained the last confirmed sighting of JR was at Conti. In the article, even though it says "unnamed police source says JR was seen outside CBV" and that this could have been confused from when Jane was there earlier in the night, the facts are that Paul Ferguson stated on record that the last sighting of Jane was at Conti.

It's not good for the thread for someone to come in and expect to steam roll everyone unopposed and then have a tantrum when they are opposed.

There is and never has been any evidence that Jane went to CBV after Conti. Back tracking to the start of the case when police knew less than they do now and using a news article to try and pin down some facts is not a great idea. By all means, keep the articles coming as they are interesting and may shed some light, but let's not start seeing things that aren't there.

 

[Sutton]

...

I wonder the significance of 12:10am? The CCTV really emphasizes Jane was last seen at 12:04am. I know it's only a few minutes, I am just curious as to why police focused on two exact times?

 

[Bartholemeus]

You'd think they'd just say between 12:00 and 2:00.

 

[Sutton]

I need to clarify something that's been mentioned over the past few weeks: the Claremont Subway. I have always assumed this meant a subway, as in an underground transportation system. But all I can find on Google are rail systems.

Are we talking about Subway the Sandwich Shop?!

 

[papertrail]

Both of you have interpreted the articles in opposite ways. We ALL bend things to fit our own viewpoint, at times. Usually it isn't even conscious.

And we don't know which articles are true, which were intentionally misleading, which were later proven false. Arguments can be made for almost any article published at any point in time.

Many of the ideas posted here are wacky, IMO. But maybe they only appear ludicrous because I don't know the three or four other details that would would explain everything.

Y'all don't need me to referee.

Yes you are correct Sutton in that everyone has a different perspective on anything and most things. But what has really got me riled up is that I am now been accused of 'steamrolling'. The language that is used is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it. A couple of people has come to my rescue and pointed out the 'ignore' feature which I have now employed.

I would like people to tell me whether they are finding the newspaper articles interesting or not. If I do not hear from anyone I will not waste another second of my time.

 

[papertrail]

I need to clarify something that's been mentioned over the past few weeks: the Claremont Subway. I have always assumed this meant a subway, as in an underground transportation system. But all I can find on Google are rail systems.

Are we talking about Subway the Sandwich Shop?!

Claremont Subway is reference to an access route that goes under the railway line. to give you a good example get to the junction of Gugeri and Stirling Road then go to street level. There is another such subway adjacent to Rowe Park where the Karrakatta rapist struck and a few others along this particular railway line.

If you google 'claremont railway subway western australia' the 4th google article is a pdf document entitled 'overhead bridge heights - main roads western australia'. in it is lists the Claremont Subway as being the Graylands Road bridge which is adjacent to Rowe Park. There is no other subway named Claremont Subway.
'

 

[papertrail]

Both of you have interpreted the articles in opposite ways. We ALL bend things to fit our own viewpoint, at times. Usually it isn't even conscious.

And we don't know which articles are true, which were intentionally misleading, which were later proven false. Arguments can be made for almost any article published at any point in time.

Many of the ideas posted here are wacky, IMO. But maybe they only appear ludicrous because I don't know the three or four other details that would would explain everything.

Y'all don't need me to referee.

Are you able to say please, which ideas you find 'wacky'?

 

[papertrail]

The police knew Jane went inside the Conti because on the CIA doc she is clearly shown exiting with her friends. Lynda indicated they (Jane and her friends) had been dancing upstairs at the Conti, therefore the police knew she had been inside. I believe it is safe to assume that police had already interviewed Jane's friends by the time this article was penned. The fact that the newspaper article stated police did not know if Jane had been inside the Club, to me, shows clearly they did not know if Jane had been inside Club Bayview. The newspaper article clearly implied a West Australian newspaper reporter/journo had interviewed a Club staff member. The reporter also details (in full) the Continental Hotel name in several paragraphs and in context therefore it does not appear to be an error by the reporter when reference was made to Club Bayview vs the Conti. It is clear to me, there was no confusion in this article.

 

[Bartholemeus]

I need to clarify something that's been mentioned over the past few weeks: the Claremont Subway. I have always assumed this meant a subway, as in an underground transportation system. But all I can find on Google are rail systems.

Are we talking about Subway the Sandwich Shop?!

It's a road that goes under the railway track. There's two of them in Claremont. One is right next to Rowe Park. The other is where the notorious Stirling Rd goes under the railway. I can't be sure but I've always assumed it was the one near Rowe Park. Can anyone confirm?