Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #20

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is anyone able to calculate how much this all adds up to?

As far as I know the sexual assaults are 6 years each.


3 xmurder
2 x sexual assault
2 x deprivation of liberty
1 x indecent assault
1 x break and enter
 
Is anyone able to calculate how much this all adds up to?

As far as I know the sexual assaults are 6 years each.


3 xmurder
2 x sexual assault
2 x deprivation of liberty
1 x indecent assault
1 x break and enter

It really doesn't work that way , a lot of the time the minor sentences are concurrent meaning you only serve time for the longest sentence , if someone is found guilty of 3 murders they will never be released , if the murder charges are not concurrent that is 75 years minimum
 
I should have said in my previous post as a way of explaining the non release
Catherine Birnie has had 4 parole hearings ... all rejected and all will be in future , but she was entitled to Parole if granted, figure that out
 
Is anyone able to calculate how much this all adds up to?

As far as I know the sexual assaults are 6 years each.


3 xmurder
2 x sexual assault
2 x deprivation of liberty
1 x indecent assault
1 x break and enter

3 x murder (I believe it is "willful murder" because BRE was charged under the statute at the time he committed the crimes, but using the current "murder" as a reference) - 20 years - life for each
2 x sexual assault (sexual penetration without consent; am assuming KK not regarded as a child as over 16) - up to 14 years for each
2 x deprivation of liberty - up to 10 years for each
1 x indecent assault - up to 5 years
1 x break & enter (seems to be burglary in current Criminal Code, unless this is a summary offense of some description) - up to 14 years or up to 20 years depending on which category

Note that all these are taken from the current Criminal Code so may differ in the version(s) that existed when the crimes were committed, under which BRE has been charged. This also ignores any aggravation matters or particular extenuating circumstances provided for in the legislation that may change the numbers slightly. I also don't think BRE has been charged with specifically "aggravated" crimes (e.g. aggravated sexual penetration without consent) but this may be to do with what was available at the times the crimes occurred.

Usually sentences are served concurrently, so it is the longest one that will be most relevant rather than the total amount of years from adding all the sentences up.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/notes.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is only one way there will not be gaps in the story , if BRE tells the story , then there will be no guarantee it is the truth

I don't expect him to be telling his tale , so the gaps will remain and nobody will be any the wiser

My point is that the charges provide insight into what evidence the police might have and what they might not have. I'm suggesting that, based on the charges, it might not be much more than what has been reported in the media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Attorney General in WA has to sign off on it, one of them (I don't recall which one it was) said even if she got through the Parole Board she wouldn't get past him. He wouldn't be signing her out.

I should have said in my previous post as a way of explaining the non release
Catherine Birnie has had 4 parole hearings ... all rejected and all will be in future , but she was entitled to Parole if granted, figure that out
 
https://www.9now.com.au/today/2018/extras/clips/clip-cje9b7vzo000p0rmvag8wmm0p

Interview re Claremurders Channel 9 Today Extra Show 1 March 2018. Perth journalist Monique Warnock talks to Richard Wilkins about the case. Some nice video of Sarah Spiers.MOO
 
Just read this again, a little quote from Bret Christian of "The Post" newspaper which was listed on the Australian Missing Persons Register in a page which contains information on poor SS.

I think there will be quite a lot of dot to dot happening in WAPOL over the coming months! .......>.....>.....:jail:

BBM

~
BRET CHRISTIAN: There are about 16 murders or disappearances of women since the late 1980s that remain unsolved in Perth. That's something that hasn't really registered in the public mind - that the 16 disappearances, or a large proportion of those, could be the work of one person. I think MACRO should live up to its name and go and look at the really big picture again and try and connect the dots.
http://www.australianmissingpersonsregister.com/Spiers.htm

[SUB][SUP]

[/SUP][/SUB]
 
Perhaps Macro has devised a time-line of where the accused lived, worked, studied and places nearby where he may have socialized. Also, by now they’d know what vehicles he owned, as well as family members – that would have been the easiest. I'm certainly not suggesting the family had any involvement, just that families tend to loan vehicles.

I suppose they’d merge all that information together on a huge whiteboard as big as a drive-in movie screen.
They would have eagerly interviewed past girlfriends, trying to get a picture of the past - ie whereabouts.

Does anyone have any ideas of what work might be going on behind the scenes?

Initially the former Commissioner Callaghan mentioned investigating 30 years worth. JMO
 
You're most welcome CV.

I agree with your thoughts about rape and abduction. It suggests to me that there are probably a few gaps in the police's evidence and a lot of what they present about how the women were taken and killed, and what happened in between, may be theoretical.

Another thing I noticed with the charges is that they didn't charge him with "Interfering with a corpse". Which may mean that they can't connect the accused to the actual disposal of the bodies.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
There's a lot posted since that I haven't read yet, so it might be answered already.
In WA the main charge is usually laid and not necessarily lesser charges.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 
There's a lot posted since that I haven't read yet, so it might be answered already.
In WA the main charge is usually laid and not necessarily lesser charges.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Not sure I agree with that.

I did some research before I posted on that (because I was wondering about exactly what you have raised here) and found a number of situations where "interfering with a corpse" was added to a murder charge. I couldn't see a pattern that would exclude this situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Attorney General in WA has to sign off on it, one of them (I don't recall which one it was) said even if she got through the Parole Board she wouldn't get past him. He wouldn't be signing her out.

Pandit - It was Christian Porter who denied Catherine Birnie parole. Jim McGinty also said she should never be freed. IMO there would be a public outcry and, I don't ever believe she will be released from Bandyup.

Tom Percy QC on the other hand, said "perhaps" when I asked him last month if he would offer Catherine Birnie a bedroom at his place?, so she could stay with him. I don't think he has children - Perhaps, she could babysit his niece/nephew ? if he feels she should be given a second chance. (IMO That's one horror story to ponder)


http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/p...13.929847722.1521028131-1228576444.1518253737


I digress though.... it's off topic.... I will now stick to the CSK
 
It's a lesser charge but may also be in that there was no/very little attempt at concealment.



215. Interfering with corpse to hinder inquiry

[FONT=&amp](1) In this section a person interferes with the corpse of a person if he or she —
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](a) conceals the corpse, whether by burying or destroying it or otherwise; or
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](b) damages or mutilates or otherwise interferes with the corpse.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](2) Any person who, without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him or her, interferes with the corpse of a person with intent to prevent or prejudice any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the person is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][Section 215 inserted by No. 4 of 2004 s. 60.]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][Chapter XXIV (s. 216) deleted by No. 16 of 2016 s. 37.]

[/FONT]http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/notes.html

Not sure I agree with that.

I did some research before I posted on that (because I was wondering about exactly what you have raised here) and found a number of situations where "interfering with a corpse" was added to a murder charge. I couldn't see a pattern that would exclude this situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There's a lot posted since that I haven't read yet, so it might be answered already.
In WA the main charge is usually laid and not necessarily lesser charges.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Its common sense , happens everyday , if they are convinced of getting a conviction on the more serious charges its a waste of time and energy going after the lesser ones

The sentences will be concurrent anyway so whats the point , and this is where the common sense kicks in , if they cannot get a conviction for murder they are not likely to get a conviction for interfering with a corpse , its easy to understand

I know from personal experience that not all charges that could be laid are , its the way the system works
 
Perhaps Macro has devised a time-line of where the accused lived, worked, studied and places nearby where he may have socialized. Also, by now they’d know what vehicles he owned, as well as family members – that would have been the easiest. I'm certainly not suggesting the family had any involvement, just that families tend to loan vehicles.

I suppose they’d merge all that information together on a huge whiteboard as big as a drive-in movie screen.
They would have eagerly interviewed past girlfriends, trying to get a picture of the past - ie whereabouts.

Does anyone have any ideas of what work might be going on behind the scenes?

Initially the former Commissioner Callaghan mentioned investigating 30 years worth. JMO
I imagine there would be several lines of inquiry:

- Linking the accused to the particular crimes for which he is charged - movements on those nights, activities he participated in that could have given him a reason to be there, alibis
- Trying to obtain more forensic evidence - hence searches on property, appeals for the car
- Seeking witnesses and people with information
- Looking at behavioural traits that may provide insight - interviewing friends and family perhaps
- Investigating the possibility of other crimes
- Looking at other unsolved crimes to see if there is any link

I suspect that the bulk of the work on the matters BRE has been charged with have already been done. There will probably be ongoing investigation to fill in any gaps or to look for something specific (eg the Camry), but they'd need to have done what they want on the investigation before handing it over to the defense. (Not to mention that it would be an epic *advertiser censored* up if they discovered something now that blew the charges away such as if he was in another country when one of the crimes occured.)

By this stage I think it would be about assisting the DPP with what is necessary for the trial strategy. With 1.5 million pages there is a lot to organise.

I think their efforts of investigation would be concentrated on other potential crimes now. I imagine a lot of effort has gone in to piecing together a timeline from pre 1988 to BRE's arrest.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
 
Pandit - It was Christian Porter who denied Catherine Birnie parole. Jim McGinty also said she should never be freed. IMO there would be a public outcry and, I don't ever believe she will be released from Bandyup.

Tom Percy QC on the other hand, said "perhaps" when I asked him last month if he would offer Catherine Birnie a bedroom at his place?, so she could stay with him. I don't think he has children - Perhaps, she could babysit his niece/nephew ? if he feels she should be given a second chance. (IMO That's one horror story to ponder)


http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/p...13.929847722.1521028131-1228576444.1518253737


I digress though.... it's off topic.... I will now stick to the CSK

Eaglette, I LOVE your question to Tom Percy about providing accommodation for the quite revolting Catherine! That is something I always think the Parole Board members should ask themselves. Would I like this person living right next door and waving over the fence to my children/grandchildren as they play in our yard, or popping in for a nice cup of tea and lamington!
 
Its common sense , happens everyday , if they are convinced of getting a conviction on the more serious charges its a waste of time and energy going after the lesser ones

The sentences will be concurrent anyway so whats the point , and this is where the common sense kicks in , if they cannot get a conviction for murder they are not likely to get a conviction for interfering with a corpse , its easy to understand

I know from personal experience that not all charges that could be laid are , its the way the system works

There are only 2 lawful reasons for interfering with a corpse

removing donated organs
or
during an autopsy conducted by a pathologist.

​In this case as yet we don't know if the victims were moved after death.
 
There are only 2 lawful reasons for interfering with a corpse

removing donated organs
or
during an autopsy conducted by a pathologist.

​In this case as yet we don't know if the victims were moved after death.

I'm sorry, I do not understand what your quote has to do with my post ... I was pointing out why the charges may not have been laid
 
Its common sense , happens everyday , if they are convinced of getting a conviction on the more serious charges its a waste of time and energy going after the lesser ones

The sentences will be concurrent anyway so whats the point , and this is where the common sense kicks in , if they cannot get a conviction for murder they are not likely to get a conviction for interfering with a corpse , its easy to understand

I know from personal experience that not all charges that could be laid are , its the way the system works

I don't agree with that, either.

At the time of the Claremont killing it was known as "misconduct with regards to corpses", which was a lesser offence than the current "interfering with a corpse". They specifically updated it partially because of the fact that it was felt in a number of quarters (law enforcement, victims groups, academics etc) that the act of interfering with a corpse after killing someone added another dimension of criminality to the act. It impacts forensics and shows additional disregard for what has been done. If such a charge was specifically updated with these types of murders in mind then the idea that it is regarded as insignificant and not worth charging with doesn't follow. Common sense indicates they wanted to throw more of the book at people charged with heinous crimes, not less.

Adding the other charges can impact the length of the sentence given for the main charge if the additional charges are seen as aggravating factors.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
 
I'm sorry, I do not understand what your quote has to do with my post ... I was pointing out why the charges may not have been laid

I was pointing out that there may not be any charges if the victims were murdered where they were found.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
2,292
Total visitors
2,485

Forum statistics

Threads
589,968
Messages
17,928,480
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top