ANALYSIS OF THE W.A. CLAREMONT KILLER CASE AND HOW DNA & CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONVICTED HIM

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- EDWARDS [No 7] [2020] WASC 339 (24 September 2020)  

This case involves the murder of three young women on three separate occasions where there are similarities as to their killings    

Facts:  

The accused, Bradley Robert Edwards, is charged with willfully murdering Sarah Spiers, Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon.  

Sarah Spiers was last seen in Claremont in the early hours of the morning of 27 January 1996. She has never been seen again and there has been nothing to indicate that she is still alive.  Though her body has never been found, the only reasonable conclusion is that she is dead.  

Jane Rimmer was last seen in Claremont just after midnight on 9 June 1996. Her body was located in Wellard on 3 August 1996.  

Ciara Glennon was last seen in Claremont just after midnight on 15 March 1997. Her body was located in Eglinton on 3 April 1997.  

DNA evidence of the accused was found under the nails of Ms Glennon’s left hand. A Fibre evidence was also presented which established that Ms. Rimmer and Ms. Glennon were in a VS Holden Commodore car that was habitually driven by a Telstra employee in the time shortly before their deaths which the accused also drove at such relevant times. Furthermore, a propensity evidence was presented which showed that the accused had a tendency to violently attack and abduct young women from the Claremont area;  

Issue:  

Is the evidence sufficient to convict Mr. Edwards for the murder of Ms. Spiers, Ms. Rimmer and Ms. Glennon?  

Law:   

• S31A of The Evidence Act 1906- Propensity and relationship evidence  

1. In this section— propensity evidence means— 

(a) Similar fact evidence or other evidence of the conduct of the accused person; or

(b) Evidence of the character or reputation of the accused person or of a tendency that the accused person has or had  

Relationship evidence means evidence of the attitude of the conduct of the accused person towards another person, or a class of person over a period of time    

2. Propensity evidence is admissible in proceedings for an offence if the court considers—  

a. That the evidence would, either by itself or having regard to other evidence adduced or to be adduced, have significant or probative value; and  

b. That the probative value of the evidence compared to the degree of risk of an unfair trial, is such that fair-minded people would think that the public interest in adducing all relevant evidence of guilt must have priority over the risk of an unfair trial.  

Analysis:  

The propensity evidence is relevant evidence to the issue of identity which has significant probative value.  The probative value derives from the nature of the proven tendency, that is, a tendency to violently attack and abduct young women from the Claremont area.  

As to the Ms. Glennon and Ms. Rimmer, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the DNA of the accused was under the nails of Ms Glennon's left hand and that it got there in the course of a violent struggle that occurred sometime shortly before her death; the fibre evidence establishes that each of Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon were in a VS Holden Commodore car that was habitually driven by a Telstra employee in the time shortly before their deaths.  The court is also satisfied that the accused drove such a vehicle at the relevant times; the propensity evidence, which is all that the court have relied on for this purpose, establishes that the accused had a tendency to violently attack and abduct young women from the Claremont area.  

The killing of Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon establishes that the tendency developed to killing the abducted young woman using a sharp instrument and disposing of the body in a semi‑rural location;  

As to Ms. Spiers, there is no evidence specific to the disappearance of Ms Spiers that is capable of proving that the accused was her killer.  The absence of a body means that the prosecution case is significantly more limited than in the case of Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon.  Facts known in respect of the other victims, such as how they were killed, where and how their bodies were disposed of and what the forensic evidence from their bodies indicates as to the identity of their attacker, are absent in the case of Ms Spiers. So, evidence is incapable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the killer of Ms Spiers.  

Conclusion: the court finds the accused guilty of murdering Ms. Rimmers and Ms Glennon. As to the willful murder of Ms. Spiers, the court finds the accused not guilty. 

#evidence #criminal