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

[papertrail]

Re age.

OK the ASX document dated 28 October 2011 is actually a company report which was 'as at' 30 June 2011 to comply with legal company reporting requirements. In that document the age is detailed as '51' -- therefore as at 30 June 2011 the age was 51 therefore this 'age' can be calculated a couple of different ways.

1. 2011 minus 51 makes DoB year to be 1960. The CIA doc announced the martial arts POI was 34 at the time when the Claremont matters commenced. Hence 1960 + 34 equals 1994 therefore not aged 34 at the time of Claremont murders.

2. If this man turned 51 at some time in 2010, it would need to be between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011 for his age to be detailed as '51' in the ASX document. Therefore 2010 minus 51 equals DoB year to be 1959. Again 1959 + 34 equals 1993; therefore not aged 34 at the time of Claremont murders.

Bartholomeus said ages (months) ago in reply to one of my posts, that he'd obtained an ASX report that detailed this man's age; a simple exercise in very simple maths would have verified this man was NOT the martial arts expert who was 34 years old as detailed in the CIA documentary.

Doesn't match your theories the man you refer to as the martial arts expert is the POI. You can't go twisting things by saying oh...the police put him on and twisted his age to fit.

BTW I didn't realize I had so much power that I could derail a thread, or stop people from putting out their own sensible and mature discussions; first time I've ever been accused of wielding such power and control.

 

[*Indigo*]

A list of all possibilities regarding dna -

1. The press are wrong and they have no dna. Important to note, there has been no official police confirmation that they have dna.

2. The police do have a full dna sample. A full profile is available to compare to POI's and database.
No arrest has been made so that rules out a match to any POI and anyone on the database. i.e. no one with their dna registered.

3. Police have a partial dna sample. This is less conclusive but ...
* They may have been able to confidently rule out all POI's and all on the database.
* Or they are able to rule out some POI's and some on the databases but they do have possible matches and are looking for more evidence.

I guess this could mean anything, we don't know.

 

[papertrail]

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

See bolded section in above quote.

I did this because a very simple year of birth check proves he was not the POI 34yo martial arts practitioner as referred to in the CIA documentary.

There is no harm in having frank, sensible and mature discussion as long as what is written does not cause harm to the reputation of someone that has NEVER been named by law enforcement as a person of interest (POI) or suspect. What gets my back up, is that when people on here (WS) and other places (forums or whatever you want to refer these online places as) have directly connected their discussions in a way that the person can easily be identified by anyone reading the comments that are written in full public view.

If you bother to check a couple of Australian (and international) laws, you will find that any person so harmed / injured by slanderous or defamatory remarks, and I would certainly call making accusatory comments against this man in that the comments are accusing him of being the person of interest in a serial killing and anyone reading the comments can make out who you are referring to.

The below information is LAW and can be read in full at http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html

The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him. Publication of defamatory matter can be by (a) spoken words or audible sound or (b) words intended to be read by sight or touch or (c) signs, signals, gestures or visible representations, and must be done to a person other than the person defamed.

 

[papertrail]

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, do your maths correctly.
  
  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. I am participating in the discussion, If you want to block me from putting my point of view, you will not succeed. What is the use of wasting time undertaking a discussion that is already 'dead ended' at the very beginning if you do some rudimentary calculations that prove the 'dead end' at the beginning of the discussion. I think this discussion regarding the person everyone is referring to as the guy that appeared on the CIA documentary talking about Jane, is actually somebody pushing their hidden agenda.

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. I have already put out my thoughts on anyone being even slightly connected to the victims being treated as a person of interested, then cleared as a result of police investigations. 11.6kms is not considered to be 'local' -- stop trying to push that point.

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. This man uses this FB page that you refer to, to communicate with people from different regions of the world. We cannot make any assumptions as to why he had not publicly posted messages of sympathy or whatever else. Why don't you ask him directly yourself and let us know his reply.

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. Do you ever consider for the slightest moment that police have had all witnesses under a secrecy contract with a request not to publish anything. I am sure as hell wouldn't be putting anything about anyone I knew personally as a victim of an 'unfound' serial killer on my FB page.

• 
  "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. No comment on such an outrageous remark.
  
  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. It's pretty clear you have made yourself the spokesperson for the tag team.

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. I do not have to wait for an invitation to join in; this is a public forum and I will treat it as such. If any of my comments are inappropriate to discussion, I am sure the moderators would act accordingly.

See my comments in red.

 

[elleAU]

If a person went straight to university after graduating high school, and graduated in 1991, that person would have been 25/26 at the time of SS's disappearance. Even if you added a couple of years in there (e.g. a gap year between studies; a bit longer to complete degree), IMO it is still a way off the 34 year-old age mentioned in the doco. Photos appear to support the age of mid-20s in 1996.

Edited to add: I have not seen the documentation that confirms age being 51 in 2011, so if so, I stand corrected.

 

[papertrail]

I am astonished to find that David John Birnie and yes that is WA's Birnie, was registered on the electoral role in Herbert Queensland for 1980. And there are loads of missing and / or murdered women and unsolved cases in NSW and Qld (in the Herbert electorate) around 1979 / 1980 -- could he be connected ?

http://www.australianmissingpersonsregister.com/MissingMurdered70s80s.htm

 

[papertrail]

If a person went straight to university after graduating high school, and graduated in 1991, that person would have been 25/26 at the time of SS's disappearance. Even if you added a couple of years in there (e.g. a gap year between studies; a bit longer to complete degree), IMO it is still a way off the 34 year-old age mentioned in the doco. Photos appear to support the age of mid-20s in 1996.

Y

You need to do some more research before making assumptions like that. He has had a couple of careers - one manual ie as a carpenter (electoral role - 1st appearance 1980 and from memory 1st registration is after turning 18 years of age -- but keep in mind the electoral role years are relevant to when the electoral role was prepared for state or federal elections). He graduated from UWA in 1991 and you will find if you do your research you will work out that he may not have started at uni immediately after highschool completion. He also attended the Japanese uni at some stage.

 

[elleAU]

Happy to stand corrected. I looked at photos that, to me, supported that age as well (mid-late 20s in 1996), but I'm certainly not an expert in age estimation.

 

[firestarter]

There is no harm in having frank, sensible and mature discussion as long as what is written does not cause harm to the reputation of someone that has NEVER been named by law enforcement as a person of interest (POI) or suspect. What gets my back up, is that when people on here (WS) and other places (forums or whatever you want to refer these online places as) have directly connected their discussions in a way that the person can easily be identified by anyone reading the comments that are written in full public view.

If you bother to check a couple of Australian (and international) laws, you will find that any person so harmed / injured by slanderous or defamatory remarks, and I would certainly call making accusatory comments against this man in that the comments are accusing him of being the person of interest in a serial killing and anyone reading the comments can make out who you are referring to.

The below information is LAW and can be read in full at http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html

The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him. Publication of defamatory matter can be by (a) spoken words or audible sound or (b) words intended to be read by sight or touch or (c) signs, signals, gestures or visible representations, and must be done to a person other than the person defamed.

So Tony Taxi would of had a very strong case.
But in order to win a defamation case he would have to prove the allegations were false?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[papertrail]

If a person went straight to university after graduating high school, and graduated in 1991, that person would have been 25/26 at the time of SS's disappearance. Even if you added a couple of years in there (e.g. a gap year between studies; a bit longer to complete degree), IMO it is still a way off the 34 year-old age mentioned in the doco. Photos appear to support the age of mid-20s in 1996.

Edited to add: I have not seen the documentation that confirms age being 51 in 2011, so if so, I stand corrected.

It wouldn't harm to perform some simple google searches

 

[papertrail]

So Tony Taxi would of had a very strong case.
But in order to win a defamation case he would have to prove the allegations were false?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope you're wrong there. He being TT, wouldn't have to prove anything. It would be the accuser and people that continued to post and repost the information publicly that would need to prove their allegations that he was a named POI of WA police. Given the 1st and initial accuser is now deceased, the posters and reposters would be in the firing line.

 

[elleAU]

It wouldn't harm to perform some simple google searches

I went straight to the source to see what I could find to help with dates/age. As I said, happy to stand corrected. Not as happy to be spoken down to, I might add.

FWIW, one search informs me that there was a person of the same name and middle initial born in London, England in 1960.

 

[88mph]

Y

You need to do some more research before making assumptions like that. He has had a couple of careers - one manual ie as a carpenter (electoral role - 1st appearance 1980 and from memory 1st registration is after turning 18 years of age -- but keep in mind the electoral role years are relevant to when the electoral role was prepared for state or federal elections). He graduated from UWA in 1991 and you will find if you do your research you will work out that he may not have started at uni immediately after highschool completion. He also attended the Japanese uni at some stage.

What kind of cars has he driven throughout this period?

 

[papertrail]

I went straight to the source to see what I could find to help with dates/age. As I said, happy to stand corrected. Not as happy to be spoken down to, I might add.

FWIW, one search informs me that there was a person of the same name and middle initial born in London, England in 1960.

Please provide the link to your source internet document / reference

 

[papertrail]

What kind of cars has he driven throughout this period?

How am I supposed to know that but as a starting point --perhaps something with 4 wheels

 

[elleAU]

Please provide the link to your source internet document / reference

Yes, sure. You can conduct a search here:

http://www.genesreunited.com.au/

 

[papertrail]

Please provide the link to your source internet document / reference

Found your source - Ancestory. Born 1960 add 34 equals 1994. Ruled out as being the martial arts practitioner on CIA doc. .. simple as that. Also do not believe this UK person is in anyway connected to the person that lives in Western Australia.

The reason being he does not appear in the Australian Archives passenger (to Australia) from anywhere.

 

[elleAU]

Found your source - Ancestory. Born 1960 add 34 equals 1994. Ruled out as being the martial arts practitioner on CIA doc. .. simple as that. Also do not believe this UK person is in anyway connected to the person that lives in Western Australia.

The reason being he does not appear in the Australian Archives passenger (to Australia) from anywhere.

So you are ruling him out based on this evidence... however, you do not believe that this is the same person?

FYI, another search informs me that someone by the same name disembarked in Adelaide in 1964.

 

[CSK?]

Confirming or ruling him out based on the single statement in the CIA doco "who was 34 at the time of the murders" is absolutely rubbish. It will take a lot more than that to convince me either way. His age is only a small piece of a much larger puzzle.

 

[88mph]

How am I supposed to know that but as a starting point --perhaps something with 4 wheels

You're supposed to know because you seem to be an expert on all facts relating to this person. You also come across as if you know this person.