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

[papertrail]

Just my opinion Sutton, based on the fact that his pants seem a lot darker than the original MM..and tighter. The minutest glimpse of original MM's pants look lighter...the other thing is...he appears to be with friends and if you follow him, he appears to collect a jumper from that friend..I agree, he seems to interact with JR.
That's how I see it anyway.

What I find interesting though is the vision where Steve Leibman is speaking to Jim Stanbury at the 40 :52 mark, if you watch the computer in the background, there is vision of a group of people gathered in the disabled zone, but if you keep your eye on the top left, you'll see Jane Rimmer cross the road towards Gugeri street. Why weren't we shown that vision?

Re you jumper comment. I think you are tracking the incorrect guy because when MM1 walked out of the Conti he was carrying his jacket with his right hand. He was not accompanied by anyone and no one follows him.

Re your colour of clothing comment. When WA Police released the cctv footage Superintendent Byleveld warned;

"many details had been distorted by the CCTV footage, including height and colour." see 3rd para from bottom of linked article.

Interesting also that the police did not know the make or model of the vehicle witnesses supposedly sighted. (last para in linked article)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...d-solve-killings/story-e6frg6pf-1111117332194

 

[papertrail]

He stated the following at 37.58 of 54.02 (hayleyjane1985 youtube CIA copy) cctv timestamp 23.58.56 when interacting with Leibmann:

"we've identified and interviewed all of these people on the street and none of them have been able to provide us with any significant information".

at cctv timestamp 00.02.18 Leibmann says to Det Stanbury:

"all these people you've spoken to" etc.

I think this makes it pretty clear that police have not identified everyone inside the Conti however please correct me if you've got proof police have stated they identified everyone inside the Conti.

 

[papertrail]

J

What I find interesting though is the vision where Steve Leibman is speaking to Jim Stanbury at the 40 :52 mark, if you watch the computer in the background, there is vision of a group of people gathered in the disabled zone, but if you keep your eye on the top left, you'll see Jane Rimmer cross the road towards Gugeri street. Why weren't we shown that vision?

The vision is included at 37.47 of 54.02 (hayleyjane1985 youtube copy) cctv timestamp 23.58.43 to 23.58.46. This shows Jane standing at pole 2 and shows her moving out about 2 metres onto Bayview Tce (Det Stanbury mentions Jane's move). When viewing this section, take notice of a group of people at the bottom of the screen exiting the Conti. They make their way out onto Bayview Tce and this is the same group you are referring to.

 

[papertrail]

That is a very good point. It could mean the cemetery was significant to the rapist/killer only,especially if the victim could not see anything.

The cemetery has a distinct 'odour'. If this girl was local she would know where she was.

 

[silver tongue]

Sorry I don't quite get your comment relevant to my quoted post.

Here are a couple of thoughts I have on the Karrakatta rape.

The 17yo girl was quoted in a newspaper saying that she was 700 metres from Club Bayview near Rowe Park. I think this offender has met her inside Club Bayview and stalked her because he knew which direction she would use. It is likely he may have hidden in the small garden that is situated between Leura and Mary and waited until she was well past an area where he may have been witnessed. He has offered her a lift and she accepted. Once in the vehicle a blitz attack occurred, she was hooded (not blind folded, I think there is a difference) and restrained with some sort of tie and stripped of her clothing.

What was used as the 'hood' ?

We don't know if the victim was raped in the front of the vehicle, rear of the vehicle or on the ground.

When he took her to Karrakatta Cemetery area did he access the cemetery by the front gate because I always considered the cemetery could not be accessed by a vehicle all night; I do how ever believe there was pedestrian access. I can't recall if there were gates at the front in 1995. Could he have accessed the cemetery using one of the side roads ? Was there open public access to the Hollywood Reserve area in 1995 as it is very close to Monash Avenue where this victim fled to.

good morning papertrail what i was trying to get at was your theory on why he used the the cemetery states it was a fear tactic to put his victims in absolute and total fear for her life. well i dont know about you but if i was hooded ,blindfolded same out come you CANT SEE, tied up by somebody bigger and stronger and bundled in to a van i would be petty sure i would be in fear of my life if she was hooded how would she know she was in the cemetery

 

[MyLeftFoot]

The vision is included at 37.47 of 54.02 (hayleyjane1985 youtube copy) cctv timestamp 23.58.43 to 23.58.46. This shows Jane standing at pole 2 and shows her moving out about 2 metres onto Bayview Tce (Det Stanbury mentions Jane's move). When viewing this section, take notice of a group of people at the bottom of the screen exiting the Conti. They make their way out onto Bayview Tce and this is the same group you are referring to.

Just to be sure we are talking about the same vision...the vision I am referring to is what you see on the computer next to Steve Leibman as he is talking. This is after Jane has supposedly disappeared.
Then you see her lower half stride off. (Not the same vision as when you see Jane move about 2 metres onto the road....after that! ) There must be two or three frames. I wish I could capture the shot for you but I can't.

 

[Sutton]

The examination contains serious flaws that aren't relevant to this thread, other than to say the data set is not available.

Does anyone know which killer aim2solve highlighted? (The first highlight- 1998-1999 murders of four women, male offender, sexually motivated, killer slit the victims' throats and placed them in the boot of a vehicle)

The first highlighted killer is referring to Leonard Fraser. His assaults were not similar to the CSK, and he was in prison until 1997.

http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/app...0&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=SMH010106FO6NP33NMOA

 

[aim2solve]

The examination contains serious flaws that aren't relevant to this thread, other than to say the data set is not available.

Does anyone know which killer aim2solve highlighted? (The first highlight- 1998-1999 murders of four women, male offender, sexually motivated, killer slit the victims' throats and placed them in the boot of a vehicle)

Sutton,

1. The statement that my post was not relevant remains your opinion.
2. The image was screenshot off an Australian Government Research Website.
3. I have not highlighted anything on the table. I merely wanted to contrast the official account of the CSK's MO with all other SKs of Australia within the given period.
4. The evidence gathered was part of a scholarly article publication.

aim2solve

 

[Bartholemeus]

Yep the Conti isn`t exactly The Flying Scud Pub in the UK. Surfers & pv`s may not go to the Conti but everyone else does. Sure you can pick the rich schoolies, but what I`m saying is a lot of workers (office) catch up for drinks there & wind down, There are a stack of more upmarket bars in the city than the Conti. It`s just the Conti is close to their home.

There's not a lot of offices in Claremont. But maybe they go there on a week night for a beer after work. But we're talking Friday and Saturday night. Almost exclusively well-heeled locals. And certainly no chavs wearing soccer kit.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Looks very similar to CSK but I believe that is Leonard Fraser who was based in Townsville. There's a CIA episode about him. Might give it watch and see if it is possible he was in Perth at the time.

Row 1 is Bodies in the Barrels
Row 2 is Paul Denyer
Row 3 is Ivan Milat
Row 4 is Leonard Fraser
Row 5 is
Row 6 is Peter Dupas
Row 7 is Jogn Glover (The Granny Killer)
Row 8 is
Row 9 is Kathleen Folbigg
Row 10 is Michael Kanaan
Row 11 is the CSK

As Sutton said, lot's of the dates are wrong. Typical Government workers (incompetent).

 

[silver tongue]

There's not a lot of offices in Claremont. But maybe they go there on a week night for a beer after work. But we're talking Friday and Saturday night. Almost exclusively well-heeled locals. And certainly no chavs wearing soccer kit.

the t shirt under mms shirt appears to have a soccerball on it

 

[Bartholemeus]

The cemetery has a distinct 'odour'. If this girl was local she would know where she was.

Not necessarily. She was local but may never have needed a reason to go into the cemetery. I believe the smell is the trees. Lots of big old trees lining some of the roads inside the cemetery.

I want to know how he got his car in there or did he walk her in at the gate near Loch St? The cemetery is flanked by industrial so would have been quite isolated.

 

[Sutton]

Sutton,

1. The statement that my post was not relevant remains your opinion.
2. The image was screenshot off an Australian Government Research Website.
3. I have not highlighted anything on the table. I merely wanted to contrast the official account of the CSK's MO with all other SKs of Australia within the given period.
4. The evidence gathered was part of a scholarly article publication.

aim2solve

Please re-read my reply. I didn't say your post was irrelevant.

I said my opinions regarding the examination (the published study that is summarized in the table you posted) were irrelevant. The examination contains flaws in data, methodology, and conclusion. My comment was made about the authors of the published work (and the journal who published the work).

Sorry if I was unclear. I appreciated your post. That's why I replied to it and asked who the perpetrator was of the crimes that seemed similar to the CSK's. I assumed you'd highlighted them, as they were the only other murders highlighted.

I mentioned the flaws so posters who might answer my question would be aware there were errors in the data.

 

[Bartholemeus]

the t shirt under mms shirt appears to have a soccerball on it

How so? MM has his back to the camera?

Ohh, you think that other guy is also MM? And you think you can make out a soccer ball?

face/palm.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Should the camera outside the door pick up MM from the front? (I mean the real MM, not the other guy some one here think is the same dude)

 

[Sutton]

The vision is included at 37.47 of 54.02 (hayleyjane1985 youtube copy) cctv timestamp 23.58.43 to 23.58.46. This shows Jane standing at pole 2 and shows her moving out about 2 metres onto Bayview Tce (Det Stanbury mentions Jane's move). When viewing this section, take notice of a group of people at the bottom of the screen exiting the Conti. They make their way out onto Bayview Tce and this is the same group you are referring to.

Just to be sure we are talking about the same vision...the vision I am referring to is what you see on the computer next to Steve Leibman as he is talking. This is after Jane has supposedly disappeared.
Then you see her lower half stride off. (Not the same vision as when you see Jane move about 2 metres onto the road....after that! ) There must be two or three frames. I wish I could capture the shot for you but I can't.

I think y'all are referring to the same CCTV footage. Sorry, the frames don't show YouTube time. The Steve Lieberman frame is from YouTube time 40:52. The footage only shot is from YouTube time 37:52. These are both from Haleyjane1985.

 

[Sutton]

Should the camera outside the door pick up MM from the front? (I mean the real MM, not the other guy some one here think is the same dude)

Yes, it should show a super clear face shot. I worked out the exact times the camera should change from 23:40:00-00:05:00. And what camera (North facing or South facing) should have footage for what increments.

I can post the summary in the next day or so (I will link to an Excel sheet of all the data).

It is my conclusion that the camera view changes are for the CIA episode only and police have uninterrupted footage from both North and South bound cameras. I would love someone to find an error in my calculations because that conclusion is baffling.

 

[MyLeftFoot]

I think y'all are referring to the same CCTV footage. Sorry, the frames don't show YouTube time. The Steve Lieberman frame is from YouTube time 40:52. The footage only shot is from YouTube time 37:52. These are both from Haleyjane1985.





I think y'all are referring to the same CCTV footage. Sorry, the frames don't show YouTube time. The Steve Lieberman frame is from YouTube time The footage only shot is from YouTube time 37:52. These are both from Haleyjane1985.

View attachment 85138View attachment 85139

View attachment 85141
View attachment 85142

Not the part I was referring to Sutton.
The vision I am referring to..ie...the second time Jane goes onto the road..occurs after Jane has disappeared from the pole. This is the vision on Liebman's computer.

 

[Sutton]

Not the part I was referring to Sutton.
The vision I am referring to..ie...the second time Jane goes onto the road..occurs after Jane has disappeared from the pole. This is the vision on Liebman's computer.

Okay, the frame I posted that shows Steve Lieberman is from time stamp 40:52 on the Haleyjane1985 version (idk if there are differences is versions).

Do you know what time I should be looking at?

 

[Bartholemeus]

Yes, it should show a super clear face shot. I worked out the exact times the camera should change from 23:40:00-00:05:00. And what camera (North facing or South facing) should have footage for what increments.

I can post the summary in the next day or so (I will link to an Excel sheet of all the data).

It is my conclusion that the camera view changes are for the CIA episode only and police have uninterrupted footage from both North and South bound cameras. I would love someone to find an error in my calculations because that conclusion is baffling.

Assuming police do have footage of a front on, why didn't they show it? It seems to suggest they weren't serious about identifying MM. The most likely reason for that is the whole episode is an excuse to get some attention on their latest campaign (Let's call it the Judoman campaign).

It potentially means they had to contact MM and say "Look mate, do you mind if we use that footage as an excuse to get some media attention? Don't worry, we won't show your face". That's pretty far fetched.

Time for a new campaign and release some new info methinks.