Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #4

[papertrail]

Paul Clare "cleared of any involvement in Claremont".

BBM



Glare of suspicion burnt several innocent men
January 27, 2016: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/w...lare-of-suspicion-burnt-several-innocent-men/

If you go back and read comments by WA police rep Byleveld you will see the WA police did not 'bother' to hone in on Clare due to the fact the he was convicted and jailed in UK - tucked away nice and safely. But that doesn't mean he is now no longer a POI re Claremont at all. I am yet to be convinced the police have matchable DNA.

Recent dinner party convo the DNA discussion surfaced, and someone came up with an interesting scenario. If seminal fluid had been left at one of the scenes, the fluid may not necessarily be from the actual perpetrator but obtained by him through some sort of fertility procedure / donation -- used to confuse the forensics at the scenes.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Sorry papertrail I didn't realize that you are being attacked when you are just putting forth alternative views and evidence.
Everyone deserves to be able to post their views in a constructive way here without being attacked.

But regular posters will only put up with so many untruths. Papertrail is not being attacked, people are just asking for him/her to provide sources for things he/she claims as fact. Unfortunately asking for evidence makes papertrail quite defensive and almost aggressive.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Your comment just shows you where your mind is -- it is not on trying to develop sensible and mature discussion. All you want to do is hone in on people's personal circumstances.

There is NO convenience.

Well it is convenient. You claim you grew up locally and I want you to prove it. And you can prove it without giving anything about yourself away. But you conveniently don't want to.

 

[papertrail]

But regular posters will only put up with so many untruths. Papertrail is not being attacked, people are just asking for him/her to provide sources for things he/she claims as fact. Unfortunately asking for evidence makes papertrail quite defensive and almost aggressive.

You are continually attacking me and now this very day you have 'demanded' information on the orphanage and school I had attended. You make demands like this on any other person on here. And quite frankly, I am astonished and offended that you made this request of me.

You have continually accused me of lying and misrepresenting -- if that is not attacking in the most personal way, I don't know what is.

 

[firestarter]

Listening to SD in the doco.
He describes her as "Soft" and "Smiley"
Soft comes across as a physical description. But he could be describing her personality.
How would he know this unless he was very close to her?
Then later described the time as being "nasty"
He must of been close enough to the family to want to console them.

Personally I would not describe someone as Soft unless I had had personal physical contact. Imo.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Basilisk]

Recent dinner party convo the DNA discussion surfaced, and someone came up with an interesting scenario. If seminal fluid had been left at one of the scenes, the fluid may not necessarily be from the actual perpetrator but obtained by him through some sort of fertility procedure / donation -- used to confuse the forensics at the scenes.

Its possible, but frankly rather far-fetched. Given everything I have read I think the weight of evidence is on these crimes being opportunistic, so obtaining some seminal fluid and keeping it fresh and handy for just such an opportunity beggars belief. A condom is probably a better bet, and a lot simpler to obtain...

If they are opportunistic victims, then all the discussion about friends and acquaintances of the victims is also likely to be fruitless. I am pretty confident the police would have explored all such connections very thoroughly.

 

[elleAU]

Hi all! With all due respect to two of the most prominent commenters here - take a step back. From my understanding (and I could be wrong, but I have followed all of these threads for some time now, and observed from the outset), the questioning of personal circumstances seems more to do with substantiating claims. As a rule, don't make claims that you can't substantiate. Don't attempt to pass off opinion as fact. When you are caught doing so, it leads to a level of distrust that makes others want to question everything you bring to the table. Take a step back from the personal comments/questions and, if possible, come together with this case in mind. People are allowed to have differences in opinion; we can be respectful and work on theories together, as well as alongside each other. I for one am a keen reader/researcher/follower and would be so disappointed if this thread and discussion was shut down.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Hi all! With all due respect to two of the most prominent commenters here - take a step back.

I won't be taking a step back. Regular posters seem to have to tag team this one poster because every time someone wants to discuss Judoman this poster won't let them. There have been recent multiple requests to discuss this person. One poster insists of obstructing any discussion.

With all due respect, don't apportion any blame to me. Either we let this person steam roll the thread or we stand up to it.

 

[J35]

Either we let this person steam roll the thread or we stand up to it.

It's time to stand up. We have put up with the LW discussion long enough.

Judoman might not be the MAP, but he is a worthy candidate to discuss.

If indeed SS's work place was a financial consulting firm as stated by other WS members, Judoman might have had dealings with it for financial advice, for example, with handling of JM's stock payouts and setting up beneficial ownership ABN businesses (has 2) to transfer the payouts into- or learning the best way to invest his money into property etc. Another possibility is that a company that JM worked at/or board member for, used the financial consulting of SS's company. This is a possible avenue of how he may have known SS. I too do not see how one can just say "he had no working relationship with ss" without providing further details.

P.s. Discussion about Judoman, and who he is, is a carry over from the BF thread.

 

[leigh123]

i still find it pretty strange that someone who was at least close enough to Jane to appear on the Doco as her friend has never mentioned it on facebook.

You would think especially on the night it was due to air he would have commented something at least to acknowledge it. Or the 20th anniversary.

Whether he is POI or not I find it very odd that he would never mention his murdered friend even on the night he was on TV talking about her.

 

[elleAU]

I won't be taking a step back. Regular posters seem to have to tag team this one poster because every time someone wants to discuss Judoman this poster won't let them. There have been recent multiple requests to discuss this person. One poster insists of obstructing any discussion.

With all due respect, don't apportion any blame to me. Either we let this person steam roll the thread or we stand up to it.

The "step back" that I intended was a figurative one. If posters are all respectful of each other, there should be no steamrolling, nor snark slinging. I am not interested in blame, just this thread staying on track. If you want to discuss the MAP, you go for it, as far as I'm concerned. Those who don't agree with the value in the discussion should be able to provide their reasons as to why they eliminate JM/SD/whoever. Opinion presented as opinion, and fact stated as fact (and supported by evidence).

 

[elleAU]

i still find it pretty strange that someone who was at least close enough to Jane to appear on the Doco as her friend has never mentioned it on facebook.

You would think especially on the night it was due to air he would have commented something at least to acknowledge it. Or the 20th anniversary.

Whether he is POI or not I find it very odd that he would never mention his murdered friend even on the night he was on TV talking about her.

It is possible that he has but it is not a status/post set to public on FB (therefore you wouldn't be able to see it unless you are a friend of his). Personally, I found his presence on the doco odd. And I think that the doco would have been orchestrated (or at the very least, closely monitored) by the SCS, so at this stage I would not rule out the possibility that he was used for a reason other than what was portrayed.

 

[GreenDevil]

Last week I discussed the 2008 CIA doco with a contact of mine and was informed that the one and only reason it was aired was to get POI's talking that were being monitored with listening devices. MM was just shown to throw them off the scent, so they generate discussion.

 

[CSK?]

You see -- here you go again. I NEVER SAID THAT RZ HAD A PENIS ENLARGEMENT -- I SAID ENHANCEMENT. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

And I do not go into defence mode at all about the person you refer to as JM -- in fact, I would be doing quite the opposite if there is any evidence at all that he worked at the same place as Sarah Spiers and it was proven he had a close working relationship with her. That is the 1st step in proving anything in your argument that you should be looking at. The mere fact that he had appeared on CIA doc talking about Jane Rimmer, and the mere fact the he is an EXPERT as Judo, in no way makes him a martial arts practitioner -- which in my mind, a martial arts practitioner would be someone that took part in some form of the art as a fitness regime.

Open up your mind and take of your blinkers.

Just because he may have attended UWA at the same time as CG means nothing. How many other people attended uni at the same time as CG that also could be described as a martial arts practitioner ? The POI doesn't necessarily have had attended uni at the same time as CG either.

Provide the proof that the person you refer to as JM attended the Swanbourne centre you are referring to -- or is this just unfounded rumour ?

I know SS didn't work elsewhere previously due to the fact it is mentioned in many articles that where she worked as her 1st job.

You are the one arguing that the person you refer to as JM worked with Sarah Spiers due to the fact you keep on and on about him being the POI referred to in the CIA doc. You therefore, need to supply something to support your argument.

The entire point of discussing Judoman was so we could share info, we could dig up new info or we could find absolutely nothing, but you skipped the want or need for a discussion to proclaim his innocence right from the get go, it is very likely Judoman is innocent, very likely indeed, but there is no harm in talking about him, in researching his history and finding evidence to prove or disprove if he is in fact the MAE or not because at the end of the day, both you and I have no clue if Judoman is or is not the MAE

 

[CSK?]

playing devil's advocate to the theory that the Martial Arts Practitioner is not Judoman, would the police really put a possible suspect on a national television special talking about one of his presumed victims? Wouldn't this really prejudice any future trial... if it turned out police found enough evidence to believe that he was the CSK and he appeared in court for the murders?
I can't think of any other crime investigations as serious as this where police have put a possible suspect on television in this manner, completely identifying him and have him talk about one of his victims, does anyone know of any? (I'm not saying it couldn't happen)
I'm just keeping my mind open about this question and just looking at possibilities here, I thought aimtosolves post was very interesting, is it possible that the facts that seem to indicate it is him are just coincidences?

If I were the police and I had a suspect in my investigation that was willing to talk to media and the likewise I'd do everything in my power to get him on TV, that is the kind of exposure that could make or break a case. Not only do you get to see what he says, how he acts e.t.c it gives the chance to jog the memories of any potential witnesses.

I know for child killers it is very common for them to throw themselves into the media spotlight, as far as serial killers it's less likely but no doubt still common enough. what better place to hide than in plain sight.

 

[CSK?]

The word 'expert' was NEVER used. The word 'PRACTITIONER' was used -- a well educated martial arts PRACTITIONER.

A practitioner is someone that merely 'practices'. If there was a martial artist expert involved, I am sure that word expert would have been used instead of practitioner.

This is another case of trying to pass off an opinion as a fact in order to clear JudoMan.

"practitioner prakˈtɪʃ(&#601nə/
noun

• a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession "
  
  
  Now Judoman would have been considered as actively engaged in martial arts, or by definition a practitioner of martial arts. At the time of the murders Judoman was what.... 21 - 26 years old, at that stage most likely not considered an expert, but for the sake of argument one can be both considered an expert and a practitioner in a field of interest.
  
  I've not asked you to explain a single thing yet but I would like you to explain why there is no lack of willingness on your behalf to be open to a discussion on Judoman if you are so sure he is not the MAE(practitioner) mentioned in the doco would this discussion not lead to dead ends and in the end clear our suspicion of Judoman. As of yet no one here can provide any real proof that he is not the MAE mentioned, but in the same breath you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to prove that he isn't. this was the entire point of discussing him.

Now Judoman might not have been THE POI mentioned in the documentary but I can all but guarantee except for the case of complete police incompetence that he would none the less be a POI in the over all investigations at some stage. Why? simply because he had links to at least one of the victims and any law enforcement officer can tell you that the victim knew their attacker in about 56% - 72% of cases (percentages differ depending on sources) so it would only be reasonable that any male who knew the victims and was local to the area (and yes the 11.6km you mentioned is still local and what i'd consider close to Claremont) would be considered a person of interest.

In regards to Judomans facebook page and the post he posted on the anniversary, and your opinion of him mentioning anything about JR being tacky, well we live in the world of facebook, I wish my family happy birthday via facebook, I wished my niece my deepest sympathy after her father passed away on facebook, I wished my best friend back home a congratulations on his first born once again over facebook, it is not tackyIMO, it is a communication tool of the 21st century. No different from when telegrams and telephones replaced the need to physically communicate in person with others.

Now from someone close enough to represent the family I would expect at the very least a post of some substance like "gone but not forgotten" "Miss you JR" anything to show some level of support to the Rimmer family, instead he does the complete opposite, and posts about the conti, even if it was innocently done it was rather crass or simply ignorant to do so at that time. Now this does not prove anything in relation to his guilt or innocence but it does strike me as extremely odd and was what brought Judoman back into the worthy of discussion category for me.

• 
  "The man people on here refer to as JM, was partly educated at a Japanese university. Look at their values. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokushikan_University" - papertrail
  
  The values of that university have nothing to do with Judomans values. I'm sure the university Ted Bundy attended as a law student didn't have the values of bashing woman to death in their sleep. The values of any outside source remain simply that, values of an outside source and should never be used as a character reference to any individual.
  
  PAPERTRAIL......
  Now with all this said we are discussing Judoman with or without your consent or co operation. Aside from your trying to shut down every discussion on Judoman I do admire your input, respect your views and trust your research, which is why I really would like you to be a part of this discussion at least with an open mind.

If you want to join in then that is great, but if not then please respect our decision to do so and try not to hijack the discussion.

 

[OldDude]

The Martial Arts Practitioner mentioned in the CIA Program is specifically referred to as '34 at the time of the murders' (96/97). Why not just say mid thirties? This is obviously a detail Wapol pushed. Presumably for a reason. This would put MAP's DOB in the 1961 to early 1962 range.

If the ages line up between MAP and SD that's at least something, if not - this is a waste of time.

10 second search shows SD was 51 in late 2011. If it's even the same SD. Who the hell knows. Not me.

 

[Bartholemeus]

The Martial Arts Practitioner mentioned in the CIA Program is specifically referred to as '34 at the time of the murders' (96/97). Why not just say mid thirties? This is obviously a detail Wapol pushed. Presumably for a reason. This would put MAP's DOB in the 1961 to early 1962 range.


If the ages line up between MAP and SD that's at least something, if not - this is a waste of time.

10 second search shows SD was 51 in late 2011. If it's even the same SD. Who the hell knows. Not me.

My calcs have him most likely born in 1960 making him 35/36 at the time of SS andprobably 34 at time of Karra. Apparently the link between CSK was made in 2008.

If we assume he's the MAP I'd assume there was some cajoling to get him on the show, "don't worry old chap, we'll change your age, no one will ever put 2 and 2 together".

 

[*Indigo*]

If the other POI's are actually cleared as stated in press, and they do have a dna link from kattakarra and Ciara Glennon crime scenes then it follows - wouldn't they have tested Martial Arts guy?
I am not sure about dna evidence, if dna evidence means that a unique profile can be found, or if degraded dna means it is possible to have enough to match a number of suspects but not one specifically. I know of one case, the west mesa murders where they had a hair sample that could be matched to a suspect but it could also belong to other people, i.e. a percentage of 2% of the population.
Does anyone know about dna samples and how specific they can be?
I guess it comes down to what they have in terms of dna and how specific this profile is.

 

[*Indigo*]

Ok answered my own questions, found an excellent article that explains everything in terms of a guide to dna simplified.
Quote -

" No suspect Cases:
Being able to collect and analyze a full DNA profile is powerful evidence, but it’s not always going to lead investigators to the perpetrator. There must be a matching profile available to compare it to either in a database or from a known sample. There is no master database that contains everyone’s DNA information.

Partial Profiles:
In cases where samples have very low quantities of DNA, are exposed to extreme environmental conditions or are not properly preserved, it may be difficult to obtain a full DNA profile and the test may only yield a partial profile. However, partial profiles may still be helpful in determining if an individual could be included or excluded in the investigation. "

Link to article:
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/SimplifiedGuideDNA.pdf