The defence team in the Claremont serial killings trial has argued if Bradley Robert Edwards had lured a victim into his work car, then witnesses would have noticed the logo.
The 51-year-old former Telstra technician is on trial in the WA Supreme Court accused of murdering secretary Sarah Spiers, 18, childcare worker Jane Rimmer, 23, and solicitor Ciara Glennon, 27, in the mid-1990s.
Defence counsel Paul Yovich continued his lengthy closing submissions on Wednesday, focusing on the night Ms Glennon disappeared in March 1997.
Mr Yovich pointed out contradictory information as he went through the testimony of almost a dozen witnesses who saw a woman matching Ms Glennon’s description walking in Claremont and several people who saw a car similar to Edwards’ work vehicle.
He zeroed in on the evidence of three men known as “the burger boys” who were eating at a bus stop about midnight when they saw a woman leaning into a vehicle.
One of the men was a car enthusiast and recalled it was a Commodore, but did not notice a Telstra logo.
“It’s hard to believe he would not have noticed a Telstra logo or another type of logo on the car if there had been one,” Mr Yovich said.
“This witness had a very good field of vision … the absence of any logo, in circumstances where the Telstra logo on the driver’s side door is a prominent and large logo, is telling against such a logo actually being there.”
But Justice Stephen Hall said a car enthusiast might be more interested in wheels and bumpers.
Mr Yovich added that if the woman was Ms Glennon, she was lured rather than the victim of a “blitz attack”, which is how Edwards abducted a teenager before twice raping her at a cemetery in 1995.
“Any potential blitz attacker, particularly a calculated and methodical blitz attacker, would need to take into account the possibility of being seen,” he said.
“There’s a world of difference between picking up a hitchhiker and doing what happened to (the rape victim).”
Mr Yovich accepted the cemetery rape was an example of Edwards’ “longstanding tendency” to attack vulnerable women in a particular way, but it did not mean he murdered Ms Glennon.
“Evidence … may point strongly to a vehicle similar to, but crucially different than the accused’s car as the vehicle that picked up Ms Glennon,” he said.
“If that car was not the accused’s, and the evidence we say raises a very serious doubt about that, then Your Honour could not conclusively conclude he is responsible for taking her away from Claremont, and that is a crucial step in support of guilt.”
Edwards was supposed to join a couple at their Dawesville holiday house that night but did not show up until the following day, allegedly claiming he was trying to reconcile with his first wife.
But Mr Yovich said Edwards was actually breaking up with a girlfriend.
“The accused could have done what he needed to do in the time … but 100km is quite a lot of driving to do in the wrong direction,” he said.
The trial continues.