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.

 

[melbournemarvels]

Few observations FWIW.

The first Hampton attack (girl interviewed) seemed to specifically target her. The guy admitted to her that he had broken into the house previously. He also told her his wife had been playing around with her dad and that was the reason for the attack. Surely not hard to follow up if any truth to that? This one could be a one-off, and doesn't suddenly mean Mr. Cruel didn't exist, as claimed by Shand. If the wife/dad story was easily disproven, then it was the start of the red herring trail which became a constant.

The detective whose identity was hidden, reckons there was DNA samples from that first case and the Sharon Wills case. They apparently don't match. Given how huge a DNA sample is, how is it possible that detectives on the Spectrum task force like O'Connor, can't remember their existence? Those detectives might be retired, but none have lost their marbles and you are not forgetting something that significant.

If the samples exist, particularly the SW one, then surely at least some of the "Sierra files" 7 suspects can be exculpated? If not potentially all of them? If you eliminate 6, then at least you can narrow the focus accordingly.

Why, after getting nowhere for 35 years, is there such a reluctance from police to release more accurate information to the public? It's not like the culprit/s are shaking in their boots with where it currently sits.

Very good comment.

 

[melbournemarvels]

Ground breaking suggestion!
Of course they did.

This show was all about Shand. Very ordinary by him and the Human Lie Detector. Felt sorry for the other two detectives who probably had no idea the show was going to be produced like that

It's very disappointing isn't it when these media narcissists treat such a serious case like their ticket to a fame and money?

 

[melbournemarvels]

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.

I think you're absoulutely right. The show seemed to rely on the hope that the audience would not have the critical thinking skills necessary to see the flaw in their argument.

 

[melbournemarvels]

Melbourne Marvels has released The Edgar’s Creek Suspect Sighting – Mr Cruel 9 with an interview with a man who claims he saw mr Cruel on the night of Karmein Chan's abduction.

 

[johnymac1]

Melbourne Marvels has released The Edgar’s Creek Suspect Sighting – Mr Cruel 9 with an interview with a man who claims he saw mr Cruel on the night of Karmein Chan's abduction.

the firing of shots is more likely bikie related. with no links to KC's murder.

 

[Earls Smother]

Melbourne Marvels has released The Edgar’s Creek Suspect Sighting – Mr Cruel 9 with an interview with a man who claims he saw mr Cruel on the night of Karmein Chan's abduction.

Well done. Potentially fits with the burial site being further up Edgars Creek i.e. moved his intended site after being seen.

Why did he think the guy was wearing a wig? It is mentioned but not really explained. If he wanted to hide his hair, why wouldn't he just wear a hat or beanie? We seem to find this a bit with these sightings. The young cyclists that potentially saw him at the Lower Plenty offence - no real description released to the public (certainly not revealed on Adam Shand's show). Surely they at least saw what colour and type of hair he had?

Even the kerb-crawler reportedly seen hanging around PLC. Why no basic details like hair colour? If we were getting some consistent similarities, there would be more confidence they were the same person.

 

[windchimes]

Well done. Potentially fits with the burial site being further up Edgars Creek i.e. moved his intended site after being seen.

Why did he think the guy was wearing a wig? It is mentioned but not really explained. If he wanted to hide his hair, why wouldn't he just wear a hat or beanie? We seem to find this a bit with these sightings. The young cyclists that potentially saw him at the Lower Plenty offence - no real description released to the public (certainly not revealed on Adam Shand's show). Surely they at least saw what colour and type of hair he had?

Even the kerb-crawler reportedly seen hanging around PLC. Why no basic details like hair colour? If we were getting some consistent similarities, there would be more confidence they were the same person.

The spectrum taskforce had ‘brown to ginger hair and beard’ as their (somewhat vague) working description of the offender they were looking for.

Reading between the lines, I interpret it as that that a few of those suspect eyewitness sightings (e.g the Lower Plenty attack, PLC Kerb Crawler among others) have possibly reported a description along those lines to police, which is why the taskforce had that particular working description. It is unclear whether VPOL still hold that view now, though.

 

[OnTheRocks]

ginger hair and beard

Would make sense why he potentially wore a disguise & went to extreme lengths to hide any chance of identity.

 

[johnymac1]

It's good to see that people are still actively searching for the detention home.
Their finding are posted on Redditt and a FB page called Catching Mr Cruel

 

[johnymac1]

Melbourne Marvels has released The Edgar’s Creek Suspect Sighting – Mr Cruel 9 with an interview with a man who claims he saw mr Cruel on the night of Karmein Chan's abduction.

If it was Mr Cruel, you have wonder on his motivation. In discharging a firearm within close proximity to a biker property.

Just speculating, no evidence to point to the action. Was he trying to implicate the Bikie members and throw police off with a false lead?