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

[Spooks-R-Us]

By any definition if the crimes were crimes of opportunity that's what they were , no planning or agenda required

IMO the fact that 4 alleged female victims of similar age (within 10 yr range) were taken from same suburb/entertainment district would NEGATE any implications that the crimes were crimes of opportunity.

Especially since Claremont is "worlds away" from the socio-economic status, culture, and typical hangouts of a Gozzy boy. Of course I'm generalising about the accused habits and lifestyle etc.

But IMO a crime of opportunity 'just happens' while offenders are going about their normal daily agendas.

It's not a crime of opportunity when the offender is seemingly out of their comfort zone AND repeats the same crimes. Repeating the crimes (3 alleged murders) indicates some intention to do the same as before. Hence NOT opportunistic.
This is my personal opinion - not from a text book or book

IMO


............................................
Posts my opinion unless source included. All my original text/images are my personal copyright and can't be reproduced outside of WebSleuths without my permission.
[emoji317][emoji317][emoji317]

 

[El Gordo]

IMO the fact that 4 alleged female victims of similar age (within 10 yr range) were taken from same suburb/entertainment district would NEGATE any implications that the crimes were crimes of opportunity.

Especially since Claremont is "worlds away" from the socio-economic status, culture, and typical hangouts of a Gozzy boy. Of course I'm generalising about the accused habits and lifestyle etc.

But IMO a crime of opportunity 'just happens' while offenders are going about their normal daily agendas.

It's not a crime of opportunity when the offender is seemingly out of their comfort zone AND repeats the same crimes. Repeating the crimes (3 alleged murders) indicates some intention to do the same as before. Hence NOT opportunistic.
This is my personal opinion - not from a text book or book

IMO


............................................
Posts my opinion unless source included. All my original text/images are my personal copyright and can't be reproduced outside of WebSleuths without my permission.
[emoji317][emoji317][emoji317]

Start with the crime on Australia Day , a public holiday , how on earth would a Gozzy boy know what a Claremont Girls movements would be ...there was no routine to follow as far as I can see

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

I really enjoy reading the posts on here. When you think about it, between all of us, we have a wealth of knowledge regarding different issues. Akai and Pandit have certainly got major insight into the subject discussed. A couple of you would benefit from reading their posts and learning from the content. Some of the replies show people as having little knowledge of the subject – and not willing to learn from someone else’s knowledge.

EL GORDO .....please take more care posting because you regularly post with BROKEN quotes.....

As this post shows CanningVale (the broken quote) when i was replying to El Gordo


............................................
Posts my opinion unless source included. All my original text/images are my personal copyright and can't be reproduced outside of WebSleuths without my permission.
[emoji317][emoji317][emoji317]

 

[Eaglette]

Different horses for different courses.

Speaking of horses Pandit - perhaps someone had experience with putting chalf bags over horses - to lead them and to calm and quieten them.

Does the same principle apply to a person - when a hood is placed over their head - are they more compliant? Typically, terrified but, quieter?

Wikipedia says it is a form of torture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooding

 

[lampformypath]

Found this whilst re-reading some old articles BBM. Paul Ferguson's comments after he "came out of retirement" about the CSK case and going to visit Birnie in prison. Birnie was no doubt attention seeking and playing pathetic mind games, BUT, it seems there may have been something in what he said that Paul took back to Macro? I'm interested in the "dump sites" reference (I don't like the term, just quoting his words) and the study of psyche being done by the team?:

"From prison, Birnie had reached out and suggested to him that the best way to get into the mind of one serial killer was through the mind of another."I went down there. I let David do the talking," he says. "It's actually quite strange that there are consistencies in a lot of serial killers."The way they do things like dump sites. David confirmed that his 'prowling patch' was Stirling Highway."The information was relayed back to the Macro taskforce as they tried to piece together the psyche of the Claremont killer."​

 

[lampformypath]

Found this whilst re-reading some old articles BBM. Paul Ferguson's comments after he "came out of retirement" about the CSK case and going to visit Birnie in prison. Birnie was no doubt attention seeking and playing pathetic mind games, BUT, it seems there may have been something in what he said that Paul took back to Macro? I'm interested in the "dump sites" reference (I don't like the term, just quoting his words) and the study of psyche being done by the team?:

"From prison, Birnie had reached out and suggested to him that the best way to get into the mind of one serial killer was through the mind of another."I went down there. I let David do the talking," he says. "It's actually quite strange that there are consistencies in a lot of serial killers."The way they do things like dump sites. David confirmed that his 'prowling patch' was Stirling Highway."The information was relayed back to the Macro taskforce as they tried to piece together the psyche of the Claremont killer."​

Doh! Forgot to put the link in, sorry team!


https://www.yahoo.com/news/catching-claremont-killer-part-two-105000147.html

Yes I realise I'm talking to myself, not the first time!

 

[petedavo.au]

What an amazing case AND what a precedent that has been set! Thank you for sharing that article JudgeJudi, "secondary transfer - the new concept!" Who would have thought, just a handshake earlier in the night and whammo.... case dismissed!

I like this quote (BBM) from the article too, very true, aren't we all conditioned by TV shows!

"So the possibility arises that through a handshake or some other quite innocent contact DNA can be transferred onto a carrier who can then transfer that DNA onto another object."There are probably only a few cases where there's a circumstantial case that involves DNA alone, but I think we're all conditioned to what I call the CSI effect where we look at North American television programs and we all assume that DNA is infallible proof of of a crime but this possibility of secondary transfer that the High Court has now accepted casts some significant doubt on that."​

Hmm.... thinking, thinking....

Discussed before in preceding threads was this> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...pathwest-dna-bungle-govt-wants-answer/8475888
And this famous European case>
Germany's Phantom Serial Killer: A DNA Blunder
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Akai]

I really enjoy reading the posts on here. When you think about it, between all of us, we have a wealth of knowledge regarding different issues. Akai and Pandit have certainly got major insight into the subject discussed. A couple of you would benefit from reading their posts and learning from the content. Some of the replies show people as having little knowledge of the subject – and not willing to learn from someone else’s knowledge.

Sensible replies only - please!

That's a very nice thing to say, CV. I really enjoy reading all your suggestions about evidence and possibilities. So many of them get me really thinking about things from a different angle or going, "Hmmm, yes, didn't think of that".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lampformypath]

Discussed before in preceding threads was this> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...pathwest-dna-bungle-govt-wants-answer/8475888
And this famous European case>
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Hi Petedavo, in all fairness these weren't the same as the case that is mentioned in JudgeJudi's post. The first one is a mix-up with DNA of two men having the same name, the second one is DNA swabs being contaminated in a lab. The case JJ is talking about is unique in that the accused had an "innocent exchange" with one of the victims earlier in the night, in this case, a simple handshake (seems it must have been observed by others so it could be brought into play in the case?) which could have technically transferred DNA onto the victim's hand and then the victim could have picked up one of the items used in the attack in his own home, so that's how the doubt came in. The accused might not ever have been in the house, just his DNA on the victim's hand by transference from the earlier handshake. Or am I reading this wrongly?

 

[DRT]

Article removed by me.
There were several attacks aside from the KK attack. They are summarised here.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...h-Western-Australia-3&p=12177584#post12177584

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...hotos-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12911476#post12911476 Page 6 # 87

If you check dates though - there are only 2 listed in previous year (1995) to the the disappearance of SS, the KK attack and the Claremont Golf course attack.

The KK attack was almost a year before SS went missing and the Claremont Golf course attack did not make MSM.

Therefore how did they know that there were high profile attacks in the area? Just a thought, however there are quite a few inaccuracies in the article - creative licence perhaps!

There was an article initially posted by Sutton. It doesn't have a date on it or where it was from.

 

[b4u]

My interest in the CSK is for personal reasons and apart from that I have no interest whatsoever

Join the club

 

[petedavo.au]

Hi Petedavo, in all fairness these weren't the same as the case that is mentioned in JudgeJudi's post. The first one is a mix-up with DNA of two men having the same name, the second one is DNA swabs being contaminated in a lab. The case JJ is talking about is unique in that the accused had an "innocent exchange" with one of the victims earlier in the night, in this case, a simple handshake (seems it must have been observed by others so it could be brought into play in the case?) which could have technically transferred DNA onto the victim's hand and then the victim could have picked up one of the items used in the attack in his own home, so that's how the doubt came in. The accused might not ever have been in the house, just his DNA on the victim's hand by transference from the earlier handshake. Or am I reading this wrongly?

Fair point, but same principle applies.
DNA evidence on a crime scene says nothing about how it got there.

And that is the crux of how the case failed, and the investigators in Germany failed.
There were reasonable doubts about how the DNA apparently got found at the scenes, which should of been picked up early in both investigations.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[lampformypath]

Fair point, but same principle applies.
DNA evidence on a crime scene says nothing about how it got there.

And that is the crux of how the case failed, and the investigators in Germany failed.
There were reasonable doubts about how the DNA apparently got found at the scenes, which should of been picked up early in both investigations.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

Thanks Petedavo, excellent explanation! It is fascinating though to me that some cases seem to be totally reliant on DNA evidence - create the slightest doubt with that and it all collapses. And the fact DNA appears so conclusive to we mere mortals in the general public (well everyone I speak to family, friends etc. and also when I speak to myself!) because of conditioning by media - TV shows, movies, fictional books (and some factual ones too!) Things that make you go HMMMM....

 

[Canning Vale]

My apologies still can’t reply with quote….

My thoughts are that establishing the DNA puts the perpetrator at the crime scene. As there are a couple of DNA findings, year’s apart, which are linked to the accused it’s hard for the defense to argue that he wasn’t there and isn’t responsible. If the DNA is actually inside any of the victims' he’s got some explaining to do.

 

[lampformypath]

Well, I don't know what to say about this link, truly. Just that it sounds so accurate and honest, but who knows how this person/or persons got all this information. (Most of it is factual as it's straight out of MSM) I like to go onto search engines other than Google and have a little browse, amazing what turns up sometimes. I'm about half way through this Podcast about CSK. There is another one underneath it that is entitled Update. Already heard things that put a whole different slant on this case - it goes 55 minutes so it is a big ask to listen to it all. I'm very keen to find out what you all think, particularly our long-term WS people. I'm going to listen to the rest of it now. Never heard of this site before, have any of you? Back to the Pod....

http://casefilepodcast.com/claremont/

 

[no name]

Thanks Petedavo, excellent explanation! It is fascinating though to me that some cases seem to be totally reliant on DNA evidence create the slightest doubt with that and it all collapses. And the fact DNA appears so conclusive to we mere mortals in the general public

And therein lies one of the many problems with so many jury trials. Little understanding of what the evidence is actually telling them about the crime and how much weight should be placed upon it. Then theres preconditioned judgements about the particular person on trial be it their history, their demeanour, even how they look. Then those about the crime. How your own life experiences have conditioned your thinking about certain things. How much trust a person places in police to tell the truth and present an unbiased case. Lack of understanding about what is really going on. The list goes on. Injustices are done in court rooms each and every day in Australia because people with no clue at all are making decisions on peoples lives based on only what they can understand and what holds true for their lives. You shouldn't be able to find someone guilty because you "think" think they did, even when theres no evidence at all to support the verdict, but it happens everyday. Of course it goes both ways though. The only thing a judge can not direct a jury in is the weight they give to which pieces of evidence be it forensic, testimony, witnesses or anything else. If you want to discard all of it and judge a person based on their haircut, you can. If you have a couple of strong personalities on the jury who choose to intimidate other jurors to vote their way, so be it. Theres no education level, particular skill, prior understanding of knowledge of policework, legal issues or anything else required to get onto a jury and decide a persons fate, right or wrong. Their decision is final. A judge cant overrule a wrong verdict, nor can they choose a non custodial sentence when mandatory sentencing laws are in place. Sometimes, its not very just at all.

 

[no name]

My apologies still can’t reply with quote….

My thoughts are that establishing the DNA puts the perpetrator at the crime scene. As there are a couple of DNA findings, year’s apart, which are linked to the accused it’s hard for the defense to argue that he wasn’t there and isn’t responsible. If the DNA is actually inside any of the victims' he’s got some explaining to do.

Thats the whole point though CV, DNA being present proves nothing in itself. Of course it may be such compelling DNA evidence that it passes the beyond reasonable doubt test, or the DNA combined with circumstantial evidence may rule any other possibilities out, we just dont know that yet though. To say that establishing the DNA puts a perp at a scene in general is factually wrong, it doesnt at all.

 

[Coldpizza]

How to repair a broken quote or broken link in your post

 

[lampformypath]

And therein lies one of the many problems with so many jury trials. Little understanding of what the evidence is actually telling them about the crime and how much weight should be placed upon it. Then theres preconditioned judgements about the particular person on trial be it their history, their demeanour, even how they look. Then those about the crime. How your own life experiences have conditioned your thinking about certain things. How much trust a person places in police to tell the truth and present an unbiased case. Lack of understanding about what is really going on. The list goes on. Injustices are done in court rooms each and every day in Australia because people with no clue at all are making decisions on peoples lives based on only what they can understand and what holds true for their lives. You shouldn't be able to find someone guilty because you "think" think they did, even when theres no evidence at all to support the verdict, but it happens everyday. Of course it goes both ways though. The only thing a judge can not direct a jury in is the weight they give to which pieces of evidence be it forensic, testimony, witnesses or anything else. If you want to discard all of it and judge a person based on their haircut, you can. If you have a couple of strong personalities on the jury who choose to intimidate other jurors to vote their way, so be it. Theres no education level, particular skill, prior understanding of knowledge of policework, legal issues or anything else required to get onto a jury and decide a persons fate, right or wrong. Their decision is final. A judge cant overrule a wrong verdict, nor can they choose a non custodial sentence when mandatory sentencing laws are in place. Sometimes, its not very just at all.

I'm hearing you Noname! I've only done jury duty once and it was quite an eye-opening experience to say the least. Just about ALL the things you have said happened (and we only did one day's duty. The bloke actually plead guilty overnight! It was a manslaughter case, won't go into it here of course) but we had to have several breaks whilst the lawyers argued over the use of a certain word or some such (all seemed so trivial at times to us, but of course not in the eyes of the law) and each time jury members were getting more and more p****d off at having to be there. A few tradies letting some expletives go constantly, an elderly farmer saying he'd like to string the bloke up by his vitals (this is all in the first 2 hours mind you!) A VERY forceful woman (no not me, funnily enough) who immediately decided she should be foreman/person whatever, and became very vocal about how we would conduct ourselves. Think Madam Lash on steroids! Most of the other jurors just yawned and took very little notice as we discussed evidence that had been presented thus far. Hard not to be intimidated too by the accused (a very angry man who was trying to stare we jury members down. We heard about his out of control drug habit and that he was also dealing, according to evidence, and a "mate" who testified in a video link to a prison. The mate lost it during the live cross several times and tried to smash the screen he was in front of!). It was surreal and I can easily see why people are wrongly convicted. Not in this case, as I said he plead guilty and the evidence did seem very strong (what little we saw of it that is). Many witnesses to the event, happened on a main road, etc. The jury selection process is so long winded, like some macabre lottery. It takes hours to whittle down the literally hundreds of people called in to wait to see if they are picked, and there are several cases you could be selected for. We who were selected were like the Walking Dead, shuffling around from room to room. People just wanted to get out of there as fast as possible. The care factor was zero! It's so depressing and frankly scary as you see some very unsavoury types going in and out of the courtroom (and some turned out to be lawyers, no joke!). Very depressing to work there in the court system I would think. Especially when you see how many injustices happen both pro and con (if you'll excuse the unintentional pun!)

 

[Annalise]

no name & lampformypath - OMG I hope I NEVER get called for jury duty. Very scary. Such a huge responsibility. MOO