- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 3,721
I wonder if Bobbed Haircut Man is Telecom Man?
It's a girls haircut here too. Put this into google images and take your pick:So. Much. New. Information.
Thanks y'all! I just scanned through, now I need to piece it together with the other details and a question I've been thinking about re: MM and a possible blitz attack.
Real quick--what's a 'bob' haircut in Australia? Here it's a girl hair cut.


So. Much. New. Information.
Thanks y'all! I just scanned through, now I need to piece it together with the other details and a question I've been thinking about re: MM and a possible blitz attack.
Real quick--what's a 'bob' haircut in Australia? Here it's a girl hair cut.
I don't think so (re selling papers). This is a police strategy. Police have devised a strategy and told the media what message they want broadcast. How accurate the message is and what their play is is anyone's guess.My jaded self says in order to keep the story going and sell more papers.
Otherwise it could be a pressure tactic, to remind the perp that work is on-going.
Probably a bit of both.
Great find. I don't see any point in the police not releasing this video. I wonder if it's got a face shot? I wonder if it's MM?
I don't think so (re selling papers). This is a police strategy. Police have devised a strategy and told the media what message they want broadcast. How accurate the message is and what their play is is anyone's guess.
Some have speculated it could be part of a ploy to delay or prevent a coronial inquest but I strongly believe this is designed at catching the CSK.
If this is the case then the reenactment of SS leaving Club Bay View on CIA doco is totally incorrect.
I wonder if Bobbed Haircut Man is Telecom Man?
...Here we have very similar descriptions of a man offering lifts. The taxi driver Steve's description of a handsome well dressed man with blonde hair who forced the women he believed to be Sarah Spiers out of his car.View attachment 83124
The Post has published two articles this year on the CSK, both by the same author.
The first article stated that they were doing familial DNA testing
The second article stated that their was forensic evidence linking a rape in 1995 with the last Claremont victim - this evidence was uncovered six years ago.
Does anyone have any theories as to why the info was published in this order and not the reverse? Or why it wasn't all just published back in May?
Attachment 83124 won't open for me either. I'm getting Invalid Attachment specified.papertrail- Thank you for taking the time to post these articles. I am unable to access the above attachment (tried duding different devices, apps, browsers). Could you please repost When you have a chance?
I had a mate who had one in 1990-ish and they were rare and well out of fashion by that time.
I'm confused about conflicting articles. Most say the victim didn't see anything but an early article says 183cm, brown shoulder length hair, medium to solid build and a light colour PV (Panel Van for anyone not familiar with Aussie language).
So which one is it? Is the first article wrong? Or did police decide to say as little as possible because they wanted this information in house? Or did the media out of empathy suppress the details?
papertrail- Thank you for taking the time to post these articles. I am unable to access the above attachment (tried using different devices, apps, browsers). Could you please repost when you have a chance?
My jaded self says in order to keep the story going and sell more papers.
Otherwise it could be a pressure tactic, to remind the perp that work is on-going.
Probably a bit of both.