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

[petedavo.au]

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

It's the principle that courts thrown upon a accused being loaded up for a single event. ie, the prosecution can't shop for a charge to stick by loading up the brief with numerous charges if the charges are derivative of the main offense in each case. Besides which any summary offence will be concurrent in sentencing anyway, so therefore unless the charges for a single offence are equal then usually the main charge is only put, and the aggravating circumstances put to the court in evidence are the minor offences done in commission of the main offence.
Also murder charge can be found to be manslaughter, therefore there's no need to put either/or charges. It's just a basic principle of jurisprudence in WA.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Akai]

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

It was slightly different back at the time of the Claremont killings: misconduct with regards to corpses, which was a slightly lesser charge. It was amended at the same time as wilful murder and murder were combined under the one banner of murder. (Took me forever to find the dates on that: 2003.)

Turns out that it was specifically upgraded because those involved in criminal matters (law enforcement, experts, criminologists and victims groups) felt that there was a significant distinction between killing someone and doing so and then moving and/or actively concealing the body (harder to get forensics, showed even more disregard for the victim) and they felt this needed to be reflected. Any movement of the body from the crime scene seems to fit the definition. It doesn't have to be a specific attempt at concealment, although I would argue that where the CSK victims were found indicated an attempt at concealment.

So maybe they haven't charged him with the misconduct component because it wasn't considered as significant an offense at the time. But on the other hand there were examples where they did so I'm still tending towards thinking it is because they don't quite have the evidence to do it. I wouldn't expect them to do it in the case of SS, of course, because they don't have a body, but JR and CG they do.

Or maybe they are going to argue that the women were killed at the locations they were found. That is another possibility.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[Frequant Flyer]

I would think the charge of interfering with a corpse is in relation to people who assist moving bodies after the event
I doubt to many murderers have been charged with the crime , but their aides and abettors would have been
I await with baited breath to be proven wrong

 

[Akai]

It's the principle that courts thrown upon a accused being loaded up for a single event. ie, the prosecution can't shop for a charge to stick by loading up the brief with numerous charges if the charges are derivative of the main offense in each case. Besides which any summary offence will be concurrent in sentencing anyway, so therefore unless the charges for a single offence are equal then usually the main charge is only put, and the aggravating circumstances put to the court in evidence are the minor offences done in commission of the main offence.
Also murder charge can be found to be manslaughter, therefore there's no need to put either/or charges. It's just a basic principle of jurisprudence in WA.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

The number of people who have been charged with both murder and interfering with a corpse would beg to disagree that it's a "basic principle of WA jurisprudence" not to bother with the lesser charge.

As would the fact that they specifically upgraded the nature of this offense to distinguish situations where a person murdered someone and didn't interfere with the body and situations where they did, making it harder for forensic teams and showing even greater disregard for the victim. It was upgraded in part specifically to operate in conjunction with murder.

If it was standard practice the offense would never have been upgraded and the charges would not be laid together.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[El Gordo]

I was pointing out that there may not be any charges if the victims were murdered where they were found.

I do not think he will be charged for interfering with a corpse whatever the case , as I said if they cannot prove murder they wont prove that , so its a waste of time going ahead with the charge , it will achieve nothing if they do

 

[Pandit]

I did see the changes in there but decided not to go too deeply into it. The investigation was considered still active at the time of arrest, not all his properties had been searched and tbh I'm not absolutely certain they even know where the girls were killed.

A charge of interfering with a corpse at that time, (knowing very little of WA law) may have been seen as not only unnecessary but perhaps even a bit careless.

It was slightly different back at the time of the Claremont killings: misconduct with regards to corpses, which was a slightly lesser charge. It was amended at the same time as wilful murder and murder were combined under the one banner of murder. (Took me forever to find the dates on that: 2003.)

Turns out that it was specifically upgraded because those involved in criminal matters (law enforcement, experts, criminologists and victims groups) felt that there was a significant distinction between killing someone and doing so and then moving and/or actively concealing the body (harder to get forensics, showed even more disregard for the victim) and they felt this needed to be reflected. Any movement of the body from the crime scene seems to fit the definition. It doesn't have to be a specific attempt at concealment, although I would argue that where the CSK victims were found indicated an attempt at concealment.

So maybe they haven't charged him with the misconduct component because it wasn't considered as significant an offense at the time. But on the other hand there were examples where they did so I'm still tending towards thinking it is because they don't quite have the evidence to do it. I wouldn't expect them to do it in the case of SS, of course, because they don't have a body, but JR and CG they do.

Or maybe they are going to argue that the women were killed at the locations they were found. That is another possibility.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[Akai]

I would think the charge of interfering with a corpse is in relation to people who assist moving bodies after the event
I doubt to many murderers have been charged with the crime , but their aides and abettors would have been
I await with baited breath to be proven wrong

Here's two fairly recent ones and I can go back through my notes from today to find more if need be.

https://amp.theguardian.com/austral...rs?CMP=share_btn_fb&__twitter_impression=true

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...death-ng-52636bdf3bd574b12aa967086231f808.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Frequant Flyer]

Here's two fairly recent ones and I can go back through my notes from today to find more if need be.

https://amp.theguardian.com/austral...rs?CMP=share_btn_fb&__twitter_impression=true

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...death-ng-52636bdf3bd574b12aa967086231f808.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im sorry , I don't respond to links , if I wished to be educated about a matter I would not be doing it from here , I would prefer to seek out expert opinion

 

[Akai]

I did see the changes in there but decided not to go too deeply into it. The investigation was considered still active at the time of arrest, not all his properties had been searched and tbh I'm not absolutely certain they even know where the girls were killed.

A charge of interfering with a corpse at that time, (knowing very little of WA law) may have been seen as not only unnecessary but perhaps even a bit careless before the investigation was completed.

Definitely agree they may not have charged at the time of the arrest because they had not completed the investigation. Now I think it's because they either don't know where the girls were killed (and the moving of the bodies isn't necessary for a murder charge) or they are going to allege they were killed where they were found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Akai]

Im sorry , I don't respond to links , if I wished to be educated about a matter I would not be doing it from here , I would prefer to seek out expert opinion

You said you wait with "baited breath to be proven wrong" about murderers not being charged with interfering with a corpse.

I have provided two links to cases where this happened and offered more. Those links are not academic education opinion sites; they are news reports of people being charged with both. They are fact.

You ASKED for that information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Frequant Flyer]

You said you wait with "baited breath to be proven wrong" about murderers not being charged with interfering with a corpse.

I have provided two links to cases where this happened and offered more. Those links are not academic education opinion sites; they are news reports of people being charged with both. They are fact.

You ASKED for that information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 examples do not prove anything , 22 maybe.... I will stick to my opinions , you stick to yours and I won't bother you again

 

[Pandit]

Case of the woman charged with interfering with a corpse (her mothers), it was the first charge after a skull was found in the backyard. It may have been suspected initially that elderly mother died of natural causes and the daughter just buried her and not very well I might add, to continue claiming her pension for example.

Not until the autopsy came through I assume some time later, was the charge of murder laid. Had there been the evidence for a murder charge initially, suspect interference with a corpse may have been dispensed with. Unless, daughter removed Mum's head at some point after burying her and hid it somewhere else .. also not very good hiding.

I think mental health issues might feature here.

Here's two fairly recent ones and I can go back through my notes from today to find more if need be.

https://amp.theguardian.com/austral...rs?CMP=share_btn_fb&__twitter_impression=true

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...death-ng-52636bdf3bd574b12aa967086231f808.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lampformypath]

If only they"d (sorry, keyboard going totally berserk here and throwing different symbols up on keys? Sigh!) sought advice from the expert earlier and the connection made sooner, AND been taken seriously. This is why psych profiling by a VERY experienced expert, is so important. This person half a world away could see the pattern. Whoever that "first bloke" is.

QUOTE: BBM
"When the Claremont series began we went to an FBI profiler in the states and put the four crimes to him and he said 'I would be looking thoroughly at that first sexual assault, because I think that's your bloke.'"And we got criticised roundly and publicly for publishing this opinion which turns out to be right."
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/c...vestigate-1995-rape-lead-20151016-gkaq8i.html


And this was a comment from Paul Ferguson very early quoted on 4/4/1997:

``We are looking at the same offender, a serial offender for the three
offences. However, he may have an accomplice,'' police superintendent Paul
Ferguson said on Friday.


Trying to find where Paul actually made this comment, but it was quoted on this message board. "...he may have an accomplice? Hmm...Paul was moved on of course and replaced, perhaps he tended to say too much?

​

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.true-crime/Mz6NxHT2reg


​

 

[petedavo.au]

Here's two fairly recent ones and I can go back through my notes from today to find more if need be.

https://amp.theguardian.com/austral...rs?CMP=share_btn_fb&__twitter_impression=true

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...death-ng-52636bdf3bd574b12aa967086231f808.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's more murder cases where it wasn't added, even though the corpses were interfered with. Only in one instance, an accessory was charged in relation to disposing of Cookson. I've put that one at the top of the list for you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/man-guilty-of-rottnest-island-murder/5850992
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...ld-case-murder-cariad-anderson-slater/6779460
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...ealed-ng-2588aaa3829baad017f1bfbffd9d9401.amp
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...-concrete-ng-c4feb7266dbe15ca67036bfbc8b8bc43
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/m...armelia-home-man-charged-20161028-gsctfa.html

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo.au]

Extract from DPP's prosecuting guidelines>
"the charge or charges laid or proceeded with will be the most serious disclosed by the evidence"

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5aa94c86ef4cf/statement_prosecution_policy2005.pdf

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[janwa]

There is something very concerning about Con Bayens report and the upper echelons reaction.


https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/a/28288144/why-we-didnt-catch-the-claremont-killer/

 

[Frequant Flyer]

There's more murder cases where it wasn't added, even though the corpses were interfered with. Only in one instance, an accessory was charged in relation to disposing of Cookson. I've put that one at the top of the list for you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/man-guilty-of-rottnest-island-murder/5850992
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...ld-case-murder-cariad-anderson-slater/6779460
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...ealed-ng-2588aaa3829baad017f1bfbffd9d9401.amp
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...-concrete-ng-c4feb7266dbe15ca67036bfbc8b8bc43
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/m...armelia-home-man-charged-20161028-gsctfa.html

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Great post , I always believed the charge was for those who helped after the event , not to say it could not apply to a murderer , but it was not the purpose of the charge being adopted

 

[Frequant Flyer]

Extract from DPP's prosecuting guidelines>
"the charge or charges laid or proceeded with will be the most serious disclosed by the evidence"

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5aa94c86ef4cf/statement_prosecution_policy2005.pdf

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Another great post confirming that the use of a lesser amount of charges is encouraged , it is common sense that this is the case

 

[Frequant Flyer]

I think a lot of problems start in these forums when individuals try to claim expertise in to many fields , no one person is qualified in Genetics , Profiling , Police Procedure, Court Procedure , The Law and Criminal Code etc. etc.

These are all highly skilled individual fields with some amount of crossover but you would need 3 or 4 degrees to be qualified for all

The sad part is these people try to put effort into what they are doing but once you see the holes in one field it's easy to see them in all , just my opinion though

 

[MissUnderstood]

Police would know by now if BRE is MM in the video. Do you think that would have been released if it was him? I’m thinking it isn’t, which is why there is no mention of it lately. What do you guys think? Interesting either way it pans out. Moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk