I think it might be a situation like Joseph DeAngelo. He quit in the mid to late eighties, most probably primarily because of the pioneering breakthrough of DNA starting to be used to solve crimes. This offender seems similarly forensically aware. The way he forced his victims to clean themselves and brush their teeth. He understood trace evidence that could be left in and on the body, and how to remove it. He also had Joseph DeAngelo's lack of hesitation to kill if he could be identified, if the theory about why he killed Karmein is accurate. DeAngelo killed several times before it became a consistent part of his MO, each time because someone confronted him or stumbled across him. Claude Snelling, and Brian and Katie Maggiore. Detective William McGowen only survived because the shot DeAngelo fired at him hit his flashlight, not his head, a difference of a couple of inches.
MOO
Although I am new to this forum have had a great interest in this topic for a long time.
I agree with you that this person was Like Joseph DeAngelo. De Angelo was a police officer whose primary motivation was to show that he was 'superior' to his police colleagues. He primarily was not a sex offender. The spectrum task force in Victoria approached this case from a 'sex offender' perspective and failed to identify any convincing assailants. I actually think this is a 'police officer' with similar motivation as DeAngelo.
What alerted me to this was his use of language during the Nicola Lynas abduction as well as behaviour during the abductions. He uses the term 'Police Surgeon' which is a term not in common usage in the general population in Australia nor something a criminal would say. A police officer however uses that sort language. Other than his tactical and forensic ability, he seemed to get most joy out of watching the media coverage of the case while in the presence of the victims.
As psychopaths often get involve in a continuing way, I looked at Police officers who had continued to involve themselves in the case despite not actually being involved in the investigation. The idea is that they would continue to receive gratification out of their misleading behaviour and making their colleagues look like idiots. I found one. Here is what I know.
He claims to have given evidence as the identity of the perpetrator to the investigation which is likely untrue.
He talks authoritatively on the Spectrum task force investigation but a close examination of his work history reveals that he left the Victorian police soon after the Nicola Lynas abduction and returned to the police once Spectrum Task force was shut down. He was never a member of the Spectrum task force.
There is an extremely good chance he would end up on the task force and would have been exposed to the victims and therefore identification by his voice. I surmised that this was a possible reason he left the police force.
There are other red flags that suggest he is psychopath and that he possibly lies to gain convictions.
There is also a possibility that he has used his position to destroy evidence in other cases.
In summary none of this is evidence or proof he was involved. It is best a theory based on my observations.
From my perspective, he requires closer scrutiny from an investigative sense and that's all. I can't reveal his name but have given readers this information so they can untangle the jigsaw if they wish. I have tried to contact investigators but unfortunately have received no replies. I really don't know where to go with this.
Recently the Hunters program revealed that there was DNA evidence in the Mr Cruel case. They interviewed a police officer whom remained de-identified who made the claim on the program. The investigators who were really on the Spectrum taskforce looked really surprised by this information. The thought crossed my mind that the secret police informant was the same officer that I had identified above. I approached the journalist confidentially but have yet to receive a response.
I hope this spurs the discussion.
