The Devil's Garden (33 page)

Just days before the cold-case review findings are released, there is another bombshell: WA Police are set to question Briton Mark Dixie, aka Shane Turner, over the Claremont killings. At first blush, it appears that he could be the person responsible. Dixie was charged in July 2006 with the frenetic 2005 stabbing murder and sexual assault of 18-year-old Sally Anne Bowman, a blonde model whom Dixie stalked as she left a nightclub.

It was his hair-trigger temper that brought him undone: arrested after a post-World Cup pub brawl in Sussex, he gave a DNA sample which matched him to an indecent assault in London in 2001, when he allegedly masturbated in front of a woman who was standing in a public phone box making a call, and to Bowman's murder.

Reports that WA Police have requested Dixie's DNA samples dominate Perth media headlines. The 35-year-old had worked as a chef in Perth and the south-west between 1993 and 1999; the discovery that his visa had expired years before and his subsequent deportation was made only after he was arrested for exposing himself. A charming man with the gift of the gab, young tourists remember him as faking an Australian accent while workmates recall him as reasonably good looking with a fiery temperament.

If Dixie is responsible for Claremont, the modus operandi for his alleged murder of Sally Anne is not consistent with an organised killer nor with the modus operandi the Claremont killer used. She was not abducted and put in a vehicle. Her body was not moved after death. The attack was frenzied, brutal, carried out on the street outside her home where she died. Her body was covered in bite marks and the sexual assault was clumsy, violent. None of the hallmarks of the cool, calculated abductions and murders of the Claremont victims. While Anthony Lee admits only that WA Police are using standard procedures to look at any possible links between Dixie and unsolved crimes in Western Australia during the time he lived there, by October Dixie's news value as the possible Claremont killer has diminished. And it again begs the question why, if there is comparable DNA from Jane and Ciara's bodies, did Dave Caporn admit that the disposal sites were 'not fertile'? And why, if DNA does exist, haven't they tested that against Lance Williams and either exonerated or charged him?

News that Mark Dixie may be in the frame for Claremont precipitated a strong reaction on the 'Gotcha' blogsite. The recipient of three prestigious Walkley Awards for investigative reporting, journalist Gary Hughes is the author of the website, which looks at national and international issues of crime, corruption and law enforcement.

'What would you say if the WA police had suspects and they weren't watching them?' One person writes in with a poignant question: 'How loud would the outcry be if one of these was the murderer and the police had not kept them under observation? It may not be pleasant, but no doubt, it is necessary. All I can think is that if the police checked immi-grants leaving Perth around that time the killings stopped & took a close look at why they have left i.e. deported, maybe the life of that young UK girl could have been saved.'

'The primary [sic] suspect seems to have been followed around the clock for a very long time,' another blogger commented. 'His life became unliveable. If it turns out not to be him, we are in for the mother of all compo payments.'

But Williams, according to a Macro insider, has no chance at all if he chooses to sue the WA police department. 'What would he go us for?' he asks. 'His behaviour has put him in our line of sight.'

'Can't he sue for harassment?'

'No, because it isn't harassment. It's an ongoing police operation and he knows bloody well that there are numerous reasons why we've kept him targeted as a suspect.'

The most scathing 'Gotcha' post is from a former neighbour of one of David and Catherine Birnie's victims. The opinions vented remind me of so many conversations I have had with Perth residents about Western Australia police.

'The WA police force has a deplorable record of investigating the disappearance of and attacks on women in Perth,' the former neighbour starts.

When the Birnies were hunting girls in the '80s, the police, despite credible and consistent reports from families and friends of the missing girls, refused to take the disappearances seriously. I was, at the time, a neighbour of one of the murdered girls and heard first-hand the appalling treatment that her parents received at the hands of police. They accused the missing 15-year-old, a straight A student with no problems and good references, of variously being a runaway, a prostitute, troubled, drug-addled and attention-seeking. All this in the face of over-whelming evidence to the contrary from fellow students, teachers, the parents, various teen counsellors and her neighbours. The police, either too incompetent or too shiftless to act, upped the ante against the teenager, accusing her of being an accomplished scammer and liar, experienced in hiding aberrant behaviour behind an angelic facade.

In fact, this poor young child was an innocent teenager, being brutally assaulted, and latterly murdered, by the Birnies. Young women have been routinely disappearing from Perth streets since the early '80s and the police have resolutely refused to do anything about it. The reason that the police have been brought to account, and their ineptitude exposed, more recently is that two of the parents of the missing Claremont girls had the political clout to compel the police to firstly, act and secondly, tacitly admit that they were, and had always been, out of their depth in major criminal cases.

Whilst no public statements have been issued by the international experts called in to assist WA police, it is well known by journalists that many of these experts were horrified by the lack of police process, diligence and expertise in the early stages of this investigation. The fact that the police continue to dismiss further disappearances of women is not surprising given that at times their desire to cover their ineptitude and plain laziness has by far outweighed their commitment to preventing any further incidences.

If this UK fellow does turn out to be the Claremont killer then the police will have some serious questions to answer, not the least of which will be why they continued to harass and bully suspects long past the date when ANYONE believed the suspects had a case to answer. I fervently hope that the Spiers can bury Sarah, that Julie Cutler's parents find out where she is, that Ciara and Jane's family can at last walk down Perth streets without peering into the faces of every male they pass and that Sarah McMahon's mother can at least know if her daughter is dead or alive.

But one blogger in particular caught my eye. His blog name is Dr Phibes, his real name Andrew.

Dr Phibes is a character in a Vincent Price horror film who is certain that his adored wife died at the hands of incompetent doctors and vows his revenge. He takes inspiration for his murders from the biblical ten plagues of Egypt. The police officer who suspects Phibes to be a killer is initially hampered by the incompetence of the force for which he works but eventually tracks down Phibes. The blogger has chosen the identity of a macabre murderous doctor through which he addresses his thoughts.

Professing that he had met and spoken to Sarah McMahon through friends a few days before she disappeared, 'Dr Phibes' claims that police flew over his property with heat-seeking radar in the search for her body, that they bugged his phone and also took his DNA sample. 'Since they haven't been back, they have discounted me too,' he adds. Jane Rimmer, he says, worked in a day care centre near his workplace and he surmises that Sarah Spiers's body is in water and offers to search the areas that he nominates. 'Sarah McMahon is near Mundaring Wier. Just a feeling i get.' He adds that he has two other lakes that he feels are strongly in need of a search, and that '1 is north near where Kiara was found'. Enigmatically he continues: 'I have had a woman giving me probs for ages. Don't ya hate that ppl accusing you of bopping sum 1 off then annoying you to hell thinking they can do that and sleep OK?'

He offers readers the opportunity to email him directly. I do. We exchange some emails and his full name appears in the address. In the second email, he offers to meet me in Perth – an offer I accept. Trouble is, this book will be published by the time we can meet. Is the name showing in the email address real?

Who is this blogger inserting himself into the case? I call Robin Napper and ask him to take a look at the site. 'The grammar is sometimes poor,' I tell him, 'but it frequently changes to a well-educated style. Do you think this person knows more than he is letting on, that he is mad or just playing a dangerous game?'

Napper gets back to me within 24 hours. 'This is seriously spooky,' he says. 'Whoever this blogger is, he has more than a passing interest in the subject and is teasing us with his knowledge of all three victims. How does he know that some of the areas he talks about are inaccessible and rugged unless he has been there? And if he has been there – why has he?'

Letters regarding the Claremont killings keep pouring into the police. In 2001 barmaid Maree-Ellen Bullard, following a phone call to Missing Persons with information about the disappearance of Sarah McMahon, starts a relentless campaign to have her voice heard, writing countless letters over the years to the premier, police minister and police, raising her concerns about the adequacy of the Macro investigation. A witness in the Susan Christie case, she has, she says, information about McMahon and 'a few other disturbing incidences I would like to tell you about.' One is a person whom she believes police should be treating as a suspect. As polite letters from government departments advise her that her issues are 'being looked into', the tone of Bullard's letters becomes increasingly vitriolic: 'I also in October 2001 voiced my concern over different matters concerning the person I have grave concerns about . . . I will forever and a day stand by why I rang and what I am trying to do for these missing women and there [sic] families.'

Bullard and I meet at a South Perth café in 2006. A heavy smoker who runs on nervous energy, she strikes me as manic but determined, a woman who will not resile from her opinions. 'I am so frustrated,' she tells me. 'I can't get anyone in this city, apart from Robin Napper, to listen to me. In all these years, the only time I've ever had an interview with police was January 2002.' She hands me a sheath of papers to read. 'This circus they call the Macro taskforce must end!' one letter begins. 'Who's the next suspect? Bozo the Clown?'

I am startled by the contents of the letters. Her aggressive writing style, I suggest, will win her no friends in the police or elsewhere. This, to Police Minister Michelle Roberts in mid-2005: 'I did write to Jim McGinty with copies I sent to you also. I did not even get the complimentary "who gives a red rats arse" letter back . . .' Worse, I warn her, with her continuing use of the word 'youse' instead of 'you', she runs a great risk of being dismissed as uneducated and mad.

'Stuff 'em,' she responds. 'I won't shut up until they start to take me seriously. Writing me patronising letters won't work; I want to see something done about what I'm trying to tell them.' What she is trying to tell them, over and over again, is to look at a person she nominates as a suspect.

One letter, dated 10 June 2005 and signed by Detective-Superintendent Byleveld, addresses the issue of her concerns regarding Macro and the independent review team. 'I must advise that the independent review panel was unanimous in their praise for the professional and exceptional investigation undertaken by WAPOL...' it reads. 'If you are able to provide relevant information that may assist those investigations, please direct that information to this office so it may be assessed and the appropriate action taken. I reiterate that the information must be more than mere supposition before any investigation is warranted.'

Her response is predictable. 'As for saying they praise your efforts, I personally believe that youse deserve a KICK UP THE ARSE and a CLIP BEHIND THE EARS.' Bullard says she will never give up. 'Look, there are times when I fear for my own safety speaking out like this,' she admits. 'But this whole business is a debacle and someone has got to do something. I won't let it go.'

Now almost to deadline, in October 2006 I call GP Dr Andrew Dunn's practice to try to arrange an interview. I want to confirm the story told me by Neil Fearis about the patient who said Ciara Glennon was going to be offered up as a sacrifice; talk about his experience of being a witness in the controversial Christie case and to confirm other details regarding the McMahon family. But Dr Dunn won't take my call. The young receptionist who answers the phone tells me he knows what I want to talk to him about but, he has advised, 'It has nothing to do with him.'
How
does he know what I want to discuss, I ask her? I haven't told anyone. Three times she returns from putting me on hold while she checks again. 'No. Dr Dunn will not speak to you. This has nothing to do with him.'

Finally, the practice manager, Barbara, takes the call. 'What is this about?' she inquires in a professional tone.

'I'm writing a book,' I tell her, 'on the Claremont serial killings and would like to discuss some things with Dr Dunn.' There is a moment's pause.

'Hold the line, please.' Barbara comes back to me within a short time. 'I am sorry. Dr Dunn has advised this has nothing to do with him, and it is his right not to speak to you.' Quietly, she adds, 'I was married to a lawyer, and hope you don't mind me reminding you that it is prudent to be careful what you write about people. It is
so
easy to fall into the trap of defamation.' The message is transparent.

'I understand. Please tell Dr Dunn I was only attempting to check some facts. Thank you.' I hang up.

Detective-Inspector Geoff Ellis, head of Major Crime since October 2004, was present during the original discussions in February 2006 as to whether police should talk to me. It was Ellis's opinion that, from the investigative viewpoint, nothing could be gained from open discussions. He enjoys a reputation as a tough cop who is also somewhat of a 'charmer', skilled in the art of gently pushing even the most cynical toward the police viewpoint. But he doesn't dance around me with his opinions. With only the questions I have sent the Special Crime Squad to go on, he immediately accuses me of both bias and lack of balance. The problem, it quickly transpires, is my use of words and what he perceives as my lean toward Robin Napper's viewpoints. For the first few minutes, it feels like a verbal boxing match.

Ellis is concerned at my use of the term 'trophies' to describe missing clothing or jewellery and demands to know how I have come to that conclusion. As a member of the International Homicide Investigative Association, he says he knows a great deal about serial killers. And what he knows is that they don't always take trophies. It becomes an exercise in banter. 'How do you know they're
not
trophies?'

'How do you know they
are
?'

'What would police prefer they be called?'

'We hesitate to call them trophies because we can't be sure that they are. And we can't be sure because we haven't found them, or the killer.' It is a reasonable point.

'But still,' I say, 'they could well be trophies?'

'Yes, of course. They could be.'

He gives a protracted sigh before admitting that the subject of Robin Napper irks him. 'Mr Napper has never spoken to me with any issues regarding homicides, yet he criticises our techniques,' he says. 'He is not up-to-date with methodology and practice. He advises us to look at predatory behaviour, both historical and present, such as snowdropping and flashing, but we were doing that already. What we didn't have in the early days of Macro was a DNA database where we could match predatory behaviours. That was set up in November 2000 as a result of the Identifying Persons Act, which gave legislative ability to retain a suspect's DNA. Now those historical samples have been placed on a database. But we are legislatively bound to only use the DNA taken from the taxi drivers for the Macro investigation.'

'Have you met Mr Napper?' I ask.

He laughs, one that is laced with scorn. 'No, I haven't. Haven't wanted to and haven't needed to.'

It seems absurd. Napper, a former police officer and thorn in the side of WA Police, is only 10 minutes away from their headquarters.

'I know he pushed for a cold-case review and that the police opinion is that he should accept the umpire's verdict on that, accept that few criticisms were made,' I venture. 'But my understanding is that he is simply bewildered as to why WA Police refuse any offers of his help. He's not angry – just bewildered.'

As the conversation progresses Ellis proves himself to be just as others have described him: reasoned and intelligent. Gone are the aggressive overtones and vague threat implicit in his promise to 'read this story with interest'. He has a genuine concern that I show balance. 'Lance Williams became high profile because of his interest in participating with the media,' he says. 'He was the focus of the investigation and there is significant information to warrant that focus. From a moral standpoint, there are always going to be casualties in this sort of lengthy, tough investigation. I am sorry he feels maligned, but he is not the only focus in this case and to start – or win – any action against the police for harassment he would have to demonstrate malice and forethought. Evil mind, evil act.'

He proffers a grim laugh when I ask if he thinks Williams is guilty. 'Let's just say I wouldn't take bets,' he answers. He won't take bets either on whether the Claremont killer has claimed more than three victims. 'There certainly could be more. There certainly could.' How many more? He won't hazard a guess.

'That's frightening, isn't it,' I say. 'Incredibly frightening to think this person could still be lurking around somewhere but not knowing how many victims he has claimed.'

'It is,' Ellis concedes. 'I wish I felt confident saying some-thing different. But I don't.'