Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #3

[elastic]

I think we all need a Bex and a lie down.

1. Is this really a lead?
2. We don't know if that is MM. Looks like him. Could be him. But could be someone else.
3. That is highly unlikely to be JR. Would mean Macro are lying. Not unusual in itself but what benefit would they get?
4. The guy who pops his head out. Highly unlikely to be MM. You were pretty hot on this on BF.
5. I know this is websleuths but to suggest anyone on these boards can solve the case from behind their keyboard is fanciful.
6. Kudos to papertrail for identifying this footage but let's put it in perspective; Macro have had this footage from the start. They haven't missed or overlooked it.
7. Any suggestion of police cover up is bordering on nutty. For what you're suggesting might have happened to actually happen is near impossible.
8. I'll humour you and hypothesize that that is MM and JR in the inside footage. So what? What does it change? There's a few questions that need to be answered but it doesn't make a significant difference.

I'd suggest cold showers for some are in order.

And I am not suggesting he is inside speaking to JR. What I am suggesting is that he is inside, a patron of the club, stalking girls from there. He is not the cab driving / police car we assume pulled over and attempted to lure the victims into the car before taking off to his kill spot.

What has come to light recently is that the CSK is a serial rapists (Possibly) if he is also linked to the other rapes/attempts. And he is now a serial killer. He more than likely took Sarah as his trophy, what he did with her could have been either rape, and murder, or just murder, but given his history and escalation Sarah Spiers could have been raped and hidden so that DNA evidence was not obtained, she may actually hold the key to solving the case.

We don't know whether Ciara or Jane were raped. But lets assume they weren't, if the killer was confident he would not be traced via DNA if he dumped the bodies if he did not leave his bodily fluids on the victim, or have raped them, he may be confident to just dump them.

But alot of the evidence now points to the CSK being a serial rapist working the area on foot with a car near by, he would blitz attack his victim, leaving them stunned on occasions, before bungling them into his vehicle. If this is the case we have also been mislead. But if MM is linked to the case (Which he may still not be) but if he is, and the police released the footage saying he was critical to the case and had an entire documentary built around the footage, then we have also been mislead because what they told us of MM is different to what we now know we have of MM because of that split second frame.

 

[elastic]

If the Police did not know about the split second frame then Papertrail has achieved more from his home computer than both NASA and all the people involved in 'Australia's longest and most expensive case '

So I believe from that we have been blatantly mislead and there is more crucial footage, and maybe even an identikit? What would be the harm in releasing an identikit to the public?

 

[Bartholemeus]

What it shows is that the public are being lied to about the case.

1. It doesn't show that at all. It might be the case, it might not be.
2. Can you please refrain from dealing in absolutes without factual basis. You have a theory just as we all do, but please stop presenting it as fact
3. I think you're being rather indulgent thinking this is about you (as a member of the public who has an interest in the case). When the police lie it is strategic and it's not about you. It's about trying to influence the behavior of the CSK or to try and draw out information of leads. For what possible reason do you think the police are lying to us? There's unlikely to be any conspiracies here.

How does that help solving the case?

Perhaps you need to explain how it inhibits solving the case?

The footage was not revealed.

Have you ever considered the MOST LIKELY reason for this is that it's not him? As in police have identified the man inside and know he's not the man outside (MM). The second most likely scenario is that they believe they are the same person but it makes no difference if that extra footage is shown to the public.

I think you should be asking yourself what difference it makes that MM is inside. I think you'll find the answer is because it's to benefit your own curiosity given your interest in the case. I also think you need a reality check in that this case doesn't evolve around your world (or mine for that matter because I have a similar interest)

They gave no indication MM was inside the venue. Yet we are finding out he was

They didn't say either way because it's probably not important. But again you're presenting theory as fact. This is unfair to the majority of posters who a clear delineation between fact and theory. If every poster starts presenting their facts as theory the thread devolves into every other online thread in the history of this case - FUAC (f***** up and closed).

Basically they have bungled the case.

It's hard to believe either big mistakes or many mistakes haven't been made. Unfortunately we don't have visibility on exactly what they are.

Now it looks like they are covering up there mistakes by refusing to allow a coronial inquest.

No doubt.

We are never given information about the case. Its one big deep secret for no apparent reason.

There's a very good reason it's a secret. I'm not sure you're seeing much past your own world.

What I meant is that I honestly believe that if ALL the evidence was out on the table for the public to see, someone on this very forum would solve the case before the Police did.

Sorry but this is fanciful.

If police had their time again they'd solve it. But the difference is aspects early in the investigations would change. Unfortunately we can't turn back time.

I doubt they even care about catching the killer, it seems they are more concerned about keeping the case from joe public.

Highly unlikely.

Papertrail has given the public a lead we havent had until now, it is fresh and opens up many possibilities,

What possibilities? All I see is a bunch of posters frothing at the mouth but not one has been able to articulate what possible implications could be had IF that is MM and/or JR inside.

 

[Parkie]

Pretty good write up there, Elastic. And Barth you have some good points re that too, I might add.

 

[delbertGrady]

It does make a difference if in fact MM was inside the club. The footage should of been released to the public(soon after the disappearance). What's the point in waiting(8yrs?) to release the footage to try and identify MM, and then not telling us that he was also a patron of the club, filmed talking to people inside the club(witnesses to his identity).
iMO- the police would have seen this's and any other footage, and this couple of frames were left in by sloppy editing. Never intended for us to see. In the cops eyes this would not be a new discovery.
8 years later what a joke.

 

[delbertGrady]

Forgive me, 12 years later.

 

[papertrail]

Yes I must say well done on seeing that Papertrail. But it looks highly likely that the person seen inside near the stairs in the one frame is the same person who they wanted to speak to who went up to JR standing by the pole outside. And that pic of Paul Clare. Well he lost his hair pretty quick if it is him eh?

My comment re the pics of Paul Clare are; the MAKO pic is relevant to the 1992 or 1993 charges in Perth and the 2nd 'older age' pic is from the 2006 court appearances in UK so there are at least 12 or 13 years age difference. Many men when they are starting to go shiny on top, choose to buzz their hair to much shorter length. He held down a job in the UK as a sales manager (detailed in news reports covering his trial) so he's cleaned up his image a fair bit I'd say.

I agree with others that say if the 2 images are from the same person his face has changed dramatically; but in the younger image he appears to be disheveled and the image is captured at a different angle therefore his facial features appear different. The 'older' image is taken at a much better angle, he is more composed and facial features are clearer.

 

[papertrail]

Forgive me, 12 years later.

I was going to correct you there Delbert but you got in first. Even 12 years, that's worse isn't it. What I was totally amazed by is that the recent Sunday Night interview with Jane's brother Adam Rimmer, he stated that he had not been shown the CIA footage prior to the 2008 release; in my opinion that is a woeful state of affairs. The family may just have recognized MM.

 

[papertrail]

Who says it is Paul Clare?

Both of the Paul Clare photos are linked to newspaper report articles about his court appearances; we would need to trust and take it at face value that the newspapers included the correct person in (both) photos

 

[papertrail]

If the Police did not know about the split second frame then Papertrail has achieved more from his home computer than both NASA and all the people involved in 'Australia's longest and most expensive case '

I believe from that we have been blatantly mislead and there is more crucial footage, and maybe even an identikit? What would be the harm in releasing an identikit to the public?

I don't think 'we the public have been lied to' or anything like that or even mislead. I am pretty sure the police might not have looked at the footage frame by frame; you don't see what we now know exists, until you do view frame by frame. The intention and purpose of the 2008 footage release was to attempt to identify the guy everyone (include police) refer to as MM. It doesn't mean that the police knew the 'MM / JR inside conti' footage existed or that they know for certain that MM was inside Conti at all. They may have had a person inside Conti they could not readily identify through witness reports so instead of releasing excess footage detailing scenes from inside the Conti, they chose only to release footage directly related to the man interacting with Jane. If this 'newly found' footage is MM inside Conti, and it is indeed Jane with him, and he is using a mobile phone that opens up a totally new avenue of investigation in my opinion. I don't know whether the WA police in 1996 or 1997 had the technical ability to be able to triangulate mobile phone usage with particular cell towers. If that is MM using a mobile phone, the way he is holding the phone away from the woman I believe is JR, tells me he might have faked phoning a taxi for her; thereby leaving it wide open for his strategy of - let her wait a while for the non-appearing taxi, let her get impatient, I will then offer her a lift home (good on me) the knight in shining armour; she already had talked to him inside and he was most helpful therefore a 'nice guy' she could trust. If this is a scenario is had setup, it shows he planned; he was organized.

 

[Sutton]

I don't think 'we the public have been lied to' or anything like that or even mislead. I am pretty sure the police might not have looked at the footage frame by frame; you don't see what we now know exists, until you do view frame by frame. The intention and purpose of the 2008 footage release was to attempt to identify the guy everyone (include police) refer to as MM. It doesn't mean that the police knew the 'MM / JR inside conti' footage existed or that they know for certain that MM was inside Conti at all. They may have had a person inside Conti they could not readily identify through witness reports so instead of releasing excess footage detailing scenes from inside the Conti, they chose only to release footage directly related to the man interacting with Jane. If this 'newly found' footage is MM inside Conti, and it is indeed Jane with him, and he is using a mobile phone that opens up a totally new avenue of investigation in my opinion. I don't know whether the WA police in 1996 or 1997 had the technical ability to be able to triangulate mobile phone usage with particular cell towers. If that is MM using a mobile phone, the way he is holding the phone away from the woman I believe is JR, tells me he might have faked phoning a taxi for her; thereby leaving it wide open for his strategy of - let her wait a while for the non-appearing taxi, let her get impatient, I will then offer her a lift home (good on me) the knight in shining armour; she already had talked to him inside and he was most helpful therefore a 'nice guy' she could trust. If this is a scenario is had setup, it shows he planned; he was organized.

IMO, the police have looked at every frame thousands of times. Maybe they were able to rule this guy out as being MM. Maybe they are misdirecting things for some other reason.

Papertrail, how confident are you that he is holding a cell phone? Are you still thinking if is a large "brick" style phone?

 

[Sutton]

Both of the Paul Clare photos are linked to newspaper report articles about his court appearances; we would need to trust and take it at face value that the newspapers included the correct person in (both) photos

Has anyone done a reverse image search on those photos in Google? I was thinking the bald headed photo might be accidentally credited as Clare.

 

[papertrail]

To Sutton and other contributors; please accept my apologies for not posting the information I had promised before now. Yes Sutton, as you realize, it is an absolutely mammoth task and much more difficult than I had first expected. Comparisons have now been made between 5 different sources and the timeline / date stamps on those sources. I am now preparing information to post on here and I should be able to do this by late this evening; there will be a new find revealed.

 

[papertrail]

IMO, the police have looked at every frame thousands of times. Maybe they were able to rule this guy out as being MM. Maybe they are misdirecting things for some other reason.

Papertrail, how confident are you that he is holding a cell phone? Are you still thinking if is a large "brick" style phone?

I am 100++++% percent confident.

 

[papertrail]

I don't consider MM is Clare; he was not 'sophisticated' enough to put himself inside or immediately adjacent to the Conti.

I would be 100% certain the MAKO image is correct. I wouldn't think a UK chief crime reporter would post incorrect photo either.

 

[Bartholemeus]

But alot of the evidence now points to the CSK being a serial rapist working the area on foot with a car near by, he would blitz attack his victim, leaving them stunned on occasions, before bungling them into his vehicle. If this is the case we have also been mislead.

You're inferring LE have been misleading us on purpose. I very much doubt this is true and it's just not objective to see this as a high percentage play.

Everything about the case suggests they girls got into a car. It's only since there is an apparent link to Karrakatta Man has the blitz attack become a feasible theory. Even then, it's still a 50/50 proposition at best.

But if MM is linked to the case (Which he may still not be) but if he is, and the police released the footage saying he was critical to the case and had an entire documentary built around the footage, then we have also been mislead because what they told us of MM is different to what we now know we have of MM because of that split second frame.

So the only difference is he is meeting or stalking the women from inside venues on the night. That's assuming that MM is the guy in that footage and that the guy in the footage is the CSK.

I'm not sure how much difference that makes to mug punters like you and I?

 

[Bartholemeus]

It does make a difference if in fact MM was inside the club.

How? Police said they identified everyone but MM. So that means the guy inside has either been identified and is not MM, or he is MM and they haven't identified him.

Let's hypothesise that police can't identify MM nor the guy inside and believe they are the same person;

How does that make a difference to the public? It makes a difference to the LE's investigation, but how does showing that inside image of MM make a difference? It's not as if people are going to all of a sudden recognise him. So why should they release it to the public?

I'm getting a "police are obliged to release details to the public for my personal benefit" vibe.

The footage should of been released to the public(soon after the disappearance). What's the point in waiting(12yrs?) to release the footage to try and identify MM, and then not telling us that he was also a patron of the club, filmed talking to people inside the club(witnesses to his identity).

Easy to say in hindsight, but a few thoughts;

1. Early in the case Macro made the mistake of releasing too much info and narrowing people's parameters for recognising clues. One was the blond guy, another was the car washing profile. Al it did was narrow people's perspective. They may have made a decision that they didn't think MM was involved and didn't want people to close their minds because they had it in their heads that the CSK had brown sort of shoulder length straight hair.

2. There's a strong school of thought that the MM video was released as an excuse to parade judoman on TV.

3. Perhaps after 4 or so years in should have been released.

4. Again, please explain what difference it makes telling the public that he was inside? Police have spoken to everyone else in the pub. They don't need to go public because they know those people (who can identify him) already.

iMO- the police would have seen this's and any other footage, and this couple of frames were left in by sloppy editing. Never intended for us to see. In the cops eyes this would not be a new discovery.
8 years later what a joke.

Of course they've seen it - they were the ones who edited it.

The most likely scenario: they know the man inside and know he's not MM and therefore there is no reason to show that footage.


There's no doubt that one or two parts of this case are not what it appears, or the truth is not the most likely option. But most will be so I'm a bit concerned at people who prefer the unlikely scenarios on every aspect of this case.

 

[J35]

Hi all
would like to share my timestamps


MM appears (0:18)
00 01 41 am
Conti man sticks head out (0:38)
00 02 29 am
00 02 35 am (last frame outside)
cut to ice maching (0:45)
00 02 38? am
cut to inside hotel, MM? with two girls one with up-do hairstyle
00 02 ?? am
cut to outside hotel (0:46)
00 03 05? am (subtract 13 second difference)
cut to another angel (0:59)
about 00 03 18 am
End of Flect footage (1:08)
00 03 25am
End of CIA vision of JR (39:36)
00 04 20am

I personally don't think JR ever left the post outside the Conti (Re: JR in side Conti with MM? hypothesis)
I find it interesting that, when conti man sticks his head out, JR appears to walk towards the conti door as if he is the guy she likes
The CIA end of footage time stamp suggests that the hypothesis 'the 1:08 footage shows JR getting into a taxi' is unlikely.
If you look at the conti hotel on google maps, the camera facing south down bay view terrace looks like it has never been upgraded since the attacks.
The guy in the jacket might know Conti Man or is he just moving out to allowing CM to look out the door.
The identikit image from Sunday Night is a guy with a moustache, which doesnt match Conti man.

Lastly, MM could be judoman. If judoman is who most on here think he is, his photos from 1993ish show him with wavey hair, sides slightly shorter. However, in folders self dated 1997, its a much shorter version and less likely to have the tuft as seen on MM.

 

[brookeychook]

Hi all I have been following these threads for a while and thought I might mention something I noticed in the footage of JR... when the guy who looks like MM sticks his head outside the door and looks left to right... there is a guy standing against the pole across from JR and as the guy who looks like MM sticks his head out the door, it looks like he is giving the guy standing across from JR a 'signal' because he walks toward the door straight after.. might be nothing.. but it looks a bit suss to me

 

[Parkie]

Hi all I have been following these threads for a while and thought I might mention something I noticed in the footage of JR... when the guy who looks like MM sticks his head outside the door and looks left to right... there is a guy standing against the pole across from JR and as the guy who looks like MM sticks his head out the door, it looks like he is giving the guy standing across from JR a 'signal' because he walks toward the door straight after.. might be nothing.. but it looks a bit suss to me

So do you...If I may say.... :/