Unsolved Hunt for Mr Cruel

[Earls Smother]

I don't know what to think of this case.

It was strongly suggested in the TV show about the case on Monday night that there was more than one offender committing these crimes rather than one guy who was the much-feared 'Mr. Cruel', but it seems even less plausible that a number of men could have committed similar crimes around Melbourne at the same time, and none were ever caught. Sure there might be copycats, but they are more likely to mess up and be caught by the police.

And after the Karmein Chan abduction and subsequent murder in April 1991 (her body was not found for another year), no similar crimes in 33 years since then. The only name I've seen with tentative suggestions to the involvement of Mr. Cruel is Rhianna Barreau, a 12-year-old girl who vanished without trace from Adelaide in October 1992, but this only speculation and nothing out of Melbourne where the Mr. Cruel abductions took place in the late 1980s and very early 1990s.

The tentative link to the Rhianna Barreau case was the sighting of a white car with Vic plates loitering around the streets where she disappeared.

The 2 other cases that were identical to RB were Cherie Westell (2000) and Bung Siriboon (2011). They both just happened to go to the same school - Boronia Heights Secondary College. Cherie was walking towards Ringwood, which is obviously the suburb where Sharon Wills was abducted from. Bung was from Boronia, which is a couple of suburbs east. Sharon was dropped off in Bayswater, which is directly between Ringwood and Boronia.

There are definite geographical similarities; it is the time lag that creates doubt. Why nothing for nearly a decade? Obviously differing MO to Cruel as well, but still involving girls around the same age.

 

[Earls Smother]

Keep thinking about the show and how the big hook was the DNA sample from the first case, but the show never provided any evidence to suggest the DNA sample was from the perpetrator, it's just assumed it was by the hosts. This could explain why the detectives on the case had never heard about it - basically, it wasn't considered strong enough evidence (e.g. it could have been on something that multiple people handled over time).

Also, even if it was the perpetrator's DNA, it's another the leap to conclude that because one of the non-canon cases had different DNA to the Sharon Wills case that the canon cases aren't linked with each other.

Let me know if I missed anything here but the whole premise seems very flawed.

Agree. Confusing as to what the show was trying to achieve. Does Shand know more, but not allowed to run with it? The interview with the bike rider kid from the LP case was clearly compromised in what they were allowed to say.

It is totally implausible that the MC crimes could have just coincidentally ended up so similiar, with more than one perpetrator. However, it is not impossible that 2 like-minded nutters met through work, sport, social group etc. and planned to execute the crimes together, taking turns with various aspects. This would not only confuse investigators, but would provide alibis more easily if something went wrong.

Thinking about it some more, the Hampton "my wife, your dad" reason given for the attack, had to be rubbish. How could they not locate the offender very easily if that was true? The dad might have resisted initially if he was having an affair, but for his daughter's sake would have told police who the woman was. Not hard to then identify her partner. So we do have the red herring pattern appearing to start.

In the Nicola Lynas case, MC said something along the lines of "they think I did the one 18 months ago (Sharon Wills), but I couldn't have as I wasn't in the state". Given that information is easily findable on Melbourne Marvels, why didn't they include that to support their case? Particularly given EG from MM was actually on the show. It could be red herring based nonsense, but it does seem to be an odd thing to say in isolation.

As you say with the DNA, we just lack any certainty as to the validity of so many aspects of this case.