Loading The horrific details of the rape carried out at Karrakatta Cemetery had previously been read aloud in court during a February pre-trial hearing. State prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo said the teen victim was walking alone to her friend's house after spending the night out at Club Bayview in Claremont in February 1995. She said Edwards was prowling the streets in his car when he got out, grabbed her from behind, bound her hands together, gagged her and put a hood over her head. He then carried her to his car, took her to an isolated area of the cemetery and raped her twice without saying a word, before dumping the terrified, half naked teen in bushland.

The state had a strong case against Edwards, with the victim seeking help from a nearby hospital after the rape, where intimate swabs were taken to obtain the offender's DNA. That DNA was later matched to Edwards. The state also recovered his DNA from a silk kimono left at the crime scene of the Huntingdale sex attack. That incident occurred in the middle of the night in February 1988, when Edwards broke into a house, unplugged the family's home phone and entered the teenager's room. He sat on her back and straddled her while trying to force fabric into her mouth.

The woman struggled and Edwards ran from the scene, leaving behind the kimono. During a cold case review into the attack, the garment was tested and detectives discovered traces of DNA which allegedly matched that of the Claremont serial killer. It was the major breakthrough that led to Edwards' arrest in December 2016. Following Edwards' change to some of his pleas, the only remaining DNA evidence left for the state to prove at trial is that which was allegedly found underneath Ms Glennon's fingernails in 1997, when her body was discovered in bushland in Eglington. It will also be alleged fibres common to Telstra-issued blue work trousers worn by Edwards in the 1990s were found on Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon's bodies and on clothing seized from the Karrakatta rape victim.

Fibres from the same make and model as his work vehicle were also found on the two murder victims. Ms Spiers' body has never been found, and the state's case against Edwards' in relation to her murder is circumstantial. State to argue murders occurred during marriage breakdown State prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo wants to build a case against Edwards that he murdered his three victims during times of emotional turmoil amid the breakdown of his first marriage. She says Edwards committed his crimes after "infidelity or some event" involving his first wife which created a spike in emotional upset.

The night Sarah Spiers vanished, Mr Edwards had shown up unannounced at his wife's parents house where she was staying after having left the marital home weeks earlier. He asked her to watch the Australia Day fireworks with him. She declined his offer but he was invited in for dinner and then left. It's alleged Ms Spiers was murdered in the early hours of January 27, 1996. Justice Stephen Hall, who will preside over the judge-alone trial, questioned whether a rejection to attend the Australia Day fireworks would warrant a reaction of emotional turmoil. "A refusal to go with someone to fireworks doesn't seem in itself something that would cause upset, unless it's indicative of something else, unless it's indicative of rejection as a whole," he said.

In June 1996, his first wife told the man she was having an affair with they were expecting a baby. That same month, Jane Rimmer was murdered. In March 1997, when Ciara Glennon was murdered, the state says the crime occurred around 10 days after Edwards' and his first wife sold their marital home, signalling the "finality" of their relationship. In April 1997 Edwards met his second wife and his alleged offending stopped. Defence lawyer Paul Yovich argued the 'emotional upset' evidence the state wished to rely on was irrelevant to the question of whether Edwards was the man who murdered the three victims.

"It's said by the state that there is some particular trigger that may be pointed to as a reason why the offences might have been committed," he said. "The problem is that the triggers are all different. "There's no direct evidence or even indirect evidence about the effect of the trigger, if any. "It’s an argument that puts the cart before the horse." Justice Hall has reserved his decision as to whether he will allow the state's 'emotional upset' motive to be included at trial.