Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #5

[Peter Kurten]

Thanks a lot Sprintman, those photos tell me exactly what I needed to know.

Cheers.

 

[Sutton]

Wow, I didn't expect so much detail, HavenWood. Thank you.

The way you worded why you think Dorrough committed suicide and why you he was not remorseful, makes sense to me.

When he told your friend that he'd killed someone and then later claimed it was just a test is a good example of the mind games we always hear psychopaths play. He surely knew that the initial revelation would shock her and she would not be able to question him about it right away. Maybe he just had to tell someone--he was proud of what he'd done. It probably was a test though, to see how she'd react. Can anyone see an innocent person making this type of claim? Do innocent people play mind games like this? I don't think so, but am curious to hear others' opinions.

Also, that was a good example you included of his peeping behavior. He'd killed before, but he still liked to peep.

Thanks for doing what you did to help police bring charges against Dorrough.

I hope you don't judge yourself too harshly as far as character judgement goes. Psychopaths and narcissists spend years practicing their lies. I know a narcissist who would practice his facial expressions in the mirror every day. It was weird. Imagine someone doing that from an early age, as well as every thing else that goes along with portraying a false self. Dorrough didn't just scam you into being his friend. He fooled his whole world.

I listened to profiler Jim Clemente (one of the best, IMO) talk about liars once. He talked about good liars and bad liars. He said he'd been fooled several times by psychopaths and narcissists even though they were pretty bad liars. He said there is something about them, they have a charm or a charisma that makes you want to believe their claims.

 

[marble]

Can anyone see an innocent person making this type of claim? Do innocent people play mind games like this? I don't think so, but am curious to hear others' opinions.

My ex did.

A few times over the decade we were together they alluded to having done something horrible and asking if I was loyal enough to stand by them if I knew the truth.

Then they'd also pass it off as though they were just joking (while getting angry when I wouldn't pledge that kind of loyalty).

I believe clinical narcissists and abusers do this kind of thing as a way to test the boundaries of people close to them.

I don't think my ex ever really did something as terrible as whatever horrible thing they were alluding to, but they liked the drama of pretending to have very dark secrets and they required slavish devotion from their partners. They were also a habitual liar and fabricated other things for their own amusement. I don't think all people (or even most) with a narcissistic personality disorder are violent, but from what I've read this kind of testing and unbalancing isn't unusual for them.


(then again, if they were ever some day arrested for a terrible act of violence I wouldn't be exactly surprised, either).

 

[escapehere]

First time poster here. I grew up in the Western Suburbs and frequented Claremont a lot in the late 90s and 2000s.

Does anybody from Perth remember a documentary that was on TV in the late 90s about the murders which featured a re-enactment very similar to the one on CSA? I was a teenager at the time and my memory is a bit foggy, but it would have been in 1997 or possibly 1998, and I think on Channel 7. It was definitely after CG went missing, because she was part of the re-enactment. I may have just been a "special edition" of Today Tonight, or it might have been it's own separate show - I can't remember.

Does anybody else remember seeing this at the time?

The reason I ask relates to Frankie72's claims that they never saw CG stopped talking to the white Commodore as portrayed in the CSA doco. Some people here have suggested this detail must have been fabricated by CSA (possibly on police instruction). Well, I am 80% sure that this late 90s re-enactment that was shown on TV also had footage of her stopped, hands on her knees, talking to someone in a white car. So whether or not this is true, I don't think it's something CSA made up, I think the assumption she was stopped and talking to a car is much, much older than that. If this is police misinformation, then it's very old.

I would be interested to hear from anybody else who remembers this doco. I wonder if Channel 7 (or whoever it was) still have a copy of it and would be willing to put it on Youtube.

 

[Peter Kurten]

First time poster here. I grew up in the Western Suburbs and frequented Claremont a lot in the late 90s and 2000s.

Does anybody from Perth remember a documentary that was on TV in the late 90s about the murders which featured a re-enactment very similar to the one on CSA? I was a teenager at the time and my memory is a bit foggy, but it would have been in 1997 or possibly 1998, and I think on Channel 7. It was definitely after CG went missing, because she was part of the re-enactment. I may have just been a "special edition" of Today Tonight, or it might have been it's own separate show - I can't remember.

Does anybody else remember seeing this at the time?

The reason I ask relates to Frankie72's claims that they never saw CG stopped talking to the white Commodore as portrayed in the CSA doco. Some people here have suggested this detail must have been fabricated by CSA (possibly on police instruction). Well, I am 80% sure that this late 90s re-enactment that was shown on TV also had footage of her stopped, hands on her knees, talking to someone in a white car. So whether or not this is true, I don't think it's something CSA made up, I think the assumption she was stopped and talking to a car is much, much older than that. If this is police misinformation, then it's very old.

I would be interested to hear from anybody else who remembers this doco. I wonder if Channel 7 (or whoever it was) still have a copy of it and would be willing to put it on Youtube.

I believe there was one about a week after CG's disappearance on a News special but I couldn't tell you if it featured the vehicle.

 

[escapehere]

If Frankie isn't lying, and is 100% certain that car never stopped, then that raises a huge question mark for me. It changes the likely abduction from willingly getting into the car to a blitz attack. SK likely slowed down and checked her out, then continued a little further down the highway before pulling into a side street or driveway of some kind, hiding in a dark spot waiting for her to approach. This would also match the "unconfirmed" sightings of her further west/south on Stirling Highway. (Out of interest, what defines a confirmed vs unconfirmed sighting? Why is the 3 guys' statement confirmed but others are not? Does confirmed require > 1 person corroborating?)

Also, it raises question marks about the police strategy. As incompetent as I think WA Police have been with this case, I don't think they would mess up a witness testimony so badly to misinterpret it from "a car went past her" to "a car pulled over and stopped and she talked to them". If they're intentionally misrepresenting the facts in the CSA re-enactment - why?

 

[88mph]

Does anyone have the article that states Telstra workers could smell "something" in the lead up to the discovery of GC?

Cheers

Anyone? I cannot locate it but know it exists.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Anyone? I cannot locate it but know it exists.

Unsure. It's not something I would retain as it's probably not important and there's a lot of people who have participated in CSK threads over the years who just make stuff up.

I'd only be willing to believe it if it were in a media article and papertrail has access to probably every article ever written on the subject. So if it exists, she would have it.

 

[88mph]

Unsure. It's not something I would retain as it's probably not important and there's a lot of people who have participated in CSK threads over the years who just make stuff up.

I'd only be willing to believe it if it were in a media article and papertrail has access to probably every article ever written on the subject. So if it exists, she would have it.

I'm pretty sure it was a media article.

 

[Bartholemeus]

If Frankie isn't lying, and is 100% certain that car never stopped, then that raises a huge question mark for me. It changes the likely abduction from willingly getting into the car to a blitz attack. SK likely slowed down and checked her out, then continued a little further down the highway before pulling into a side street or driveway of some kind, hiding in a dark spot waiting for her to approach. This would also match the "unconfirmed" sightings of her further west/south on Stirling Highway. (Out of interest, what defines a confirmed vs unconfirmed sighting? Why is the 3 guys' statement confirmed but others are not? Does confirmed require > 1 person corroborating?)

Also, it raises question marks about the police strategy. As incompetent as I think WA Police have been with this case, I don't think they would mess up a witness testimony so badly to misinterpret it from "a car went past her" to "a car pulled over and stopped and she talked to them". If they're intentionally misrepresenting the facts in the CSA re-enactment - why?

Does any one have access to the re-enactment of CG disappearance? Apparently Perth expat Kate Cebrano was in it.

I believe this is the video you are referring to. This IMO is quite important for outsiders like us in deciding whether pick up theory or blitz theory is most likely. Somehow I rationalised to myself that this information (CG talking to car) was only first floated publicly in the 2008 CIA doco. I will try and remember how I came to tha conclusion and update.

I will also (along with others I'm sure) try and locate that re-enactment featuring Kate Cebrano. If anyone can get it, it would papertrail or Peter Kurtin.


Upon doing an analysis of based on the Law of Parsimony (Occum's Razor) I found that it is a lot more likely that SS got into a car rather than was blitz attacked. With JR we don't know, and with CG it all depends on whether there was a car or not. If the car didn't exist then the best options for blitz attack are the carpark behind the medical centre, CCGS right on the cnr of Stirling Hwy and Queanslea or Corry Lynn Rd. The entrance to CCGS gym and MLC seem unlikely.

Re: confirmed v. unconfirmed. The guys at the bus stop definitely saw her. Unsure if the car info has been there from the start but I'm reasonably sure reports of her being sighted walking across the road from the bus stop have been there since day one.

On reasons why police might fabrisate this; it seems unlikely to me due to the timing. I strongly suspect a lot of information that has come out in the last 3 or so years is strategic and innacurate on purpose. But this info came out in 2008. It just doesn't add up to me that at this point in time they released incorrect information on purpose.

 

[Sutton]

Anyone? I cannot locate it but know it exists.

It's mentioned in The Devil's Garden:

Telstra workers in the area had smelt the decomposing body days earlier but had reasoned it was a dead kangaroo.

(Chapter 23, Location 1247)

I am looking for the original article. I think the article talks about the person who found Ciara's body.

 

[Bartholemeus]

There's a reference to it here;

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2007/s2089795.htm

(Excerpt from "Australian Story" - February 2004)
SUPERINTENDENT DAVID CAPORN, HEAD MACRO TASK FORCE: I think one of the very tangible ways that this crime could be solved is in the tracing of the particularly significant items of jewellery that are missing in relation to this case.
POLICE RE-ENACTMENT VIDEO – 1997: Ciara has a silver watch and silver earrings - two in the left ear, one in the right - and had a distinctive Claddagh brooch pinned to her jacket.
(End of excerpt)

 

[escapehere]

I believe this is the video you are referring to. This IMO is quite important for outsiders like us in deciding whether pick up theory or blitz theory is most likely. Somehow I rationalised to myself that this information (CG talking to car) was only first floated publicly in the 2008 CIA doco. I will try and remember how I came to tha conclusion and update.

Yes! That's the one.

So, I'm 70-80% sure that the original 1997 re-enactment also showed her talking to a idling car. I'm basing this simply on the fact that I feel like I've *always* (since the event) been aware she talked to a stopped car. When I watched the 2008 CSA re-enactment it didn't stick out to me like new information, the whole scene seemed very familiar.

If I still lived in Perth I'd visit Channel 7 and ask them if they still had a copy of it. Unfortunately I live overseas now, and I'm not sure they'll just upload a video to Youtube because some random guy emails them and asks them to. I'll still try, though.

IMO this "minor" detail is actually pretty important for us. Who is correct, Frankie or the police re-enactment? I don't know, but it changes the odds for a blitz attack quite a bit.

Also what I found interesting watching the CSA re-enactment is that the car stopped is a white Commodore VS wagon. Is this because this is what one of the guys reported it as, or is it because the police have known this was the car for a long time, but didn't officially confirm until 2015?

Bart, in some older posts you said you got a lift from LW in the late 80s. Was this once, or many times? Did it seem he had no quarms about driving without a license and would drive regularly, or like this was just a once off thing?

 

[Bartholemeus]

Who is correct, Frankie or the police re-enactment?

Even if it turns out the light coloured car talking to CG doesn't exist, it doesn't necessarily mean Frankie is legit (and vice versa).

 

[Bartholemeus]

Bart, in some older posts you said you got a lift from LW in the late 80s. Was this once, or many times? Did it seem he had no quarms about driving without a license and would drive regularly, or like this was just a once off thing?

It was multiple times. As many as 10 times. Memory is vague but at least 5 times, as many as 10. He was unlicenced during this period. There were other times I saw his car (I might have been in a mate's car and spotted his car trawling the highway). It was clear to me he had no mates and would drive around Thurs/Fri/Sat nights by himself.

 

[Frankie1972]

Even if it turns out the light coloured car talking to CG doesn't exist, it doesn't necessarily mean Frankie is legit (and vice versa).

there not way I can prove it. I do understand that

 

[Frankie1972]

It was multiple times. As many as 10 times. Memory is vague but at least 5 times, as many as 10. He was unlicenced during this period. There were other times I saw his car (I might have been in a mate's car and spotted his car trawling the highway). It was clear to me he had no mates and would drive around Thurs/Fri/Sat nights by himself.

Did LW ever where a hat

 

[Peter Kurten]

I believe this is the video you are referring to. This IMO is quite important for outsiders like us in deciding whether pick up theory or blitz theory is most likely. Somehow I rationalised to myself that this information (CG talking to car) was only first floated publicly in the 2008 CIA doco. I will try and remember how I came to tha conclusion and update.

I will also (along with others I'm sure) try and locate that re-enactment featuring Kate Cebrano. If anyone can get it, it would papertrail or Peter Kurtin.


Upon doing an analysis of based on the Law of Parsimony (Occum's Razor) I found that it is a lot more likely that SS got into a car rather than was blitz attacked. With JR we don't know, and with CG it all depends on whether there was a car or not. If the car didn't exist then the best options for blitz attack are the carpark behind the medical centre, CCGS right on the cnr of Stirling Hwy and Queanslea or Corry Lynn Rd. The entrance to CCGS gym and MLC seem unlikely.

Re: confirmed v. unconfirmed. The guys at the bus stop definitely saw her. Unsure if the car info has been there from the start but I'm reasonably sure reports of her being sighted walking across the road from the bus stop have been there since day one.

On reasons why police might fabrisate this; it seems unlikely to me due to the timing. I strongly suspect a lot of information that has come out in the last 3 or so years is strategic and innacurate on purpose. But this info came out in 2008. It just doesn't add up to me that at this point in time they released incorrect information on purpose.

You probably are already aware of this but both these videos have an exert of that appeal you refer to.

He Who Waits (ABC Australian Story, 2004) <modsnip>
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/beforeyouleap2/default.htm

YouTube montage of CSK footage: [video=youtube;yGUH4prJcXc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGUH4prJcXc[/video] (approx 6min)

 

[lampformypath]

Hi Lamp, it is a strange position to be in. I mean, I considered him a friend. I liked the guy. And then to find out I was so wrong about him. When I read about him being charged with Rachael's murder (and realising he was guilty), it shook me. But when I realised he got away with it, I felt stunned, and angry. I also felt quite a bit of guilt. For some time I found it hard to deal with ... the fact that I hadn't contacted the police while he was still at trial, because I assumed he would be found guilty. I kind of blamed myself for him getting away with it.
When I found out he died, I actually wondered if it was suicide? Because at first, I wasn't aware of how he died. When the story finally made it to the news, about his suicide, and the confession note that he left ... that REALLY blew my mind. I mean, it's bad enough knowing that somebody has killed one person ... but to then find out they had actually killed three, and at different times and places ... that does take it to a new level.
So how it affected me, shock, anger, guilt, a bit of fear. My friendship with my former best friend suffered, probably irretrievably. Her and I are no longer in contact.
It showed me that I am not necessarily the good judge of )that I thought I was ... which (as you have also felt) is sad but true.

Thanks HAVEN for your reply. Sorry I haven't written back sooner, had some trouble with this site and typing a reply last night (no doubt my computer, sigh!) Please don't continue to feel any guilt, you have NOTHING to feel guilty for. That's why I asked how YOU were as I know how these sorts of people get under our skin and can make us question our own integrity and actions even though we shouldn't. We would never hurt and abuse and use others the way these cruel narcissists do. And I noticed you mentioned "fear and shock", yep, still there, way down deep - ditto. I have often thought too, if I only kept fighting to expose this man's cruelty to women in his day to day dealings, (all male board members and best mates with perp. so not much hope) maybe that little 12 year old wouldn't have been tortured and raped, but these types of twisted people have debauched fantasies they are determined to carry out, and we could never imagine knowing someone who could do that and us not be aware of it somehow. My boss lead prayers at work each morning, was a published author of a book about living a moral life, etc. etc. see what I mean about leading double lives and nobody questioning them? From all the comments on this site to you, you can tell we all support and admire your courage.

 

[escapehere]

Even if it turns out the light coloured car talking to CG doesn't exist, it doesn't necessarily mean Frankie is legit (and vice versa).

OK. Conspiracy theory #1. Frankie is correct, the car never stopped. It slowed down to check her out, and then parked somewhere a little further on, preparing for a blitz attack. Likewise, the story of the men in the car who spot SS before her disappearance also is not real. Both aren't true, which shifts the weight now heavily towards blitz attacks for all 4 girls. The police made both of these things up for the CIA documentary to make the CSK believe they are looking for a taxi driver (or the like) scenario where the girls willingly got in the car. They also make up the story about MM to make the CSK believe they're looking for the wrong guy. At the end of the CIA doco, the policeman says he wants three things to occur: 1. Driver of the car that drove past / near SS (behind the one with the guys in it) to come forward 2. MM to come forward 3. Owner of the car stopped talking to CG to come forward. In actual fact, all 3 of these things are red-herrings and don't exist. After all, if MM is a red-herring, why not the other stuff?

Thoughts?