Australia Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #4

[Ian Moone]

So what make / model & color car of car, was registered to Iona back in 1996 / 7 - was it a white commodore wagon with velour upholstery or not? Who had access to that car via the log book entry's (for tax purposes) on the dates of the 2 CSK victims from Iona's, disappearances?.

 

[Elwood_1]

You haven't offended my sensibilities of the victim. I don't even know what that means.

Of course I understand--my original post was dedicated to that. If you want to say Sarah may have been at a higher risk bc she went out to clubs frequently or bc she supposedly exited a taxi with a man she did not know, then just say that.

Alluding to Sarah's 'casual' relationships with men or recounting a story about your friend who slept with strangers and got an STD is what I took offense to. Obviously victimology tells a lot about the offender. It is not discussed enough in this case.

I do agree with some of your assessment. All of the girls were involved in high risk behavior. They were alone, on a street, at night.

Sutton, this is what really puzzles me. SS I can understand. She tragically didn't know the risk. But the other two girls, and particularly CG must have known that there was a risk and been on maximum alert, surely?
How could they just wander off on their own under those circumstances? To put it bluntly: what the hell were they thinking? I would like to know if they were severely drunk on the night, were drug users, short of money etc. Their portrayal in the media is that they were just innocent victims just on their way home after a few quiet lemonades with their friends, but their behaviour seems in hindsight to have been reckless. Were they severely impaired, were they habitual risk takers, did they commonly go off with strange men on a whim? I don't know. It happens. We know none of this. Of course this information is unpleasant and would reflect on them when they are unable to defend themselves (sadly), but to me it is a vital part of the puzzle.
Somehow their actions put them in a place where they were able to be taken. What their circumstances were provides me with clues about who the killer was looking for, as something about these poor girls made them stand out as targets for the killer, and he moved on them successfully and decisively. What made him choose just those girls out of all the thousands of girls out on those nights? He can't have made multiple failed approaches, as his failures would have been screaming to the police. The victims didn't even know they were victims until it was way too late to do anything about it. What defined those girls as his targets, why did he choose them as victims? I can't figure it out. I can't accept 'random'.

It is a horrible tragedy, and it is made even worse that the WAPOL really don't seem to want help from the public in solving it. There were thousands of pairs of eyes out there on those nights, but no one has been told what they should have been looking for. That is a tragedy in itself.

 

[J35]

Thanks Parkie!.

I forgot (neglected) to mention above, that there was a young lass went to Iona at the same time as SSpiers and CGlennon, who's surname was "Butler".

Since we know she can't be your sister, because she was tragically killed in NZ in a freak weather accident while camping on the beach, I was wondering if maybe she was a cousin of yours or something?

What other contacts (if any) are there between yourself and Iona?

Your IT tech brother Martin, with the horse property from Chidlow and a neighbor of Matusevich / Morey, - would he not have had a white Telstra Van and access to Telecom cable around the time of the CSK killings?

Is that why so many young women seemed to end up being found dead within a stones throw of your place? (Deb Anderson @ Dances Drive behind your house Dec 2000) & Sarah Muckerslie found face down in the drain in Morrison road, when you were renting in Morrison road? Sarah MCMahons car found abandoned at Swan View Hospital 500 meters from your place?

IS the reason, possibly because a relative / friend from Chidlow (Who worked at the local Midland abattoir, blood and bone factory), would dump their victims remains close enough to your place to walk there afterwards and get a lift home to Chidlow from yourself? Is this how you were later found with Sarah McMahons diary in your possession perhaps?

Is that why you've followed all the cases about these victims for so long on any and every forum, - because your involved after the fact for driving the killer home afterwards? i.e. a accessory after the fact?

Should I expect an involuntary trip to the old Malmalling homestead (near Chidlow) any time soon?

All good questions, hey?

Ian Moone, is the information in this post based on what Parkie has told your and/or via other sluething? Interesting read. Keen to know the anwers

 

[CSK?]

In the case of the Iona theory, You can clearly make a link between victims and the school and it does make for a very interesting theory, but I personally feel this is based more on the location of the abductions more than a conspiracy, meaning that a lot of girls from the Claremont and surrounding affluent areas would have attended that school. The case at least to me screams sexual predator and not religious cover up. IF someone at the school was involved there would be a constant flow of 'fresh meat' (for lack of a better word) to groom, and would be no need to expose yourself to raping someone in a public place such as Karrakatta.

The sunflower key ring doesn't seem like something you would buy in a jewelry store, or something of much value and these girls certainly do not seem the type to exchange sexual favors for jewelry, especially since coming from well to do homes.

I must admit though that school has had some very bad luck when it comes to murdered alumni, the rate of murder in Australia is 1/100,000 and the school far exceeds that rate which does make your theory possible, even in the slightest, but to me however, not very probable.

Very interesting post about Mr Butler also, how unlucky can you be to have a regional link to so many murders!

 

[Ian Moone]

Ian Moone, is the information in this post based on what Parkie has told your and/or via other sluething? Interesting read. Keen to know the anwers

Both personal coms betwixt me and Parkie over the years and some sleuthing as well.

 

[Ian Moone]

Another possible Iona scenario to explain away the prevalence of the multiple Iona links?

Is it not possible perhaps, that since 2 of the CSk victims worked for law firms and a 3rd worked for a surveyors company, that the CSK killings were related to some type of land deal that involved Iona, which went bad?

Like, did the Iona school MAYBE BUY some adjoining land, maybe for a sports field, or for building / development purposes related to the school - that the parents of these girls were on the committee, and the deal went bad, someone got tricked out of some very valuable land for a mere pittance of its real worth - out of a "misplaced sense of religious obligation" & later the original owner decided to get even by taking the lives of the committee peoples kids as some form of retribution?

Its just that to transact land deals, you often require the services of both lawyers and surveyors.... could the underlying "motive" have something to do with the 2 or 3 girls employment with legal and surveying firms thru their parents? Firms maybe that participated in separating someone from some very valuable land at a mere pittance of its real value?.

With any crime there has to be a Motive (along with opportunity).

What exactly is the motive that links all these crimes?

Again - asking questions & developing possible scenario's, that might "fit the known facts" as a method to develop leads worth investigation is all - not making accusations against anyone specific in breach of TOS.

If you adhere to the claims TOS - you couldn't develop scenarios or develop theory's as have been discussed now for 4 CSk threads!

There has to be the ability to develop possible Motives & research opportunity & look/search for corroborative facts in order to get anywhere with the CSk case.

Otherwise there's no point to these now 4 threads!

I sometimes wonder at the Motive for others who try to close down discussion of viable leads by resorting to reporting posts as TOS breaches... is that one reason why there's 4 threads now that lead no where but round and round in circles?.

Why is it allowed to keep raising possible POI's who have been ruled out by police using DNA? That goes on almost every 2nd page of posts... drag up someone who's already been eliminated by DNA & start all over again.

This is some of the reasons these threads seemingly never get anywhere if you ask me.

Someone like paper trail uses logic and gets tackled, criticized and shut down almost every single time!

It's like a competition on here between posters - with little effort to actually solve any crime.

I've been watching progress or lack thereof for some months.

All I'm attempting to do is "steer the thread back towards where obvious missed clues lie"... for some in depth discussions and a little sleuthing maybe!.

Its amazing the efforts to derail that, which keep cropping up and by mostly the same posters.

 

[J35]

Is it not possible perhaps, that since 2 of the CSk victims worked for law firms and a 3rd worked for a surveyors company

Can you please provide evidence that JR worked at either a law firm or surveyors company- was this before being a childcare worker?

Why is it allowed to keep raising possible POI's who have been ruled out by police using DNA? That goes on almost every 2nd page of posts... drag up someone who's already been eliminated by DNA & start all over again.

Can you please provide evidence that JM has been ruled out by police using DNA if this is part of your dig?


If anyone can provide proof that police have run JM's DNA profile and it was excluded , I will be satisfied- until then, or until police release further details, he remains a 'maybe' on my list.

 

[Ian Moone]

I didn't mention JM at all.

This is what I mean about dragging up POI's who have already been cleared by DNA.

Elastic, keeps on harping on about Morey / Matusevich being the CSK!.
What part about "he has been in jail thus his DNA is on Codis and WAPOL have the DNA of the CSK and have thus ruled him OUT", is Elastic not able to understand?

It just brings down the credibility of all posters on the CSK thread to keep harking back and back and back, when its clearly already proven 100% wrong via DNA!.

See what I mean?

I once suspected FJ Wark (awaiting trial on the Hayley Dodd case in March) and Morey / Matusevich of being possible CSK perpetrators based on their known MO's from past convictions. I even raised the possibility in posts.

BUT

Both have been in jail & thus both have their DNA on CODIS, and we KNOW 100% that WAPOL have DNA from the CSK case and the 1995 Karakatta cemetery rape case.

Thus it can't possibly have been either Morey / Matusevich nor can it have been Wark - even tho they each have known M.O.'s that match known aspects of the CSK case.

So I had to let that suspicion go and move on.

We KNOW that WAPOL have DNA for quite a few reasons now!

1. They DNA tested almost all the taxi drivers (No point without DNA crime scene sample to compare it to!)
2. They got a warrant and took Weygers DNA by force. (No point without DNA crime scene sample to compare it to!)
3. They went all the way to the UK to compare with Dixies DNA & Eliminated him. (Not possible without DNA crime scene sample to compare it to!)
4. They have DNA from the 1995 Karakatta rape victim that matches the CSk crime scene sample & links the same perpetrator.
5. Both Morey / Matusevich and Wark were in jail at the time of the CSK cases - i.e. cannot possibly have been either of them.

I guess what i am trying to say, is that when someone is proposed as a POI, would it not be perhaps wise to FIRST pass them first thru "the filter of whats already known as fact", like jail custodial sentences & their DNA being in Codis already?

Otherwise we can just keep discussing ad infinitem - the same POI's who have already been 100% eliminated by DNA & or Incarceration at the time!.

It's important to know when to let go - I had to let go of both Wark & Morey / Matusevich for CSK purely because known facts (DNA and incarceration) preclude them.

I think others (Elastic?) should do likewise... and move on... because it serves no worthwhile purpose top keep devoting thread bandwidth to their discussion

Back to Iona... (coz that's a commonality that just won't go away yet), Cardinal George Pell - why is there such a clamor to firce him back here to oz to testify for a 3rd occasion in front of the Royal Commission at the moment?

Because what the RC Church under Pell and others consistently did was mix up the difference between separation of powers of the church & state!

To forgive is divine! So when priests were suspected / accused, under church rules, of hanky panky with kiddies, they were forgiven for sinning and transferred to another diocese - preferably across state lines where there is no state law jurisdiction!

Where as Law would require they were reported to Police for criminal investigation and charges.

Is it not possible that an Iona priest was maybe transferred to an eastern states diocese - say Melbourne or Bannockburn and that's when and where Lorrin kaiser / Whitehead - going thru divorce, sought solace in her local church thru such a trying time - and met her former priest from Iona, and ended up dead?

Given what we now know about how such things were managed by the church - isn't that a plausible scenario to link the former Iona girl to all the other murders?

Seems so, to me at least.

As for multiple responses - every post i have made tonight I have been logged out while composing the response... If i dealt with every question from all posters in one response i still wouldn't have posted anything at all - I count at least 4 or 5 logins tonight alone - just to get any response on screen. Parkies made mention of this recently.

 

[Sutton]

Sutton, this is what really puzzles me. SS I can understand. She tragically didn't know the risk. But the other two girls, and particularly CG must have known that there was a risk and been on maximum alert, surely?
How could they just wander off on their own under those circumstances? To put it bluntly: what the hell were they thinking? I would like to know if they were severely drunk on the night, were drug users, short of money etc. Their portrayal in the media is that they were just innocent victims just on their way home after a few quiet lemonades with their friends, but their behaviour seems in hindsight to have been reckless. Were they severely impaired, were they habitual risk takers, did they commonly go off with strange men on a whim? I don't know. It happens. We know none of this. Of course this information is unpleasant and would reflect on them when they are unable to defend themselves (sadly), but to me it is a vital part of the puzzle.
Somehow their actions put them in a place where they were able to be taken. What their circumstances were provides me with clues about who the killer was looking for, as something about these poor girls made them stand out as targets for the killer, and he moved on them successfully and decisively. What made him choose just those girls out of all the thousands of girls out on those nights? He can't have made multiple failed approaches, as his failures would have been screaming to the police. The victims didn't even know they were victims until it was way too late to do anything about it. What defined those girls as his targets, why did he choose them as victims? I can't figure it out. I can't accept 'random'.

It is a horrible tragedy, and it is made even worse that the WAPOL really don't seem to want help from the public in solving it. There were thousands of pairs of eyes out there on those nights, but no one has been told what they should have been looking for. That is a tragedy in itself.

IMO, they just made unsafe decisions. I have seen horrific crime scene photos, read sadists' accounts of their offenses as they relived them, and listened to a recording of a victim being tortured. And I still make unsafe choices.

When you feel safe in an area, you don't accurately weigh the possibility a man with a tire iron or a martial artist is waiting in the shadows.

IMO, of course.

Pretty young girls walked the streets of Claremont on weekend nights. They walked down Stirling and Gugeri. Alone. Sometimes they'd been drinking. Where would you go if you wanted to abduct a girl? I'd go there.

 

[Elwood_1]

IMO, they just made unsafe decisions. I have seen horrific crime scene photos, read sadists' accounts of their offenses as they relived them, and listened to a recording of a victim being tortured. And I still make unsafe choices.

When you feel safe in an area, you don't accurately weigh the possibility a man with a tire iron or a martial artist is waiting in the shadows.

IMO, of course.

Pretty young girls walked the streets of Claremont on weekend nights. They walked down Stirling and Gugeri. Alone. Sometimes they'd been drinking. Where would you go if you wanted to abduct a girl? I'd go there.

I have never really considered where I would go to abduct someone, but I guess it would be somewhere Gucci where the girls are pampered and unsuspecting of bad things, rather than somewhere populated by street rats where most serial killers wouldn't have a chance and would probably be murdered for their Reeboks (like Armadale). Good point.

It's funny, I never felt safe anywhere in Perth. But I grew up in the bad part. I was always looking over my shoulder and expecting the worst. More often than not it was justified.

 

[Bartholemeus]

Why do people insist police definitely have DNA?

Possible - yes
Probable - maybe
Definite - no

Until it's confirmed all options are open. Maybe your own odds change but to rule out anyone on DNA evidence is close minded.

 

[papertrail]

How do you know that Sarah was "comfortable with different men in what we now would consider to be incredibly risky situations" ? I've never read anything anywhere about Sarah having relationships with different men.

Sarah "seemed to be socially active" We have only been told about her attendance at the Australia Day fireworks show (with friends), at the OBH afterwards (with friends), at Club Bayview (with friends) -- this shows me that Sarah was socially active with her friends and from recent information released (for the 1st time) that gave detail of the night of Sarah's disappearance the 'friends' she socialized with with females. Sarah was just 18 years old when she disappeared - just able to socialize in licensed premises and obviously enjoying being able to do that.

Many girls and boys behaved in incredibly risky ways back in the 90s.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89122&d=1455506236

In the article that you posted it was said that she apparently met a random man in a taxi and went with him, and then was seen going into an apartment building by another man that morning. That would suggest to me that she had little fear of men. I didn't suggest that she was in a formal relationship with him. More casual, perhaps.

-If the men quoted in your article were reliable in their identification of her that is.[/QUOTE]

It was quite a common occurrence for people out an about in Claremont (and other regions) to share taxis. Mr Clegg (Ross) the taxi driver, stated that Sarah S had been in his taxi with a guy and a (Dalkeith) girl -- and that it appeared from published articles, that they didn't know each other. The man that said he witnessed Sarah at 160 Mill Point Rd appears to have described the girl he witnessed as wearing 'dress shorts' and that is similar to what she was wearing on the night (27th) she disappeared.

Because Sarah shared a taxi with an unknown man doesn't mean she was comfortable. I've often wondered if this girl the witness saw at 160 Mill Pt Rd was Sarah's sister Amanda -- she and Sarah are difficult to tell apart in some of the available photos.

 

[papertrail]

Why are you posting things that you believe "completely rule him out"? Just let others have a conversation that you disagree with. IMO.

Nothing I post stops others from discussing whatever they want to discuss. Because the plain and simple reason his age and height rules him out. Where is the evidence that he was present in Claremont on the night the 3 girls were abducted and where is the evidence he had a connection to a panelvan.

 

[papertrail]

Why do people insist police definitely have DNA?

Possible - yes
Probable - maybe
Definite - no

Until it's confirmed all options are open. Maybe your own odds change but to rule out anyone on DNA evidence is close minded.

Wouldn't it be a disaster for the Macro team if the DNA swabs were pre-contaminated or post-contaminated or the swabs they had used were not certified for forensic use.

 

[papertrail]

I didn't mention JM at all.

This is what I mean about dragging up POI's who have already been cleared by DNA.

Elastic, keeps on harping on about Morey / Matusevich being the CSK!.
What part about "he has been in jail thus his DNA is on Codis and WAPOL have the DNA of the CSK and have thus ruled him OUT", is Elastic not able to understand?

It just brings down the credibility of all posters on the CSK thread to keep harking back and back and back, when its clearly already proven 100% wrong via DNA!.

See what I mean?

I once suspected FJ Wark (awaiting trial on the Hayley Dodd case in March) and Morey / Matusevich of being possible CSK perpetrators based on their known MO's from past convictions. I even raised the possibility in posts.

BUT

Both have been in jail & thus both have their DNA on CODIS, and we KNOW 100% that WAPOL have DNA from the CSK case and the 1995 Karakatta cemetery rape case. We don't KNOW that at all.

Thus it can't possibly have been either Morey / Matusevich nor can it have been Wark - even tho they each have known M.O.'s that match known aspects of the CSK case.

So I had to let that suspicion go and move on.

We KNOW that WAPOL have DNA for quite a few reasons now!

1. They DNA tested almost all the taxi drivers (No point without DNA crime scene sample to compare it to!) The Taxi Registration Board pushed for DNA testing of taxi drivers.
2. They got a warrant and took Weygers DNA by force. (No point without DNA crime scene sample to compare it to!) All person of interest are DNA tested so that comparison can be made against other crime data, not just Claremont
3. They went all the way to the UK to compare with Dixies DNA & Eliminated him. (Not possible without DNA crime scene sample to compare it to!) The Dixie DNA samples were actually provided to WA police in WA and tested in WA. not in the UK. Again in order to test against other crimes as well.
4. They have DNA from the 1995 Karakatta rape victim that matches the CSk crime scene sample & links the same perpetrator. We don't know that.
5. Both Morey / Matusevich and Wark were in jail at the time of the CSK cases - i.e. cannot possibly have been either of them. Matusevich / Morey was one of the 1st DNA samples to be placed on the WA DNA database which came commenced in November 2000 which just happened to be the same month that Sarah McMahon disappeared. Articles from 2001 have detail that.

I guess what i am trying to say, is that when someone is proposed as a POI, would it not be perhaps wise to FIRST pass them first thru "the filter of whats already known as fact", like jail custodial sentences & their DNA being in Codis already? Is CODIS the name for the database in Australia ? What concerns me is that when the Australia-wide database as founded, the DNA from prisoners who were sentenced to 5 years or more was included -- this would have excluded a lot of prisoners who may have committed crimes that had not be convicted of (at that time) and may also have excluded criminals that were convicted of non murder, sexual assault and other crimes ie burglaries.

Otherwise we can just keep discussing ad infinitem - the same POI's who have already been 100% eliminated by DNA & or Incarceration at the time!.

It's important to know when to let go - I had to let go of both Wark & Morey / Matusevich for CSK purely because known facts (DNA and incarceration) preclude them.

I think others (Elastic?) should do likewise... and move on... because it serves no worthwhile purpose top keep devoting thread bandwidth to their discussion

Back to Iona... (coz that's a commonality that just won't go away yet), Cardinal George Pell - why is there such a clamor to firce him back here to oz to testify for a 3rd occasion in front of the Royal Commission at the moment?

Because what the RC Church under Pell and others consistently did was mix up the difference between separation of powers of the church & state!

To forgive is divine! So when priests were suspected / accused, under church rules, of hanky panky with kiddies, they were forgiven for sinning and transferred to another diocese - preferably across state lines where there is no state law jurisdiction!

Where as Law would require they were reported to Police for criminal investigation and charges.

Is it not possible that an Iona priest was maybe transferred to an eastern states diocese - say Melbourne or Bannockburn and that's when and where Lorrin kaiser / Whitehead - going thru divorce, sought solace in her local church thru such a trying time - and met her former priest from Iona, and ended up dead? quite a few missing )and subsequently found murdered) woman in Victoria appear to go missing when last seen in a local milk bar or shop -- strange. Lorrin Whitehead was last seen in such circumstances.

Given what we now know about how such things were managed by the church - isn't that a plausible scenario to link the former Iona girl to all the other murders?

Seems so, to me at least.

As for multiple responses - every post i have made tonight I have been logged out while composing the response... If i dealt with every question from all posters in one response i still wouldn't have posted anything at all - I count at least 4 or 5 logins tonight alone - just to get any response on screen. Parkies made mention of this recently.

See comments in red in quote

 

[papertrail]

Quote billywhizz: Why are you even bothering to post a dotpoint on someone who has been ruled out? End Quote

Because the plain and simple fact there is no PROOf he has been ruled out. The only information publicly available is found in newspaper articles -- as you know, it all began with the Postnewspaper's article then a few other newspapers got on board. I think it all came about like 'chinese whispers' -- they all jumped on board and did a lot of ASSUMING.

 

[papertrail]

Sarah was a country girl and and raised in a catholic education system -- a system based on trust and love of your fellow man. Being a country girl she would have trusted most people as country people do. Just turned 18 and able to socialize in licensed establishments for the first time. Out finding her own way in the big 'wonderful' world she would have considered existed -- steady job and a loving supporting family. Most people trusted taxi drivers -- people never would have considered a taxi driver would have a criminal record -- taxis were the only way to get home safely after being out consuming alcohol and socializing. She would never have dreamed in a million years that the stranger she shared the taxi with on the night prior to her abduction may have in fact have other intentions.

 

[papertrail]

I don't recall anyone saying "here is our man and here is a definitive link to screen printing"

There was a question asked "Could this be the link......" as part of a discussion.

You have come up with no evidence to rule JM out, None at all! Yet you are still on the LW bandwagon after police have ruled him out. where is the evidence police have ruled out LW -- simple as that. Read the words very carefully in the Postnewspaper articles -- very carefully. You had a theory of a suspect I have never called anyone a suspect as only police are able to make that judgement based off of chickens no such thing - I merely raised the connection between Eglinton and Wellard, and god knows how many other suspects I say it again -- I have never referred to anyone as a suspect. You really need to try and understand the difference between a suspect and a person of interest. based on coincidence and the smallest of evidence, but when we provide the same for JM you want no part of it. you haven't provided anything in discussion about the MAP that shows me he is the slightest possibility. Age doesn't match. height doesn't match.

I am absolutely baffled at how you can be so narrow minded when it comes to JUST him but are open to discussing other potential suspects with even less proof connecting them as a suspect. You won't drop LW after police said he sin't a suspect, but want us to drop JM because of a very very small discrepancy in age.

 

[88mph]

I didn't mention JM at all.

Does this mean you think JM is a POI or not?

 

[Ian Moone]

Quote billywhizz: Why are you even bothering to post a dotpoint on someone who has been ruled out? End Quote

Because the plain and simple fact there is no PROOf he has been ruled out. The only information publicly available is found in newspaper articles -- as you know, it all began with the Postnewspaper's article then a few other newspapers got on board. I think it all came about like 'chinese whispers' -- they all jumped on board and did a lot of ASSUMING.

It used to be that journalists were required by editors - to confirm their information from 2 independent sources, before publishing. This was to try and prevent law suits for slander etc.

It is true, that in these days of the internet and "journalism by (copy paste) press release written by some spin doctor" that editorial and journalistic standards have dropped a LOT.

That said - you can deny the sky's blue if you wish Paper Trail... but my info suggests the DNA (as reported) is a given!. I last spoke with Major Crime squad about Macro matters back in Dec 2015 and Jan 2016. The discussion included the DNA matter for what little that's worth - as you well know they neither confirm or deny in cases like this!.

I will stick with ruling POI's out based on known DNA and the CODIS data base.

I use the FBI term "Codis" for brevity and because readers from the USA seem more familiar with it so it avoids "explaining" all the time what I am referring too with our own National DNA data Bases (because we have 3 as I am again sure you know).

Details of ours.

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/43-dna-database-systems/dna-database-systems

CODIS is far quicker / easier to type and conveys the same message.

But you knew this before you posed the question. :facepalm: