Mr Cruel 1 – Overview of Case

Posted on by Melbourne Marvels

Mr Cruel is the moniker for a serial rapist, and most probably murderer, who terrorised Melbourne in the late 80s and early 90s. He was never caught and punished for his crimes.  There continues to be some debate as to exactly which crimes were his, but it seems that most detectives who worked on the Mr Cruel case agree that he was responsible for at least four attacks in the eastern suburbs on girls aged between 10 and 13 between 1987 and 1991.  The first attack involved a rape of an 11 or 12 year old girl, while the second and third attacks involved abductions and assaults. The last attack ended in the infamous murder of Karmein Chan.

However, more attacks have been attributed to him during investigations over the years, with a total of ten attacks having been attributed to him by journalists who have interviewed detectives about the case.  These ten attacks stretch back to 1985 and involve home invasions and rapes of adults and children from the age of 14 and up.

This overview will first look at the 4 cases that are considered the canonical Mr Cruel attacks, which, it seems, most detectives agree were the work of Mr Cruel, before then looking at the lesser known attacks that have at some point been attributed to Mr Cruel in the media.

The Canonical Attacks

The first case of the canonical Mr Cruel attacks was that which occurred on 22 August 1987 in Lower Plenty. In this case the perpetrator wearing an open-faced balaclava and armed with a handgun, a knife and carrying a rape kit, broke into a house at an unknown address and tied up the parents in the household and their 6 or 7 year old son (sources differ on the ages here), before raping the 11 or 12 year old daughter over a period of 2 hours.  The location of this house has never been revealed publicly, nor has the identity of the family in question. (1) (2)

A police sketch of Mr Cruel in the Lower Plenty Attack 22 August 1987
‘Police warn that armed rapist might strike again’, Greg Burchall, The Age, 29 August 1987

The second canonical attack occurred in the early hours of 27 December 1988.  This time the attack occurred in the home of the Wills family at 11 Hillcrest Avenue, Ringwood.  The perpetrator broke into the house and tied up the parents before abducting a 10-year-old girl – Sharon Wills – from her bedroom and taking her to a waiting vehicle.  He drove Sharon to his lair at an unidentified location where she was assaulted.  He then dumped her 18 hours later at Bayswater High School, Bayswater.

Police Sketch of how Mr Cruel looked during the Sharon Wills attack 27 December 1988
Sharon Wills before her abduction in 1988

The third of the canonical attacks occurred on 3 July 1990, when Mr Cruel broke into the expensive rented home of the Lynas family, at 10 Monomeath Avenue, Canterbury.  This time the parents were not home, but Nicola Lynas (13) and her sister Fiona (15) were sleeping in their bedrooms.  Mr Cruel woke them up before tying Fiona to her bed and abducting Nicola.  He took the family’s rented car keys and stole their car before driving Nicola to Chaucer Avenue, just a few streets away.  From here he bundled Nicola into his own car and drove her back to his lair.  Here he assaulted her, and held her captive for a period of 50 hours, before dumping her in the early hours of her 14th birthday at an electricity substation in Kew.

Police sketch of how Mr Cruel looked in Nicola Lynas abduction 3 July 1990
Nicola Lynas before her abduction in 1990

Lastly, the fourth of the canonical attacks.  This time the attack occurred on 13 April 1991 in the wealthy suburb of Templestowe at 111 Serpells Road where Karmein Chan (13) and her two sisters, Karly (9) and Karen (7) were at home alone watching television.  A masked man broke into the house before bundling Karly and Karen into a wardrobe and pushing a bed up against it to block their exit.  He then abducted Karmein and she was never seen alive again.  

Karmein Chan before her abduction in 1991.

Almost one year to the day later, a man was walking his dogs along Edgars Creek in Thomastown when his dogs were attracted to something protruding from the earth in a landfill site at that location.  It was a human skull, that of a young female.  Police were confident it was Karmein’s and lab tests later confirmed that it was indeed hers.  

Landfill site where Karmein Chan’s remains were found in Thomastown 9 April 1992

The Karmein Chan murder was the last crime that has been attributed to Mr Cruel.  However, some people believe there is not enough evidence to link the Karmein Chan case to the first three canonical attacks because, unlike in the first three canonical attacks, police could not interview her about her attacker. Adding to this confusion, police maintain that Mr Cruel was almost certainly responsible for a number of other attacks besides the four canonical ones, but have kept their lips tight about these cases.  Nevertheless, a scouring of the contemporary newspaper articles reveals a number of other attacks which were attributed to Mr Cruel in the late 1980s.  On top of this, research by other journalists has revealed information about some of the other attacks some detectives believe to be the work of Mr Cruel.

Other attacks attributed to Mr Cruel

The first of these occurred on an unknown date in February 1985, when, at 9pm at night, a man abducted a 14 year old girl from her Hampton home at an unknown address.  He then drove the girl to a vacant building site and sexually assaulted her, before dumping her at Moorabbin Bowl, a ten-pin bowling business on Nepean Highway.

Then, on an unknown date in July 1985, a 14 year old boy was abducted from his Hampton home at an unknown address at 8:25pm.  He was taken to an unknown residence and imprisoned for just over 3 hours and was sexually assaulted.  He was then released in Caulfield South at 11:45pm.

Both of  these Hampton attacks were revealed by Keith Moor in an article (3) he wrote for the Herald Sun in 2016 to mark the 25th anniversary of the Karmein Chan abduction.  It is not clear why detectives believe these attacks may be the work of Mr Cruel other than that they seem to have borne many of the same hallmarks that the canonical attacks featured.

Other attacks that have been attributed to Mr Cruel are three attacks that occurred in December of 1985.  The first of these occurred on 4 December, when a 30 year old woman was raped in her home in Warrandyte at an unknown address by a man wearing a balaclava and armed with a sawn off shotgun.  Then, on 6 December, a 30 or 35 year old woman (depending on source) was raped in her home in Donvale at an unknown address by a man armed with a rusty revolver or a long-barrelled handgun (depending on source). 

Finally, on 7 December, a 34 year old woman was asleep in bed with her 6 year old daughter at her Bulleen home at an unknown address when she was awoken by a man at about 11:30pm and raped. (4)  He was armed with a silver pistol or sawn off shotgun.  In all three of these cases the attacker wore a balaclava or hood, and blindfolded, bound and gagged his victims, (2) which is a very similar modus operandi to the later attacks.

‘New silver gun terror in rapes’, Michael Reid, The Sun News Pictorial, 9 December 1985

The last attack that has been attributed to Mr Cruel in the media is the Moonee Ponds rape of a 48 year-old woman which occurred on 11 November 1988.  The attacker entered the woman’s home before binding, gagging raping her.  He then left her bound up, stole the woman’s ATM card and drove to a bank before stealing $300 from her bank account. He then returned to her house and raped her again. (2) (I discovered in June 2021 that the Ascot Vale Rapist Christopher Clarence Hall was found to have been responsible for the Moonee Ponds attack in 1994. That same year he was jailed for 29 years for this and other attacks).

‘Police hunt for Mr ‘Cruel”, Jim Tennison, The Sun News Pictorial, 19 November 1987

In November 1987, the Warrandyte-Donvale-Bulleen attacks of December 1985 were linked with the Lower Plenty attack and the Moonee Ponds attack.  A taskforce was then set up to try to establish any connection between them.  By May 1988 the taskforce were convinced the Donvale, Lower Plenty and Moonee Ponds attacks were linked whereas at least 17 other attacks were deemed to be possibly linked, but it is unknown which attacks were being referred to here.  It is unknown if the Warrandyte, Donvale and Bulleen attacks were ever ruled out as being the work of Mr Cruel. (5)

‘Police ask for help in tracking rapist linked to 20 attacks’ Innes Willox, The Age, 10 May 1988

So, this has been an overview of the case.  In the future I will be giving an in-depth analysis of each of the canonical cases and then I will write some posts about some possible theories I have in this case.  

In the meantime here is a detailed map I made of the case which helps you navigate the important locations. Zoom in on the eastern suburbs of Melbourne to see the tagged areas where the important events in this case occurred. Each tag is clickable and contains more information on each event.

Here is a Youtube video that explains how to use the map.


Melbourne Marvels 26/01/2020

Sources:

  1. Burchall, Greg Police warn that armed rapist might strike again, The Age, 29 August 1987.
  2. Tennison, Jim Police hunt for Mr ‘Cruel’, The Sun News Pictorial, 19 November 1987.
  3.  Moor, Keith Victoira Police and FBI Dossier on shocking Mr Cruel child attacks, The Herald Sun, 8 April 2016 (paywalled).
  4. Reid, Michael, New silver gun terror in rapes, The Sun News Pictorial, 9 December 1985.
  5. Willox, Innes, Police ask public for help in tracking rapist linked to 20 attacks, The Age, 11 November 1988.

For more information on Mr Cruel attacks please click on the following links.

Lower Plenty Attack
The abduction of Sharon Wills
The abduction of Nicola Lynas

Please also read up on Jay’s website www.whoismrcruel.com for more information about this case.

NB: The use of copyright material in this podcast is for fair dealing for research purposes, for criticism and for reporting news. Melbourne Marvels is a non-profit blog/podcast that is researching the unsolved crimes of ‘Mr Cruel’.

Warning, this episode contains details about the sexual assault of children and the murder of a child. Please use discretion before listening.

If you like to leave a comment to Melbourne Marvels, please fill out the form below.

If you would like to make a contribution to help offsets the costs incurred as part of Melbourne Marvels’ research, please fill out the below form.

Karmein Chan in the year before her abduction.
Unknown's avatar

Published by Melbourne Marvels

37 thoughts on “Mr Cruel 1 – Overview of Case”

    1. Thanks for your comment. I’ve been doing a lot of research into this case at the State Library over the last few months. There is a lot of confusion and contraidctory information out there in what has been published about Mr Cruel in the past. So, I’m planning on a proper deep dive into it to try to resolve it.

      Like

    2. I don’t understand understand why the police have not solved this crime they know where the house is in Thomastown, all they need to do is get a warrant to get the equipment that is behind the garage yet they choose not to do any of this which is disappointing because there are still families that deserve closure and answers

      Like

  2. A well-researched article, best of all none of the mistakes the media keep making. Glad to see you didn’t publish the FBI profile letter error of 24/4/1991 that stated all 4 linked Mr Cruel crimes took place during school holidays. This is simply an error of fact as shown by the following …

    1/ N/N Lower Plenty 22 August 1987 Sat. Mid term 3
    2/ Sharon Wills Ringwood 27 December 1988 Tues. Christmas-New Year break
    3/ Nicola Lynas Canterbury 3 July 1990 Tues. Last week of term 2
    4/ Karmein Chan Templestowe 13 April 1991 Sat. 1st weekend of school hols.

    Only 2 of these dates are technically school holidays, but the other two are not convincing arguments to suggest as the FBI covering letter does, that there is a high probability that the offender was connected to a school. The reason? Most people were on holidays at these “school holiday” times. As a clue the “school holidays” angle is a complete dud … but sadly the media keep using it.

    Penguin Vic

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Chris. Thank you for your comment. I myself have not researched the dates of school holidays in the years mentioned. I had planned to do that as this blog progress and I look at some of those theories in more detail. A guy I have met through the Reddit r/MrCruel forum has though. He has stated that all of the 4 canonical attacks were on school holidays. I think he mentioned that Victoria switched from a 3 term year in ’86 to a 4 term year in ’87. I’ll link to his post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MrCruel/comments/kx3xhn/school_holiday_dates/

      Like

  3. A clarification: Kidnap victim Nicola Lynas was attending college when taken late on Tuesday night 3/7/1990. The girls at Her college sang “happy birthday” for her on the Friday morning assembly on hearing the news of her release. This was reported in the Saturday morning papers both in The Sun and The Age 7/7/1990. The school term dates for term 2, 1990, were 30 April to 6 July as printed in the Education Gazette And Teachers’ Aid. The college, PLC, faithfully followed the State school term dates because a number of there scholarship holders were from families who had other children at state schools. The only exception, from memory, was Melbourne Cup day – a normal school day – presumably because good Presbyterians shouldn’t gamble. For 1987 the Lower Plenty home invasion was mid term 3, according to The Age of 2 Feb 1987 the term ran from 13 July to 18 September in what was a 4 term year.

    Hope this clears things up.

    Penguin Vic

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Clarification 2: Mystery of school dates solved re. Nicola Lynas kipnapping.

    Thanks for the two internet links re the 1990 Vic school terms. The date these give is 29 June 1990 for term 2 ending. And these are incorrect! The edition of the Education Gazette And Teachers’ Aid 6 Nov 1990 page 426 has the correct date which is 6 July 1990. So where does 29 June come from? Because this was the date originally planned by the Vic Education Department as in the Education Gazette And Teachers’ Aid 7 March 1989 page 106. I remember it well because I almost fell for the same mistake! Why did the Education Department or whomever change their mind? Don’t know … but they did cause some confusion.

    I am willing to post hard copies to an address of your own choosing …

    Penguin Vic

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is great information Chris. I am going look into it more and get back to you. I do remember reading about Nicola Lynas’ schoolmates singing in the choir about being pleased that she had been found. I will check those articles out too. Thanks again.

      Like

    2. It certainly seems you are right Chris. Great research! I have all the Sun and Age articles, and indeed I’m reading one by Andrew Mevissen now from the Sun dated ‘Grief grips schoolmates from 6 July 1990 (Friday). It states that Nicola was due to spend her last day at the College that day before returning to England the following day. When I do my in-depth episode on Nicola Lynas I will definitely mention this and mention that you brought it to my attention. In the meantime, could you send me an email to melbinmarvelsatgmail.com as I ‘d like to contact you as you obviously know a lot about the case and it would be good to discuss it with you.

      Like

  5. Thanks for the encouraging feed back. Glad to help out. Tried the email address listed and my server couldn’t get through. Do you have my email address? Or another I could try?

    Chris

    Like

  7. […] Mr Cruel 1 – Serial Rapist and Probable Child Murderer – Melbourne MarvelsMr Cruel 2 – The Lower Plenty Attack – Melbourne MarvelsMr Cruel – WikipediaKarmein Chan – 29 years on – Online InvestigationsMr Cruel tormented Melbourne for a decade. 31 years on, we still don’t know who he is – MamamiaMr Cruel – Unresolved PodcastWho is Mr Cruel? The story behind Australia’s most terrifying unsolved murder – Now To LoveTwenty-Five Years On, Here’s Everything We Know About the Murder of Karmein Chan – ViceMr Cruel’s victim Sharon Wills wants closure after childhood abduction – Herald SunThe hunt for Mr Cruel – The AgeAustralian Crime Stories Season 3 – Mr Cruel – Channel 9 Australia […]

    Like

  9. I wonder if he felt inclined to murder Karmein because if she were to be released she would be able to identify him meaning its someone she could’ve known, perhaps a frequenter at the family restaurant?

    It’s possible that on the day Karmein was kidnapped he first went to the restaurant as per usual, saw both parents present and then went straight to their family home knowing that there was no parent present with them at the time. Given the context of the vandalism left on the family vehicle, he obviously knew that they did indeed own a restaurant, however, not sure if he only learnt about it through the media or if it was prior knowledge. It’s likely that he was a frequenter of Karmein’s area because another one of his victims lived in close approximation to Karmein.

    He’s also clearly an opportunistic given how he selected Sharon as a victim after seeing her DailyMail article and learning that she and her sisters sleep alone in the bedroom and was confident that he could enter their bedroom and snatch one of the girls and that no adult would be present in the room. The girls he did release he may have known for sure that they would not be able to identify him as he’s a complete stranger to them (Sharon was targeted after being seen in an article).

    When I first came up with this idea I was not aware that “Another commonly cited location for the detention premises is in the area of Eltham near Mings, the Chan family restaurant.” But now it seems likely especially if what I theorize about Karmein’s case is true.

    Like

  12. Hello. I would like to add the conversation put forward by Chris Bennett regarding the dates of the crimes and the school holidays. As always, thank you for your patience. This turned out longer than expected.

    1) First of all, I would like to point out the transition from the 3-term school year to a 4-term school year, as described in https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/education/termdates. The report of this proposed reorganisation had the date of July 1984, however, the Education Department introduced it in 1987. This is supported by the February 2 The Age issue mentioned by Chris (the 1987 school year was about to begin on 4 Feb).

    I think attention should be paid to the word choice “introduced” in the gov website – because, how was the transition rolled out? Was the new school year 4-term schedule fully implemented in all schools in Victoria in 1987? That is an important question.
    First, It is safe to assume such reorganisation would have some kind of transition period of at least maybe 1 year for schools etc to plan and prepare. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the 1984 proposal or The Age. I can’t tell if this transition period for schools to prepare could have started after the July 1984 proposal until Feb. 1987, or if it only started in the beginning of ’87.

    So, to me thus far, it seems plausible or reasonable to think not all schools had transitioned to the 4-term schedule yet in 1987. Why is this relevant? Because, if we consider a school with a 3-term schedule still, the “old” term 2 would have ended in August 21, Friday – which would make early hours of August 22 Saturday, the beginning of school holidays. This school could have been the one of the Lower Plenty victim (needs confirmation, maybe newspapers about the Lower Plenty crime comment on beginning of school holidays?) or the school the criminal worked in some capacity at the time.

    2) Let’s consider the Lower Plenty attack in early hours of August 22, 1987, would have been right after the end of term 2 of a school still operating on a 3-term calendar.
    The next crime was an escalation: Sharon Wills was kidnapped in very early morning of December 27, 1988, after Boxing Day. This falls both into school holidays and public holidays; Tuesday should have been a public holiday since Christmas fell on a Sunday. If we consider a 4-term school year this time, according to the gov website, term 4 ended in 22 December, Thursday.

    A first question is: why didn’t the culprit strike in the early hours of the 23rd, similarly to the previous attack? After all, evidence seems to point to the same criminal.

    At this point, I think we need to consider the holiday season. The 24th and 25th are extremely busy days where families reunite with relatives to celebrate. Did the Wills family travel to meet relatives? Did they host guests/relatives? Or did the offender? Could a Christmas Party have been held on the 23rd the offender would attend on his workplace? Questions which could help drawing a clearer picture.

    We know the criminal planned in advance to kidnap Sharon and kept her for 18 hours, releasing her on the early hours of the next day. Based on that, it does seem like a kidnapping on the 23rd would have been inconvenient for the suspect, at least since that duration it would certainly collide with Christmas Eve. This means the criminal did not want the attack to interfere with the social traditions and commitments of, at least, Christmas Eve and Christmas Morning, whether it was his and/or the victim’s commitments he had in mind – I would venture his. There could be several reasons for that, but, most importantly, missing those would probably draw too much attention to him. And, were he to kidnap Sharon on the 23rd, it would surely draw the media’s attention. It seems too risky.

    The next question is: why didn’t the culprit strike in the early hours of the 26th instead? Could it be the culprit was busy all day in the 25th and exhausted? Boxing day was also a public holiday and very busy day due to the shopping sales. Maybe the criminal also had shopping commitments he wouldn’t skip. Could he have gotten the tripod/camera etc in a Boxing day sale?

    It seems striking in early hours of the 27th, also a public holiday due to a Sunday Christmas, wouldn’t foil his plans – it was, perhaps, the most convenient date after the end of term 4: Christmas was over, socializing was done, shopping sales were done – he could concentrate all his attention now in the kidnapping.

    What I believe did foil his plans was Sharon’s dad insomnia. I’ll explain: this time, the perpetrator had planned a kidnapping, but it was Summer, unlike the Lower Plenty attack, which occurred in Winter. We know that in the previous crime the criminal attacked at around 4:00 am in Winter with less daylight, with 3 hours to spare until sunrise. It is true he would need more time to spare when compared to the future kidnapping, given he committed his assault inside the Lower Plenty home. Nonetheless, I don’t believe he had the intention of testing himself by planning the kidnapping of Sharon any later than 4:00 am in Summer, with less than 2 hours until sunrise. I believe the criminal didn’t expect the father to still be awake at 4am. Was this sporadic insomnia or did the father had it frequently? This could be interesting regarding the intelligence the criminal gathered before his crimes.

    When the father finally went to bed, it was almost at 5:00, already past the start of nautical twilight (source: https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/melbourne?month=12&year=1988). In one hour, it would be sunrise. The entry is estimated to have been between 5:30am (the start of civil twilight) to 5:45am to 6:00am (sunrise). Naturally, as the visibility increased with sunlight, it would pose a greater risk for him; he must have known he was running against time, but still went ahead with the plan. Sharon was kept 18 hours and not closer to 24hr because of this unexpected variable. She was released, presumedly according to his original plan, after midnight/early hours on the 28th.

    All in all, the date of the attack fits the previous M.O. in that it was at the start of the school holidays, after the term ends, at the most convenient time for the criminal – which in this case would have been in the night of Boxing Day/early hours of the 27th.

    (continued, 1/2)

    Like

    1. It was mid term 1987 and the school the Lower Plenty victim attended was mid term. Thanks for your comment though. The archives of the The Age clearly state the dates of the school holidays for that year.

      Like

  13. (continuation, 2/3) (External sources consulted: https://whoismrcruel.com/karmein-chan-murder/)

    3) So far, although will only two attacks so far, the M.O. seems to start pointing to a pattern of crimes being committed right after the end of a school term. However, his following crime, the abduction of Nicola Lynas, seems to contradict this: Nicola was abducted on the night of 3 July 1990, Tuesday, a school day; term 2 would only end on 6 July, Friday. He also entered the house earlier than the previous attacks, around 10:30 pm rather than after midnight (this could be explained by the absence of the parents.

    At first, this discrepancy seems to deny the previously-thought pattern. We would expect the criminal to have attacked on the night of the 6th or early hours of the 7th, since there were no public holidays to interfere. We know it’s the same culprit, further supported by the excellent information Nicola was able to provide to the authorities.

    So why 3 July and not the 7th? There are three relevant facts: 1) that would be the last night the family would spend in that house, 2) both daughters, Nicola and Fiona would share the same birthday on 6 July, Friday, coinciding with the last day of term 2, and 3) the Lynas were to return to England on 8 July, Sunday. This also leads to further questions: Where would the family be staying until their Sunday flight – an hotel, a friend’s house? Why didn’t the offender anticipate his kidnapping to the previous Friday night/early hours of Saturday, 29/30 June, respectively?

    We know Nicola was kept for over 48 hours, an escalation when compared to Sharon Wills. In fact, I believe she was kept around 50-52 hours to maybe make up in part for Sharon’s father having presumedly delayed the offender’s schedule. Let’s assume the criminal had originally planned keeping Nicola Lynas captive for around that amount of time (~48hrs). This would give an original timeline for plan A of kidnapping in the night of 6 Friday/early hours of 7 Saturday, and releasing Nicola at early hours of 9 Monday. First problem: Nicola wouldn’t reside in that house anymore starting on 4 July. Second problem: the Lynas had a flight back to England on 8 Sunday. So, here’s a possible plan B, knowing these facts in advance: kidnapping on early hours of 29 June, Saturday, releasing Nicola early hours of 2 July, Monday. But plan B wasn’t put into action. Instead it was plan C: kidnapping on 3 July Tuesday night and releasing Nicola at around 2:00am, 6 July, Friday, the day of her birthday.

    So why plan C over A and B? First of all, plan A would definitely have been his first choice. It does seem like he kidnapped Nicola at the last possible moment, given that was the last night Nicola would spend in that house. If he had known this in advance, it seems reasonable he would have opted for plan B and attacked the previous Friday/Saturday. At first glance, I would say this would have been preferable, or at least offer no immediate disadvantage over what happened (plan C) where his absence could have drawn attention during school/working days. Assuming this, opting for plan C would make sense only if the kidnapper had an important commitment the previous weekend or had not been aware until the last school week, maybe only on Monday, that Nicola and her family would leave the house they resided in before Friday. Once again, the timeframe for the 48hr he presumedly planned well in advance was being foiled. How he learned of it is another question. It doesn’t seem like he would have visibility to see luggage and suitcases being packed and moved around inside the Lynas house on Monday night, at least not from a safe distance while inside a car; on foot (seems risky) or with a concealed camera is another matter (the still of the front of the house included in https://melbinmarvels.com/2022/01/20/the-abduction-of-nicola-lynas/).

    For the above reasons, I would say that kidnapping Lyna on the last possible night she was there, Tuesday, was because he hadn’t planned for it in advance, and wasn’t aware the Lynas were leaving the residence mid-week until the previous weekend had already passed. Otherwise, he would have kidnapped her then, unless he had an important appointment, since this was preferable and less conspicuous than a kidnapping during the week. The fact the parents seemed to return less than 15 min after the kidnapper left also seems to attest to his risk-taking. It was a close call; I think the kidnapper tried to seize the opportunity while the girls were alone rather than waiting more hours until the parents arrived, fell asleep, and then attack.

    Given this, I believe the kidnapper originally planned to kidnap Nicola on the 6/7 of July but due to the circunstances had to attack on 3 July, or else he would miss his chance entirely. His M.O. regarding dates seemed to follow the end of term pattern but had to adjust in this case (or miss his chance)

    (continued, 2/3…)

    Like

    1. I think you’re unnecessarily holding onto the school holidays thing. Of the 3 pre-Karmein Chan canonical cases, only one was on school holidays. It’s time to forget school holidays. It’s been debunked.

      Like

      1. Thank you for the previous info and corrections. Yes, I genuinely thought I was onto something/a gap which might have been overlooked regarding the school holidays and the time of attacks, but I understand now that wasn’t the case. I’m letting it go, along with the subsequent assumptions.

        I hope you took no offense! I didn’t mean to disregard anything from the extensive research compiled by you and Chris available in MM, of course. I’m trying my best to get things right, but the cases are complex to get to know inside out. The last thing I want is to waste your time.

        Like

  14. (continuation 3/3)

    4) Finally, the last known suspected crime: the kidnapping and assault of Karmein Chan and subsequent murder. This crime occurred in the night of 13 April 1991, Saturday, and the school term 1 had ended on 12 April, Friday. So far, the date fits the M.O. Given Sharon and Nicola were quite physically different but kidnapped by the same perpetrator according to the gathered evidence, Karmein doesn’t seem to break the victim profile in his M.O., nor her age. Moreover, if anything Karmein also attended PLC like Nicola, and the criminal had previously confessed a schoolgirl fantasy/predilection, and the reputation of PLC would have preceeded it, so this would also fit his M.O. There could certainly have been a closer link regarding the criminal’s own connection to the PLC.

    However, this crime has multiple differences. Some minor differences: the kidnapping was even earlier than Nicolas, at around 8:45 pm, parents were absent, and before any of the 3 girls were in bed (https://whoismrcruel.com/karmein-chan-murder/). Additionally, the previous crimes had a longer interval between them: 16 months since the Lower Plenty attack to Sharons kidnapping, and 18 months since Sharon’s kidnapping to Nicola’s kidnapping; from Nicola’s kidnapping to Karmein’s only around 10 months had passed. This could simply be an escalation, but important to note given this also ended up in murder.

    The crucial difference was, indeed, Karmein ended up being murdered, presumedly by the kidnapper. She was found almost one year later, on April 9, 1992, in an isolated landfill area. Her body also appeared to be there for a year (more precise estimates would be welcomed). She was shot in the back of the head 3 times. It is mentioned in the whoismrcruel website that a witness retrospectively(?) saw someone who might have been the culprit digging around there, possibly two-three days after Karmein’s abduction.

    First of all, let’s assume the offender successfully kidnapped Karmein, and he would keep her for at least 2 days, given so far he never de-escalated his subsequent attacks. This would mean we could expect Karmein to be released around late night April 15, Monday, or early hours of April 16, Tuesday. Let’s now assume he escalated into 3 days captivity. This would mean Karmein would have been released around late night April 16 or early hours of April 17.
    In both scenarios, the victim would be released in the week and not the weekend. This already had a precedent with the kidnapping of Nicolas, but, as explained, I believe it was due to stressing circumstances and not what the culprit had originally planned.

    So the question is: wouldn’t the assumption of a 48/72 hrs kidnapping on a Saturday interfere with any of his workdays, given it would mean missing a Monday and possibly Tuesday and drawing unwanted attention? Maybe he called in sick, or arranged to have those day(s) off, but a simple explanation would be his regular work also ended at the same time as the end of school terms. Of course, another simple explanation could be because he was unemployed. However, his overall consistent pattern in attacking after a school term ends, even when he would have more freedom to pick more convenient dates while unemployed – doing it on purpose for the sole purpose of creating a red herring…seems a bit far-fetched. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the police itself didn’t seem to limit themselves with only school-adjacent jobs.

    Let’s turn our attention to the murder. First of all, the culprit had a consistent pattern lacking unnecessary inflicted violence, even seeming to be concerned about his victim’s welfare. Murder would be an extreme escalation, and by all past evidence so far, contrary to his plans.
    So what possibly could have made him decide to murder Karmein?
    We know Karmein, unlike the other victims, was a lot more adamant and unwilling to listen and follow his orders, even when threatened, perhaps because she was the older sister and felt protective of her younger sisters and reacted by having a fight response. This, however, did not deter the kidnapper, and he made a successful escape. Nonetheless, this was the first time one of his victims was quite reluctant to take orders.

    The first thing that comes to mind that could have endangered Karmein was disobeying his orders and taking a peek at his face. If Karmein had managed to take a safe peek without him noticing or suspecting, she would follow the same pattern and be released. But what if she had seen him and he knew? I believe he would have thought on the eventuality of this scenario before, just to be prepared. It is not as if murder was the only possible option available: he could have ran away. What would it matter if Karmein knew his overall physical appearance to justify murdering her, it still wasn’t a photo. He could change his appearance, redecorate the house, leave it and take a vacation. Did he have an uncommon, identifying physical trait? Of course, it could be he was already known to the police from previous arrests, and in this case, he would be easily singled out even by a sketch.

    Now, let’s assume Karmein, upon taking a peek, recognised him – knew who he was. That would certainly lead to a direct identification of the culprit, and he would have a stronger reason to murder her than the previous scenario. It could still be his word against hers until the police managed to raid his home or storage and gather evidence, but it would probably lead into his arrest and conviction to possibly life in prison. Still, he could still have run away and not kill Karmein. Choosing to murder her indicates the culprit saw it as preferable in order to retain his current life, job, and reputation, and was reluctant about abdicating any of this. He only had to murder her and the problem would be solved. I think this may highlight two things: 1) the culprit doesn’t seem to be a petty criminal, and instead someone with some social standing, which is possibly or likely able to be recognised by sight and singled out by victims, and 2) the cold, calculating side of him. The fact he shot her 3 times in the head instead of 2, without further context to know more, but assuming they were fired next to each other, it would seem the 3rd shot was done to be, perhaps, extra sure (3rd shot after 2nd shot would have been double redundant, no?)

    There are some other questions: when and where was Karmein shot? Did he use a makeshift silencer with a towel/potato? What gun did he use, any from the previous crimes? Was Karmein unconscious/sleeping, and could he have used a sedative for that intent? Did he shot execution style in the back of the head, partly to disguise her death as some kind of mob hit, like the grafitti? Did he wrap her up in plastic or bed sheets? Where and how did he keep her body until he disposed of it? If he was the person digging in the landfill next to a truck the witness saw, was he digging during daytime? Did he plan to bury her as well then or return to do it at night when it was safer?

    Thank you for the patience; I hope I brought some interesting and pertinent questions and scenarios.

    Like

      1. Oh sorry, that was my mistake. When you mentioned police now thought the kidnapping took place at 10:40 and not 11:40, and then explained the gap regarding Fiona and the parents arriving, which based on her account was relatively short, est. 15 min, so it couldn’t have been 10:40/12:00, I somehow wrongly thought you were concluding that it was mostly likely 11:40 then, when in truth you were point out that it was probably either that OR 10:40/11:00 (and unlikely 10:40/12:00 because for Fiona, in her state, 1hr would have felt twice that long, were that the case, no doubt).

        Like

Leave a comment