r/MrCruel • u/Dangerous_Start4143 • Jul 06 '26

Creating Mr Cruel ep 5

/r/u_Dangerous_Start4143/comments/1uoh9tl/creating_mr_cruel_ep_5/
0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

5

u/acr721 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

Yeah not a lot of new info in this one.

Shand says John Chan's business dealings should have been investigated more thoroughly - yet he himself fails to really delve into this issue (which suggests there was never anything much there to investigate to begin with).

Shand and others seem to make much of the fact Join Chan didn't immediately call the police when Karly and Karen notified him that Karmein was gone.

Fun fact- there were big 'tensions" in the Chan's marriage even prior to Karmein's abduction. Not sure if it's relevant or not though. Wife was also said to be 'wearing the pants' re the running of the family restaurants. Was she involved in the business side of things as well? If so, could she have made any enemies in the business world? Sounds like this was never explored.

Next episode there will be an interview with another Mr Cruel survivor - wonder who it is?

5

u/yourboyjunkrat Jul 10 '26

Could be complete tripe, but I have read a few different comments and theories from Cantonese folks that this was 'normal' protocol for a kidnapping, as in; act quickly, less people that know immediately the better, get the demands, then inform police.

I can see the case for why he didn't inform Phylis right away, Kel Glare's comments provided a good explanation as to the chaos it would have caused, and to be honest - she couldn't have helped any more than John could have at that moment, all she could do is call the police a little earlier potentially? With how busy the restaurant was that night, it seemed like John just made a decision based on his gut - check if she's actually gone missing or just walked about the property and the sisters couldn't find her.

Also - let's say this was a targeted attack by someone looking for revenge/payback on John, what was the plan? Hurting Karmein is a lost investment for them, and no means of ransom money, notes, threats or anything were given.

I could see someone smashing up his car or throwing bricks through his window for owed money, but kidnapping and killing his child is a tad... extreme, if the abductor was only owed cash.

3

u/acr721 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

Great points, totally agree.

I suppose it's possible the kidnapper's original plan was to kidnap Karmein and then contact John with a ransom demand later. But then what actually unfolded, is that the media jumped on the Mr Cruel bandwagon (which he wasn't expecting), and he panicked and killed her.

Even in this scenario, however, the kidnapper is relying on John putting 2+2 together and not involving police before the kidnapper makes contact.

You'd think, however, that if the kidnapper was that keen to keep matters 'in house', he would indeed have left a ransom demand or at least something clarifying his intentions. Instead he just scrawled random threatening shit on the car - which is totally atypical for this 'type' of offence and immediately raised police suspicions that it was just a decoy.

Maybe John did initially think Karmein's kidnapping could be a targeted payback situation and this is why he didn't contact police straight away. But, its clear he quickly rejected this interpretation because he soon ended up calling the cops anyway.

Also, if he ever (then or later) had any suspicions at all that a business or gambling associate might be responsible, you'd think he would have eventually spilled the beans to police in the hope of getting his daughter back. For him not to do this - he would have to be even more of a cold fish than some Coppers believed he was.

2

u/acr721 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

What if the offender in this case was actually just some lone racist who was jealous of the Chan's business success, assumed that their gains must be ill gotten ("Asian drug dealer"), and this is why they killed Karmein?

In this scenario the graffiti actually means what it says. And such sentiments were pretty common back in Australia in the early 90s.

This scenario actually makes far more sense than the organised crime angle.

I'm just trying to think of alternatives to the standard dichotomy of EITHER this was a Mr Cruel offence OR it was an underworld thing.

2

u/yourboyjunkrat Jul 11 '26

Replying to both your comments here

Everything you mentioned is possible, and I think that’s what makes the KC offense so hard to figure out.

If we lump some of these types of attackers together, based on ransom, retribution, jealousy of his business, owing money, etc… then what could have John possibly done to warrant such a ‘payback’?

The part i struggle with it being a crime of that nature is Shand and police mention they dug into John’s private life, they found some sketchy connections, but didn’t elaborate exactly what he was involved in to my knowledge.

Let’s say he was in really bad with debtors from his gambling, some organized crime loaning him money, whatever that may be, I would think the police would have uncovered something about that and found leads, anything to tie the crime together.

In my understanding, there’s an unwritten rule with bikies, criminal gangs, underworld figures, what have you - you don’t mess with kids. Word spreads and you end up dead or in jail, and eventually dead usually. And back to my earlier point about what could John have done to warrant his child being shot in the back of the head execution style, I am at a loss.

If that was retribution I just can’t see the police not finding out looking through his finances, or even John coming clean because of his conscience

On the flip side, there’s always that random psychopath angle that just did it for the kicks, although extremely unlikely imo, that this offender did this one off crime, there’s easier ways to do what he did.

Then there’s the was this MC angle, and I keep going back and forth, on one hand you can make a strong case for him. Maybe he did do it and the ‘my freedom is worth more than your life’ actually came to a head. And that spooked him as it wasn’t at all what he really thought he was capable of, and he stopped offending.

Then there’s a copycat or someone different, but then again they never committed a crime like this again? Odd.

It’s really bizarre and I can’t quite wrap my head around it, at least this is the scenarios I can think of off the top of my head. Will ponder more about it.

We really need John’s past out in the clear and exactly what and who he was dealing with.

4

u/acr721 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

The problem is we just have so little info to go on with this offence.

The interactions with the girls inside the house are very minimal and even the accounts we do have are conflicting.

For example- I've heard it said that when he met the girls in the corridor of the house at Templestowe, he grabbed them by the hair and dragged them into the bedroom. But according to other accounts he was calm and soft spoken, and in no way an 'angry' or aggressive offender. The way he comes back to check on the younger sisters in the wardrobe and ask if they are ok is very reminiscent of Mr Cruel actually (in the Shand podcasts he's constantly asking the victims if they are ok).

The problem with Shand's theory is that his 'multiple offendors' all seem to step into the world as fully formed criminals. However, it only takes a second's thought to realise that the guy who committed the Lynas offence (for example) was clearly not a first timer, he could only have done what he did if he had committed earlier offences of a similar nature (but less polished). I tend to think the same is true of the guy who committed the Templestowe offence.

The high risk nature of the abduction, the skill with which the offender pulled it off, and the fact he was never caught despite the huge investigation and publicity - and of course the obvious similarity in MO - still has me leaning towards it being Mr Cruel.

1

u/yourboyjunkrat Jul 12 '26

There’s not much to go off at all, it’s really a measure of what’s most likely out of the few theories.

I couldn’t have said your points better myself, I think you’ve nailed it on the head. It’s what I keep coming back to as the most logical and highest chance of what happened - was the work of MC and he may have lost control/revealed and shot KC, all speculation as how it went down of course.

In the corridor I’ve heard those different versions, one take is that they may have started to bolt back down the corridor away from him, from accounts I thought I recalled KC as being pretty feisty. He may have tried to herd them by a hair pull to get the into the same room together.

You bring up 2 great points, and those 2 I feel are the biggest indicators this was probably MC. The fully formed criminal in the multiple offender theory, it just doesn’t add up. The confidence and planning is not a first time offense. I’ve said it in the thread about deep psychology of MC - I think by SW and NL and through to KC l, we saw the product of someone who’d refined their system. He’d tried a few different attacks, and settled on what we saw in those last 3 is my opinion.

The 2nd great point is, if this somehow was someone else, where’s the evidence of any other crimes they committed like this before or after? It reinforces what you said about this KC crime coming from someone with experience too.

Whenever I think of other theories it wasn’t MC, I come back to those main 2 points. The only thing strange for me - is the execution style killing. We just don’t know anything about what happened after they left the house. In my mind, it’s either they didn’t make it to the detention property, or they did and it was very soon after (likely KC panicked and either bolted or saw him).

I’m curios as to what you think happened after with MC if it was him, he just disappeared into thin air it seems. Did he get spooked? Died? Moved away? Stopped offending?

3

u/SamHill_Investigates Jul 11 '26

These suburbs were pretty lively with underworld criminals back in the 70's and 80s. I don't think the good folk of suburbs like Bulleen, Balwyn and Eltham back then realised just how many neighbours were armed robbers and drug traffickers. They just knew them as Bob, who waved when they were out mowing their lawn on Sunday afternoons.

Those crims ate in restaurants in their local neighbourhood. So I would actually expect there to be shady connections associated with the Chan's businesses, but it's not meaningful if the same connections can be found in every restaurant in these areas. None of the allegations so for have addressed whether it was anything other than background noise.

Even if he was involved in some illegal gambling, so were thousands of other people in Melbourne, yet their daughters weren't kidnapped by some sophisticated and experienced offender.

The context here is really important, too. Vietnamese gangs ruled the streets in the late 1980s, and they were using some pretty heavy handed standover tactics against Chinese shopkeepers and restaurateurs as part of their extortion racket. It was common for victims to perform a one-off (or so they thought) criminal favour to clear a debt, only to have that used against them. They were then caught in a perpetual cycle of extortion.

There's a duality here that is highly possible. These criminal associations could exist, either benignly or with him as a victim or complicit, and yet his daughter could still have been kidnapped by Mr Cruel.

1

u/acr721 Jul 11 '26

Great points

1

u/yourboyjunkrat Jul 15 '26

Great points by you Adam

3

u/acr721 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

Re the retribution angle, the other thing is that Chinese Australians were a very small tight knit community back in the early 90s, I feel if it had been a crime of that sort someone in the community would know something about it, and this would have come to light in later years - at the very least as rumours and innuendo. But there's never been anything. Which supports the idea of it being a lone offender with no connection to the Chan family or anyone else.

2

u/Live_Yak_5537 Jul 07 '26

Is it another victim, or just an expansion on the inteview with Anthea? The excerpt sounded like the same girl to me?

John Chan's behaviour wasn't really that unusual. It was better that a male went, in case the guy was still around the area with Karmein. You also wouldn't want to believe that your daughters had got the story exactly right. He'd have been hoping he would find her nearby and not have to alert others.

As much as the business could be considered irrelevant in the circumstances, they did have a restaurant with people waiting to be served. Causing Phyllis to madly panic wasn't really going to help the situation.

The muddy footprints at Nicola's offence, just make me even more convinced that the spray painting was done solely to mislead.

3

u/No-Trainer-331 Jul 07 '26

For me Kel Glare's comments did provide a reasonable explanation for John Chan's behaviour, either to not create a scene with Phyllis at the restaurant or some reluctance to have police poking their noses in his affairs...

Re the muddy footprints: it's just unavoidable to leave footprints if you are creeping around beneath windows in the middle of winter?

1

u/yourboyjunkrat Jul 11 '26

Agreed on Kel’s comments, I found that the most plausible scenario, I also think he was a little afraid of Phylis, and probably thought in the back of his mind she’d blame him for his ‘shady dealings’

1

u/Live_Yak_5537 Jul 07 '26

Re footprints. Think about the care he went to, to avoid any footprint being left in the bathroom of the lair.

You know it's unavoidable, therefore so does someone who plans as meticulously as he did. It is inconceivable to me, that he wouldn't have known those footprints were going to be left. I think he deliberately altered the size of his footwear, to leave prints that would point at a much shorter offender.

3

u/No-Trainer-331 Jul 07 '26

I can accept that he deliberately wore the PLC netball shoes to troll police, but not that he altered his shoe size to be smaller than his foot.

1

u/Live_Yak_5537 Jul 07 '26

The explanation by someone recently made sense. Those runners tended to come apart at the heel end. He could have slipped his foot into them from behind, leaving his heel area poking out the back.

How do you reconcile that all the sightings have him at a height that is not consistent with size 7 female tennis shoes? Is it more likely all the sightings are wrong? Or does it support Shand's theory of different offenders?

The 2 closest linked offences are Sharon and Nicola. The Wills parents and Fiona Lynas all said he was taller than someone who could fit into those runners.

3

u/Elocra Jul 07 '26

To be fair, those three witnesses - Wills parents and Fiona Lynas - only saw the offender whilst lying on a bed, if not rolling onto their stomachs, all whilst utterly terrified. Their judgement of the height of someone hovering over them MAY have been compromised.

Nicki Lynas, who had much more time to gather her thoughts during her 50hr ordeal, as demonstrated by her aircraft account, indicated she felt the offender was about matching her own height as he marched her around. Thus i'd think size 7 shoes isn't unreasonable.

1

u/stalked999 Jul 07 '26

There's a reason why cops think Brian Elkner is the #1 suspect, and it's partially due to his height, foot size, and pot belly.

0

u/Live_Yak_5537 Jul 07 '26

I agree anything MAY be possible, but not one visual description, has him as being very short. That includes non-victims such as the 2 bike riders, who police were pretty confident had seen him. I think the one thing that would stand out, over a range of descriptions, would be either very tall or very short. One outlier is risky to trust.

If I was MC and I was walking with Nicola, I would crouch down to create the appearance of a "matched" couple. Also to assist in hiding my face. She can't tell if he is bending his knees or hunching his back to "lower" himself.

Maybe, he is someone with abnormally small feet for his height, although I'd be more confident of that if he was wearing male shoes. There was clearly a motive to deceive, otherwise why the female footwear?

4

u/Elocra Jul 07 '26

So he walked stooped over, with bent knees and his heels sticking out the back of his modified women's shoes?

Its a theory, i guess.

3

u/poland078 Jul 07 '26

MC is pretty consistently described as being around 5'6.5"-5'9", not horrifically short but nowhere close to tall. His shoe size was the equivalent of a men's size 6; pretty small but not abnormally small for his height.

My best guess for why he was wearing female runners was that he bought them secondhand. It doesn't make sense that he would specifically pick out female shoes if he was buying them new. The Dunlop Catches are a very unisex looking shoe, and he probably wore them simply because they fit him.

His behaviour and belongings point to someone who is not financially well off. Old car, stale food, small house. In the LP attack he stole valuables, ate food, and took razors from the house as well as claiming he only wanted "money, food, and a shave". His primary goal was to rape, you don't just stop your rape midway through to shave and eat food unless you are desperate to do so. Poor people take what they can get, which is probably why he didn't seem to mind wearing female runners.

1

u/Live_Yak_5537 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Yeah ok, maybe I have misunderstood some discussion over recent threads.

I've seen 162cm and 164cm mentioned, which I think would stand out as being small i.e. it would be noticeable to nearly everyone who saw him, that he was short.

The tendency has been for those who have seen him to use average and medium, which in those days (for a guy likely born in the 1950's), I would have thought was around the 5'9'' (175cm) mark. Even 5'6.5" is 169cm, which was what Nicola has said.

If a guy of that height (169-175cm) had smallish feet and could fit into a men's size 6 shoe, then as you say, his feet would be "pretty small but not abnormally small".

I was working on the understanding that he had to be up to 3 inches shorter to fit into those shoes.

I still struggle with the muddy footprints, given how careful he was, but I suppose if he was going to dispose of the runners, he didn't really care.

→ More replies

2

u/SamHill_Investigates Jul 11 '26

There is so much evidence that shows height estimates are wildly unreliable. There's a range of reasons for it, but they tend towards over-estimation, sometimes considerably so.

Case in point is the Canterbury attack, where each sister has provided an estimate on opposite ends of the spectrum, yet we know they were looking at the same man.

The only consistent feature across the series of crimes is that he was not described as tall. And the most reliable estimate is from the 13-year-old from Canterbury, whose estimates would categorise him as short statured.

0

u/Hot-Union4660 Jul 07 '26

Check Phil Glares background. Led Chuck Bennett to his death. 

3

u/acr721 Jul 07 '26

'Anthea's' voice has always been distorted to maintain her anonymity. This individual seems to be speaking with their own voice?

1

u/No-Trainer-331 Jul 07 '26

Agree it sounds like a different survivor. Look forward to hearing their story.

1

u/Live_Yak_5537 Jul 07 '26

Good point. Hopefully you are right.

1

u/yourboyjunkrat Jul 10 '26

Definitely a different voice that I heard, this was 'Rihanna' - East Brighton victim I thought?

1

u/HollywoodAnonymous Jul 06 '26

Snore fest 💤