Australia Australia - Claremont SK, 1996-97, Perth, WA - #14

[Spooks-R-Us]

I said some time ago that I wouldn't post again but I need to reply to this. I'm not sure how you deduce that the battery needs to be engaged to turn the lights on. In all my many years I've never seen a car that needs ignition on to use the headlights. Ignition on and lights in the on position clearly indicates that the thing was driven into the sea. The only real speculation is whether the driver left the vehicle before it entered the water or stayed with it and expired and was lost to the ocean. As for the damage to the roof etc, in my misspent youth I (in company) flattened the roof of many a paddock basher by simply jumping up and down on it. The theory that this thing was somehow crushed in a car crusher then mysteriously transported to a boat to be dumped at sea is absurd. The simple logistics, the number of people needed to be involved and the risk of detection make this impractical at the very least. The reality (in my view) is that either JC drove the thing into the ocean and was lost or the vehicle was left nearby unsecured and was stolen by others, knocked around then driven into the ocean. The waves and rocks did the rest. There is no mention of the keys, but ignition switches in those days had a 'off' position and a 'lock' position. If it wasn't in the 'lock' position, the vehicle could be started without a key

Well said Weaver!



............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

Re: Explaining SK tactics and MOs -
Usually a simple explanation is the best explanation.

Making up absurd theories to fit the available evidence reminds me of the phrase experienced Doctors give new medical students which teaching the students about medical diagnosis: "When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras".

Because horses are more common than Zebras (in majority of world except Africa) then it's crucial to eliminate common illnesses (ie Horses) before attributing medical symptoms to some exotic disease (ie Zebras).

IMO the same goes for 'diagnosing' SK tactics, movements, signatures, and MOs. Think of the simple explanation before entertaining crazy exotic theories!

Horses [emoji206] before Zebras !!

And no - this is not Horse s***!!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_(medicine)

............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Bunnie]

I said some time ago that I wouldn't post again but I need to reply to this. I'm not sure how you deduce that the battery needs to be engaged to turn the lights on. In all my many years I've never seen a car that needs ignition on to use the headlights. Ignition on and lights in the on position clearly indicates that the thing was driven into the sea. The only real speculation is whether the driver left the vehicle before it entered the water or stayed with it and expired and was lost to the ocean. As for the damage to the roof etc, in my misspent youth I (in company) flattened the roof of many a paddock basher by simply jumping up and down on it. The theory that this thing was somehow crushed in a car crusher then mysteriously transported to a boat to be dumped at sea is absurd. The simple logistics, the number of people needed to be involved and the risk of detection make this impractical at the very least. The reality (in my view) is that either JC drove the thing into the ocean and was lost or the vehicle was left nearby unsecured and was stolen by others, knocked around then driven into the ocean. The waves and rocks did the rest. There is no mention of the keys, but ignition switches in those days had a 'off' position and a 'lock' position. If it wasn't in the 'lock' position, the vehicle could be started without a key

Agreed. Older vehicles did not need keys in ignition or ignitions to be on for headlights to be on. Alarms and auto turn off for headlights is a new car gadget because one of the major causes of flat batteries used to be drivers hopping out and forgetting the lights were still on.

 

[Bunnie]

Re: Explaining SK tactics and MOs -
Usually a simple explanation is the best explanation.

Making up absurd theories to fit the available evidence reminds me of the phrase experienced Doctors give new medical students which teaching the students about medical diagnosis: "When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras".

Because horses are more common than Zebras (in majority of world except Africa) then it's crucial to eliminate common illnesses (ie Horses) before attributing medical symptoms to some exotic disease (ie Zebras).

IMO the same goes for 'diagnosing' SK tactics, movements, signatures, and MOs. Think of the simple explanation before entertaining crazy exotic theories!

Horses [emoji206] before Zebras !!

And no - this is not Horse s***!!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_(medicine)

............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

I wish there was a like button for this.

 

[no name]

Gee, how goods the view from your high horse 7SJ707 & with all seeing & all knowing eyes too, it must be amazing!!

 

[Innerchild]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tralia-Claremont-SK-1996-97-Perth-WA-14/page8

Ignition on or motor on is not a big deal, as in previous page above I've calculated assuming car was driven into ocean;

- force on the car entering the water at 60km an hour off the groyne (4,800 N),

- driven off the boat ramp (800 N) and

- compared to 1968 Fiat 125 in controlled testing of 12 year old cars in 1980. Force applied in a rollover at 100km/hr is a minimal 8,000 N (assuming it didn't touch ground until final crash) to 11,000 N where it touches ground 9 times in the rollover, and there is a summation of 9 smaller forces.

The pictures in the above previous posts show no damage to the car body in this rollover, even after 11,000N. There looked like there was damage to the wheels and it could been unable to be driven.
This car was a tank and incomparable to old bashers in the field which could be tin cans with no comparative variables. JC's Fiat was 18 to 20 years old, not 12 years old like the Fiat 125 in the controlled tests, so I accept a margin of error or ball park figures.

I am only stating facts and I always assumed the car was driven off the groyne before doing this analysis. No method or speed of the Fiat going into the ocean from the beach come two or three times near the force needed to cause the damage that occurred.
.
- force of car banging against groyne F=ma F = 1100kg x 2m.s.s F = 2,200N This assumes the force is applied to the roof of the car when it hits the groyne, and any current or rip is taking it to the groyne, which is probably not the case.

- I have a calculation for the car being dropped off a cliff or higher. F = ma F = 1150kg x 9.8 (acceleration due to gravity) = 11,000 N


I also looked at the force of the car being hit by a locomotor engine with known variables except the weight of the engine. Force was 30000 N (100 ton engine) to 65,000 N (192 ton engine). The resultant damage was huge with the force applied to the side of the car, except that the roof and roof supports were undamaged.

- force of waves hitting car is harder to calculate but the force is being applied by each wave to a 1,100 kg car and IMO would be less that the car hitting the groyne while in the water. I agree with met that if there was a rip it would be in the position she is showing for the swell and wave conditions at the time. If you have a rip current like met shows you don't have waves but have current in that area. The most force applied would be if the car was on the sand and the waves were breaking on the car. The force would have to be applied directly to the roof to get the damage that resulted, so you are looking at at least 6 foot waves dropping directly down on car. Picture of 4 WD, (quoted in Car V Ocean pages), driven into large waves at Lancelon, stayed in this wave drop zone for 2 hours and sustained no damage. Car being found 35 to 50 m off the beach it would be below waves.

Buoyancy calculations (below) show a buoyancy factor of 10 which would mean it would sink very quickly and remain close to where it went in the water. It would also be filling up with water as it was sinking and sink even quicker. Any current from a rip would be much less under water and wave effect negligible under water.

Car was winched into shore and there has been suggestion that the damage to the roof may have been caused then. Towing mechanics is applied, where the man force is on the rope and has been previously discussed as 2000N or less. If the car roof got caught on reef it could either peel the roof off like a car opener or break the rope/chain. Pictures (Olsson 2004) show mid beach reef not a huge factor before 2000. Also I was waiting for conformation from photos taken in the water that damage occurred before the tow. The main forces applied in towing are horizontal and not vertical needed to cause damage to roof.

Rust could have been a factor and I think this is why the roof was crushed on an angle, if there was any weaknesses in the roof supports.

From my calculations the force applied to the roof of the car would have to be conservatively 30,000N or more to cause the damage that occurred. This is three times more than the car being tossed off a cliff, three times more than in a rollover at 100km/hr or more than 6 times more than going off the groyne at 60km / hr and many times more that being bashed by waves IMO. I welcome comment by met with expert wave data as I could calculate forces by each wave more accurately but from my calculations it would have sunk very quickly. Even if my margin of error is 40% the damage to the car could not have been caused by any natural means IMO. Damage to car and car entering at Cott IMO was two separate events. This is not what I have assumed for the last 30 years but the only conclusion I can come to by looking at the facts.

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

Hmmm have you considered a roll over type of traffic accident has a projectile direction typically going across the land - ie horizontal
During a roll over type accident the roof may not even contact the ground. People subject to a car accident where the car rolls over several times generally survive the accident, unless they also collide with big gum tree or other immovable object.

In contrast - wild surf lifting BLF and slamming the car into underwater sand banks, or even repeated underwater roll overs would definitely have a chance of roof contacting the sea bed at some point and therefore crushing the roof.


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

InnerChild- Regarding the pic of the 4WD beached in Lancelin for 2 hours - the surf in the pic looks like calm white water on a sunny summers day. Lucky for the 4WD owners it wasn't rough winter storm conditions.

Also the shape and slope of the actual beach leading into the water would also be a factor. A steeper slope - possibly greater forces pulling a vehicle into the sea.
IMO Cottesloe has a rather steep incline compared to beaches in Lancelin (from my memory).

Others please chime in! Queue.....


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tralia-Claremont-SK-1996-97-Perth-WA-14/page8


I am only stating facts and I always assumed the car was driven off the groyne before doing this analysis.



- force of waves hitting car is harder to calculate but the force is being applied by each wave to a 1,100 kg car and IMO would be less that the car hitting the groyne while in the water. I agree with met that if there was a rip it would be in the position she is showing for the swell and wave conditions at the time. If you have a rip current like met shows you don't have waves but have current in that area. The most force applied would be if the car was on the sand and the waves were breaking on the car. The force would have to be applied directly to the roof to get the damage that resulted, so you are looking at at least 6 foot waves dropping directly down on car. Picture of 4 WD, (quoted in Car V Ocean pages), driven into large waves at Lancelon, stayed in this wave drop zone for 2 hours and sustained no damage. Car being found 35 to 50 m off the beach it would be below waves.

Buoyancy calculations (below) show a buoyancy factor of 10 which would mean it would sink very quickly and remain close to where it went in the water. It would also be filling up with water as it was sinking and sink even quicker. Any current from a rip would be much less under water and wave effect negligible under water.

RSBM

From my calculations the force applied to the roof of the car would have to be conservatively 30,000N or more to cause the damage that occurred. This is three times more than the car being tossed off a cliff, three times more than in a rollover at 100km/hr or more than 6 times more than going off the groyne at 60km / hr and many times more that being bashed by waves IMO. I welcome comment by met with expert wave data as I could calculate forces by each wave more accurately but from my calculations it would have sunk very quickly. Even if my margin of error is 40% the damage to the car could not have been caused by any natural means IMO. Damage to car and car entering at Cott IMO was two separate events. This is not what I have assumed for the last 30 years but the only conclusion I can come to by looking at the facts.

InnerChild I respect your effort here but your description of rips, currents, and waves is not entirely accurate. You say when there are rips there are no waves. Are you aware that Trigg Beach has some of the largest surfing waves in metro area (during WINTER) and an extremely dangerous rip?

Rips and waves certainly go together.

Plus current and force of waves definitely occur below the water surface. Where do you think the waves generate their power?

I'm no wave or weather expert but I've both swam and surfed at Cottesloe and Trigg beaches and I've personally experienced the force and strength of an angry ocean and rip tides.

PS am finding some web links

Found link: https://beachsafe.org.au/beach/wa/cottesloe/cottesloe/cottesloe-beach

NOTE: steep drop off, heavy shore break, strong currents, and submerged object = roof damage!

#simples
............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

RE: JCs Car and surf/beach conditions

For pure sake of comparison, here's screen pics from SLSC for hazard ratings and descriptions of 5 local beaches:

Cott Hazard rating 3/10
North Cott 3/10
Lancelin 2/10
second Lancelin beach 2/10
Trigg Island 5/10

beachsafe.org.au


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/3...d-raped-by-three-women-over-three-days/#page1

Interesting report from overseas abduction and kidnapping in a SHARED TAXI with injection of unknown substance that caused unconsciousness in male victim, who was then raped by 3 women.

Interesting MO
I wonder what substance was injected into victim?



............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[The Weaver]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tralia-Claremont-SK-1996-97-Perth-WA-14/page8

Ignition on or motor on is not a big deal, as in previous page above I've calculated assuming car was driven into ocean;

- force on the car entering the water at 60km an hour off the groyne (4,800 N),

- driven off the boat ramp (800 N) and

- compared to 1968 Fiat 125 in controlled testing of 12 year old cars in 1980. Force applied in a rollover at 100km/hr is a minimal 8,000 N (assuming it didn't touch ground until final crash) to 11,000 N where it touches ground 9 times in the rollover, and there is a summation of 9 smaller forces.

The pictures in the above previous posts show no damage to the car body in this rollover, even after 11,000N. There looked like there was damage to the wheels and it could been unable to be driven.
This car was a tank and incomparable to old bashers in the field which could be tin cans with no comparative variables. JC's Fiat was 18 to 20 years old, not 12 years old like the Fiat 125 in the controlled tests, so I accept a margin of error or ball park figures.

I am only stating facts and I always assumed the car was driven off the groyne before doing this analysis. No method or speed of the Fiat going into the ocean from the beach come two or three times near the force needed to cause the damage that occurred.
.
- force of car banging against groyne F=ma F = 1100kg x 2m.s.s F = 2,200N This assumes the force is applied to the roof of the car when it hits the groyne, and any current or rip is taking it to the groyne, which is probably not the case.

- I have a calculation for the car being dropped off a cliff or higher. F = ma F = 1150kg x 9.8 (acceleration due to gravity) = 11,000 N


I also looked at the force of the car being hit by a locomotor engine with known variables except the weight of the engine. Force was 30000 N (100 ton engine) to 65,000 N (192 ton engine). The resultant damage was huge with the force applied to the side of the car, except that the roof and roof supports were undamaged.

- force of waves hitting car is harder to calculate but the force is being applied by each wave to a 1,100 kg car and IMO would be less that the car hitting the groyne while in the water. I agree with met that if there was a rip it would be in the position she is showing for the swell and wave conditions at the time. If you have a rip current like met shows you don't have waves but have current in that area. The most force applied would be if the car was on the sand and the waves were breaking on the car. The force would have to be applied directly to the roof to get the damage that resulted, so you are looking at at least 6 foot waves dropping directly down on car. Picture of 4 WD, (quoted in Car V Ocean pages), driven into large waves at Lancelon, stayed in this wave drop zone for 2 hours and sustained no damage. Car being found 35 to 50 m off the beach it would be below waves.

Buoyancy calculations (below) show a buoyancy factor of 10 which would mean it would sink very quickly and remain close to where it went in the water. It would also be filling up with water as it was sinking and sink even quicker. Any current from a rip would be much less under water and wave effect negligible under water.

Car was winched into shore and there has been suggestion that the damage to the roof may have been caused then. Towing mechanics is applied, where the man force is on the rope and has been previously discussed as 2000N or less. If the car roof got caught on reef it could either peel the roof off like a car opener or break the rope/chain. Pictures (Olsson 2004) show mid beach reef not a huge factor before 2000. Also I was waiting for conformation from photos taken in the water that damage occurred before the tow. The main forces applied in towing are horizontal and not vertical needed to cause damage to roof.

Rust could have been a factor and I think this is why the roof was crushed on an angle, if there was any weaknesses in the roof supports.

From my calculations the force applied to the roof of the car would have to be conservatively 30,000N or more to cause the damage that occurred. This is three times more than the car being tossed off a cliff, three times more than in a rollover at 100km/hr or more than 6 times more than going off the groyne at 60km / hr and many times more that being bashed by waves IMO. I welcome comment by met with expert wave data as I could calculate forces by each wave more accurately but from my calculations it would have sunk very quickly. Even if my margin of error is 40% the damage to the car could not have been caused by any natural means IMO. Damage to car and car entering at Cott IMO was two separate events. This is not what I have assumed for the last 30 years but the only conclusion I can come to by looking at the facts.

This is all meaningless. There are so many variables it's impossible to calculate. The thing was driven into the ocean. The waves bashed it up against the rocks. End of story

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

This is all meaningless. There are so many variables it's impossible to calculate. The thing was driven into the ocean. The waves bashed it up against the rocks. End of story

Simples!
Agreed the waves did it!
[emoji305][emoji305][emoji305][emoji594][emoji305][emoji305][emoji305]


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[petedavo.au]

InnerChild I respect your effort here but your description of rips, currents, and waves is not entirely accurate. You say when there are rips there are no waves. Are you aware that Trigg Beach has some of the largest surfing waves in metro area (during WINTER) and an extremely dangerous rip?

Rips and waves certainly go together.

Plus current and force of waves definitely occur below the water surface. Where do you think the waves generate their power?

I'm no wave or weather expert but I've both swam and surfed at Cottesloe and Trigg beaches and I've personally experienced the force and strength of an angry ocean and rip tides.

PS am finding some web links

Found link: https://beachsafe.org.au/beach/wa/cottesloe/cottesloe/cottesloe-beach

NOTE: steep drop off, heavy shore break, strong currents, and submerged object = roof damage!

#simples
............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

A Dumper picks man up and smashes him on the bottom, breaking his back.

I also saw an article on King Waves a few years ago. If I find it I'll post that too.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[JoWa]

Hmmm have you considered a roll over type of traffic accident has a projectile direction typically going across the land - ie horizontal
During a roll over type accident the roof may not even contact the ground. People subject to a car accident where the car rolls over several times generally survive the accident, unless they also collide with big gum tree or other immovable object.

In contrast - wild surf lifting BLF and slamming the car into underwater sand banks, or even repeated underwater roll overs would definitely have a chance of roof contacting the sea bed at some point and therefore crushing the roof.


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

I thought something similar. IMO she could have been chased again and lost control sending her rolling off somewhere along the road. They may have not been looking for the car going in at the right place, as it may only have ended up there. The seat could have been thrown out during the roll over.
With the wild weather all evidence of it going in could have been washed away or they may have ignored as it wasn't where they expected. IMO some police have a habit of getting stuck on a theory and not being open to anything that isn't part of their theory, *cough* certain Macro chief investigator *cough*.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[petedavo.au]

I thought something similar. IMO she could have been chased again and lost control sending her rolling off somewhere along the road. They may have not been looking for the car going in at the right place, as it may only have ended up there. The seat could have been thrown out during the roll over.
With the wild weather all evidence of it going in could have been washed away or they may have ignored as it wasn't where they expected. IMO some police have a habit of getting stuck on a theory and not being open to anything that isn't part of their theory, *cough* certain Macro chief investigator *cough*.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

http://www.communitynews.com.au/wes...-crashed-into-sand-dunes-overnight-abandoned/

This one left deep gouges in Marine Parade.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

Could we please do a ROLL CALL to see how many sleuthers are still reading and/or posting here?

Spooks here!
[emoji317][emoji317][emoji317]


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Hilo]

Could we please do a ROLL CALL to see how many sleuthers are still reading and/or posting here?

Spooks here!
[emoji317][emoji317][emoji317]


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

I've only recently discovered this forum and am finding it fascinating. I do hope the dialogue continues [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spooks-R-Us]

I've only recently discovered this forum and am finding it fascinating. I do hope the dialogue continues [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi there Hilo!
And welcome. [emoji1309]

Have you read the previous threads? They're worth reading if you have the time, and at the very least the threads since the December arrest.

It's all gone quiet lately probably because there's no new information or evidence appearing in the media.

But new eyes [emoji102] are good for seeing different perspectives on old topics. So if you have anything to add I'd love to see it!

Spooks
[emoji317][emoji317][emoji317]


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Canning Vale]

Hi there Hilo!
And welcome. [emoji1309]

Have you read the previous threads? They're worth reading if you have the time, and at the very least the threads since the December arrest.

It's all gone quiet lately probably because there's no new information or evidence appearing in the media.

But new eyes [emoji102] are good for seeing different perspectives on old topics. So if you have anything to add I'd love to see it!

Spooks
[emoji317][emoji317][emoji317]


............................................
Posts are purely my own opinion unless otherwise stated with source links.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

Spooks,

I've been reading the posts, but don't feel I can add anything of value.