I am sorry if you're embarrassed by your errors.
It's not a simple question.
The CIA documentary was obviously made from input of the WA Police. In that documentary it WAS stated that one of their persons of interest was 34 years old at the time OF THE CLAREMONT MURDERS. You and your buddies keep on about the man that appeared talking about Jane which you then morph into connecting him due his age that one of your buddies also stated he had gotten from the ASX document. No matter how you attempt to construe or misconstrue the fact is that this man that talked about Jane could not have been 34 at the time of the claremont murders.
it IS that simple. I only make judgements on information that is at hand. I will not make a judgement on a hypothetical. If a suspect matched in every way - tell me how your suspect matches in EVERY way; provide the proof of that. If a person that was being discussed matched in EVERY way, that would mean his age would have to match what is known.
Of course I would discount them because if they were aged 34 at the time of the Rowe Park / Karrakatta attack, their 34th birthday would have to be before that. We would have to know that the CIA documentary information that detailed 34 at the time of the MURDERS was not referring to 9 June 1996, but in fact 27 January 1996.
If the reference was to 27 January 1996 that would mean there were 349 days between 13/2/1995 and 27/1/1996 -- that would leave a possible 16 days for the birthdate. But it still doesn't support the theory of yourself and your buddies.
Let's discuss the sexual deviant mentioned on the CIA documentary as the 2nd person of interest; to see how that pans out.
This is all you needed to say then:
"I only make judgements on information that is at hand. I will not make a judgement on a hypothetical."
I should have known nothing is simple for you though.
Of course the documentary was made with input from Police. But its intentions were to monitor the reactions from one of their suspects, rather than garner information from the public, something you fail to realise. Why do you think there was no mention of the Commodore? You know, this one.. (the first time anyone ever heard about it, 2008, a few months before the doco aired)
"Murder suspect drove Holden wagon
A young man warned murder victim Ciara Glennon not to get into a white Holden station wagon the night she disappeared from Claremont.
The man and two others waiting at a bus stop near Christ Church on Stirling Highway saw her talking to the occupants of the car.
She had her knees bent and the palms of her hands resting on her knees to bring her down to the car's passenger window level.
One of the men called out to her that she was stupid to hitch-hike.
Ms Glennon looked up and waved him off with a middle finger sign, and continued talking to the car occupants.
The young men at the bus-stop looked away. When they looked back, both Ms Glennon and the car had disappeared."
http://www.postnewspapers.com.au/20080830/news/001.shtml
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/30275574/claremont-serial-killing-clues-revealed-report/
The last sighting of Ms Glennon was by three men who saw her talking to someone in a white Holden VS Commodore station wagon. (Now confirmed for real).
Why do you think they only mentioned two men still being investigated towards the end of the doco? Why not give out information on all of them? Why give out any at all?
The info given out was designed for the POI's to hear, not for you.
There was no information given out on bags/clothes/missing jewellery of victims, things for people to look for.
Why do you think the Spiers family is happy with the job the police are doing, even after the bungled 12 year delay of MM footage? I'll answer for you. Because he doesn't matter. He wasn't wearing a wig, not left handed, nor wearing a shirt underneath with a soccer ball on it. Paul Ferguson doesn't even give two hoots whether he was identified or not, that's how irrelevant he is. The footage was cut up so you wouldn't see his face.
For all we know the pervert doesn't even exist. Could you think of a more far fetched suspect? A sexual pervert, driving around with a rifle, who is familiar with the bush tracks where CG was found? Why not give out his age too? He certainly sounds like the guy. It's mind boggling that it is not this man.
All I am trying to say is - you are basing your judgements on a TV show that was not designed for supersleuths (such as yourself).
You really think Jim Stanbury was expecting a call from the driver/s of two cars, 12 years later? If he was, perhaps that was why he was moved on. Doubt it though.
I am not discussing this with any buddies, nor keeping on about any man, I have no clue who the martial arts practitioner is. I simply think it is an unfortunate coincidence that after all this effort that went into a documentary, one that actually had input from the police (the only one), they ended up interviewing someone who could be confused with one of the POI's.
Laters Papertrail, good luck finding your sexual pervert.
P.s. Pervert is the term used, not deviant. Same as practitioner was the term used, not expert. Remember?
