Talk:Mr Cruel

earlier conversations

he is a sicko —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryan762 (talk • contribs) .

Wow what's the chance? I checked this out no less than 6 hours ago and it was only the first 2 paragraphs, then I check in the morning and it's got a whole page added onto it.

Must've been my subconcious when I was sleeping, :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.176.131 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I removed the "More Info" section, as it was a direct copy of material from Australian News. The copyright statement says "Copyright © MAKO 2005. All Rights Reserved. You may not republish, distribute, prepare derivative works, or otherwise use the content other than as explicitly permitted herein." — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Added more info

Hi,

I added more info today and added the source from which I got it. I changed the formatting to be more in line with my other paedophile additions. Feel free to update - we don't have all his attacks here. This guy is sick, but he's highly intelligent and organized.

I propose that the page be moved to 'Mr Cruel', without the period. I'd prefer 'Mister Cruel' to 'Mr.' - Richardcavell 14:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

there's no mention of the blunder where a childhood photo of Karmein Chan was released to the media rather than a current (for 1991) photo (i remember seeing it plastered everywhere including the Herald Sun and The Age). PMA 09:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"They do have a prime suspect, against whom they have insufficient evidence to prosecute." _Source?

Serial Killer

The article says he killed 1 person, yet he's listed in the serial killer category. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.244.191 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the category. -- Longhair\^talk 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hampton?

Does anyone know why Mr Cruel was originally known as the Hampton Rapist? None of the attacks mentioned in this article took place in Hampton? Barneywhiz (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on Wikipedea is largely wrong. As a once detective on the task force that hunted Mr Cruel, he was never the 'Hampton Rapist'. Nor did he tell his victim he was going to 'release her in 50 hours'. Nonsense. Nor did he wipe a bench top surface of fingerprints; that's an assumption, at best. The comment on what he did on the bathroom floor is fiction. If you want fuller, more accurate details Wikipedea, contact me for a blurb, after you verify my bona fides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.252.244 (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have added the "Citation needed" tag to the dubious facts you mentioned. Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit. If you can improve the existing article, please do so, bearing in mind that all facts should be verifyable as per Wikipedia guidelines. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I request this tag be removed, as the Herald Sun(and it's two predecessors), which likely gave him that nickname and is Melbourne's current widest read newspaper, has continually stated since the early days of this investigation that they believed the first rape actually occurred in Hampton in 1985. Today, 9/4/2016, they printed an article that stated the police's current Prime Suspect(who had previously committed crimes against children) actually resided in that suburb at the time(the article I have referenced). A young girl was raped in Hampton in 1985, and later released by her rapist near the Moorabbin Town hall and AMF bowling centre on Nepean Highway in circumstances that mirrored some aspects of Mr Cruel's modus operandi. They have repeated this belief as recently as in their article of today(9 April 2016) showing that they still believe that the Hampton rape was actually the first. This is the reputable source of that nickname. Colliric (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This tag is to remain. "Hampton Rapist" to be removed. Firstly, police have "confirmed" that the 1987, 1988 and 1990 attacks are the same offender. Police "believe" that the 1991 abduction and murder is the offender. Police "speculate" that the February 1985 attack in Hampton may be the offender. Secondly, the Herald Sun article in April 2016 nominated a prime suspect. This was controversial in August 2003 when the Herald Sun made this same claim, based on 1 detective's view, which resulted in another detective contacting the media to dispute there was a prime suspect. According to the April 2016 article this suspect, one of seven, did reside in the suburb of Hampton in the early 1970s and committed attacks between 1972 and 1974 and was released after serving 10 years imprisonment. Thirdly, most importantly you have not provided any evidence of the use of "Hampton Rapist" by either the media or police for these 1987-1991 offences. The predecessor of the Herald Sun, the Sun, came up with the moniker of "Mr Cruel" in 1987 with police believing that various similar attacks were the same offender. 1 of these attacks was the Lower Plenty attack in 1987. The media went on using this moniker and at times using "Mr Cool" which goes back to the police statement to the media in 1987 of "super cool and super cruel". The Age newspaper in April 2001 reported that the police themselves used the moniker "Hampton Rapist" for the February 1985 14 year old girl attack in Hampton and for attacks in "Caulfield, Hawthorn, Brighton, Dingley and Donvale" with no other details such as dates, ages or gender. No media reports have ever contained specific details on all the offences police "speculate" prior to 1987. Melbguy05 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

30,000 homes?

If you searched 10 houses a day, every day, for 8 years it would still not reach 30,000. Exaggeration? --218.215.50.85 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If 20 detectives each searched 10 houses per day it would take 6 months. Exaggeration is not required. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Karmein Chan

It is not confirmed that Karmein Chain was a victim of Mr. Cruel. He is the prime suspect. Detectives were already investigating the abductions in 1988 and 1990 together with the home invasion in 1987. It was assumed it was the same offender when the abduction occurred in April 1991.Melbguy05 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Mr. Cruel → Mr Cruel – In Australian English spelling, in common with most Commonwealth varieties, the full-stop is rarely used after Mr. This is evidenced by press coverage of the case AusLondonder (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Not sure it's true "most" Commonwealth countries use "Mr"- I live in a Commonwealth country and we use "Mr." But "Mr Cruel" is how it is used in the current article sources and other sources about the Australian offender (there is apparently an American Mr. Cruel now). That, and it was moved without discussion in the first place. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a moniker not a name. The use of . is better. The original newspaper article in 1987 was " Police hunt for Mr. "Cruel" ".--Melbguy05 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Most cited sources use 'Mr', and that is idiomatic to the national variation of English applicable to the nation this article is about. Given that it was moved without discussion in a manner contrary to WP:ENGVAR, I'm not sure it even needs a discussion. TSP (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Recent Australian sources don't use the full stop: News.com.au, The Australian, NT News, Aussie's ABC. Someday, maybe American English can no longer use full stop on most abbreviations. George Ho (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Mr." vs "Mr"

As per the closed discussion regarding this article's page name, I've changed all mentions of "Mr." to "Mr" in the interest of consistency. Matuko (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr Cruel earlier cases (moved from User talk)

Hello Jabberjaw, in relation to your edit "By January 2017, however, the Casefile podcast have directly stated that "an overall total is given as six crimes" I fail to see whatever Casefile states has any significance at all. In your edit summary you stated "the police interview was in 2001, and the podcast was 2017, and I am sure a lot has changed in that time). Unless, you can substantiate a lot has changed I will remove your addition and revert to previous. Regards Melbguy05 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, here is the Earlier crimes section in question (minus refs), to provide context to readers here:

• The police have never released specific details of suspected attacks. However, there have been varying reports by the media of suspected earlier attacks prior to 1987. In a 2001 interview, a decade after the attacks, Detective Stephen Fontana answered a journalist's question on earlier attacks "that there just wasn't enough known about him and he didn't want to speculate". By January 2017, however, the Casefile podcast have directly stated that "an overall total is given as six crimes".

Thank you for expressing your concerns. To address the matter, I will re-listen to the 2017 podcast to get a clearer picture of the reference, then I`ll come back with more detail. Until then, I'll also assume you have listened to it too (given that you seem to have a strong, though unclear to me at least, reason for rejecting it as a reliable secondary source). All other sources used in this section are at least 15 years old (except this one from 9 April 2012, which mentions ""POLICE suspect Mr Cruel was responsible for at least a dozen sickening attacks on children over a 10-year period.", which could be another way to update this section). Thanks again. JabberJaw (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

While checking, I have found other useful sources that could also be used:

• PM - 14 December 2010 - "Victoria Police say there are significant new leads and new suspects. But police won't say what their new information is, and they're playing down the prospect of any breakthrough. It is believed that at least four victims are linked to the case."
• Herald Sun, 9 April 2012 "He remains one of our most wanted predators, with attacks on up to 12 children and the horrific murder of at least one victim, 13-year-old Karmein Chan."
• News.com.au 8 March 2016 - "Police have always suspected he was to blame for other attacks, possibly up to a dozen including rape, over a decade."
• Thinking Sideways Podcast 15 June 2017 - "Over the span of 3 years, Mr. Cruel is credited with 4 pedophilic attacks on young girls. Dozens more attacks are loosely connected to him, so why hasn’t he been caught? His meticulous planning and total lack of forensic evidence." Also, from 2:44 timestamp, "The police actually think that Mr Cruel is linked to another dozen or so attacks on children in the area"

JabberJaw (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, as to the source in question, after a intro/conclusion check:

• Timestamp 57:18 - The narrator quoting former Spectrum chief David Sprague from the 8 April 2016 Herald Sun from "when Operation Spectrum first identified that Mr Cruel was almost certainly responsible for an earlier series of attacks in Melbourne"

JabberJaw (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jabberjaw: This section did not need updating it was fine as it was. The media since 1991 has published articles stating differing numbers of suspected prior attacks and stated various individual attacks not directly quoting but attributed to "police believe" or "detectives believe" sources. Victoria Police has never released an official statement or made an official briefing on prior suspected attacks. Stephen Fontana then a serving officer responded "that there just wasn't enough known about him and he didn't want to speculate" in 2001 and nothing has changed. Referring to Casefile podcast, David Sprague never said that in the 8 April 2016 Herald Sun article so Casefile Podcast's reliability is in question, it is stated that "..certainly responsible for an earlier series of attacks.." without quoting a person. The PM - 14 December 2010, refers to the known 4 attacks not prior attacks. Herald Sun, 9 April 2012, is not consistent with 8 April 2016 Herald Sun article stating "attacks on up to 12 children" with 8 April 2016 stating "at least 12 attacks on children" one using "up to" and the other "at least" again not attributed to a source. News.com.au 8 March 2016 - is Herald Sun again now stating "possibly up to a dozen" not consistent with their other articles now using "possibly" and not "at least" or "up to". Thinking Sideways Podcast 15 June 2017, is another poor source like Casefile podcast, both rehashes of secondary sources, with the Herald Sun the source for Thinking Sideways Podcast. Not mentioned in your reply - Herald Sun 11 April 2012 - states "Police refuse to give details of most of Mr Cruel's victims - or when the attacks started." but then in the same article absurdly states "POLICE suspect Mr Cruel was responsible for at least a dozen sickening attacks on children over a 10-year period.". The previous wording before you changed it "There have been varying reports by the media of suspected earlier attacks prior to 1987" was fine and also, "The police have never released specific details of suspected attacks" your edit should be reverted. Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Hello again. Before I can respond to the assertions above, I have deeper concerns that you are actually an experienced Wikipedia user shadow-editing via an IP address. In my experience, IP address editors I meet are normally linked to vandalism or short factual edits. However, the 16 edits so far linked to your IP address include multiple edits to extensively overhaul this article, and multiple reversions to edits (and multiple suggestions of reversions to my edits). Further, given the extent of your IP's sudden focus to this article, your IP's focus on Melbourne-themed articles, an examination of the history of this article, and the geo-location of your IP address (Greensborough, Melbourne), all lead me to suspect that you are also User:Melbguy05. As an experienced user, I am sure you are also familiar with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and how it is regarded as a violation of community standards and policies (i.e. 1 user, 1 account). To that end, I intend to take this matter further. In the meantime, I would invite you to login and identify yourself by your regular account. Thank you. JabberJaw (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pedophilia

@Mohd.maaz864: Sources - "Mr Cruel - considered a serial paedophile -", "Melbourne child killer, paedophile and rapist.", "paedophile and child killer dubbed as Mr Cruel", "the paedophile and child killer known as Mr Cruel", "Watson-Munro said Mr Cruel was not just a serial paedophile and could have picked on older, soft targets." [criminal psychologist Tim Watson-Munro]. "My view he is a child molester and not a paedophile, who seeks to have sexual relations exclusively with children" [Detective Senior Sergeant Chris O'Connor]. There is no MOS:PSYCH and MOS:MED#Categories guidelines apply to editing "medical articles".--Melbguy05 (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mohd.maaz864: pinging user again just in case. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Provisional response: The “[[Manual of Style/Psychology|MOS:PSYCH]]” was a typo on my part. I admit, it was actually a hyperlink and I went as far as to try reflecting it through an additional "edit" which didn't change anything whatsoever, but since you must be knowing what happens upon posting a non-edit, my update wasn't reflected in page-history. I was certainly referring to MOS:PSYCH, the guideline is a stub anyways — so you may want to check it out in full[ to understand its purpose]. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mohd.maaz864: A criminal psychologist has described him as a "serial paedophile". Yet, an experienced sex crimes detective privy to full the details of the incidents, including victim statements, has described him as "a child molester and not a paedophile". A profile compiled by the FBI stated that the man has an intense interest in children.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahh... Now I get it! Thanks for clarifying before I could even ask. But wait.. Why's the USFBI displaying its "expertise" in a suspect whose crimes are restricted to the Oz? Is that because there's an irrefutable-evidence that he's a absconder to the Land of Liberty or is it because he's proven to be a US subject beyond any reasonable-doubt? Because even though it's widely believed that the agency is yet-another arm of Uncle Sam, self-professed "patriots" are at pains to always defend that FBI can't intervene in cases pertaining to overseas jurisdiction because they're legally not allowed to and at Best: they can only send a single officer as legal attaché to another jurisdiction, even if it's a NATO or FVEY one.( More on-topic: It doesn't help that you've failed to WP:CITEWEB, yet a-gain.)

Reminder: Don't forget to make space for[ [intricately] answering to] my questionnaire in the preceding-reply as well, huh? Regards. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Full response: See! A “criminal psychologist”( there's a reason for quotes, and it doesn't have to do with personal-beliefs — largely, at the very least) agrees that he's not a ‘pædophiliac’, whereas the det.. Oh, wait..?!! Your attribution appeared.. Garbled-up. No offense, huh? Is it right-to-left attribution, i.e. my secondary-inference is accurate?

Regardless, I perused your refs very, very carefully — for once. They don't seem to be upto mark. You didn't hyperlink local( meant literally, not invoking as a synonym for ‘national’ — a commonplace practice in international-discourse) tabloid Herald Sun® and news agency Australian Associated Press stories, why? Couldn't you find WP:CITEWEB for them? The ABC® News newsreading on then-ABC1® sounds like a paraphrase to me, and believe me: The low-res video and "uncaptioned" clip of the TV bulletin is not the problem, I deciphered those accents sufficiently. So why did you quote the whole phrase without denoting it's a paraphrase, oversight? The WP:SOURCEACCESS for #4 is behind-a-paywall. Whilst I do know that paywall doesn't prevent a willing editor from citing the source, but encouraged only if it's exclusive( aka, unavailable elsewhere public).

And to be frank, that's a bit surprising considering that in spite of my own knowledge-status( Personal-disclosure: I consider myself a techie, but not a nerrrrd/geek) — I was able to locate both of the missing stories you failed to hyperlink relatively very easily. Here are those web-editions:

Temp:CITENEWS #1: https://theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/net-closes-on-child-rapist-and-killer-mr-cruel/news-story/95aaae7686641d1d3b328ad9fbc66acc. Note how your missed source mentioned the topic's characteristics[ and I quote] “...child rapist..”. And mentions the term ‘pædophile’ and/or any of its derivatives only in the phrase[ and I quote a-gain] “...considered a serial pedophile..”.*

News-citation #2: https://smh.com.au/national/new-clues-in-police-hunt-for-mr-cruel-20101214-18vna.html. Note that your list also misattributed the source to AAP, for some reason.

At last, Thanks for finishing my signature, "SineBot". Very helpful, indeed. Now, need I defend[ to the human here] — the signature was partial because I published my reply in jest as the battery was near-drainage[ and I would've lost the entirety of my draft( another PERSONAL-DISCLOSURE: something which would've been my generic, perennial-misfortune)]. Kindly accept my sincerest apologies for any confusion that might've triggered.

*Henceforth, there's a difference at least in that story. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Note: Fixed the damn line-spacing, text-alignment, and my concluding greeting.

Edit Note #1: Fixed the unseen mention to that bot-account.

@Ganbaruby: Just a reminder-'buzz' — presuming you're not receiving timely notices( read notifications).( Totally try to ignore this: Guess I've to extend my wait for a week further.. Ahh! Damn superstition!) —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Alright! Guess I will just leave gracefully for a while, than WP:CLOSE as ideal: But remember, ( PERSONAL-DISCLOSURE ahead:) given that I suffer from STML, it shouldn't be surprising that if either you or any other editor responds here years or even decades down-the-line — I might not be responsive anymore. Not that soon, at the very least. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

References

U.S. dollars or Australian dollars

Guessing the reward amounts in article are all Australian dollars. Can we confirm? And if they are Australian, add a note to that effect? Thank you. Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with identifying the first currency use with the A$ just to make it clear to the unaware reader which dollar is being spoken to. The MOS is extremely vague on this. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Same, the MOS is very vague and confusing. Looking at other infoboxes like the one at Department of Health (Australia) where no other country is mentioned, but their budget is notated in AUD. Seems consistent across many articles like that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that first mention of the currency should differentiate it from the other 19 types of Dollar used in the world. After that, it should be fine just stick to the dollar sign, and you're sorted! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the last two. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mcmatter, PerpetuityGrat, Nick Moyes, and Johnbod: I have used A$ dollars {{AUD}} in the article. MOS:MONEY states in country-specific articles... use the currency of the subject country. An article should use its full unambiguous signifier. Shouldn't these articles Jason Derek Brown, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, Eugene Palmer (criminal), Murder of Seth Rich, Yaser Abdel Said use the currency of the subject country US dollars with its full unambiguous signifier {{US$}}?--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Melbguy05, thanks for the change. I do see in the Wikipedia Manual of Style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Currencies "In articles entirely on EU-, UK- and/or US-related topics, all occurrences may be shortened (€26, £22 or $34), unless this would be unclear." So that makes the case that in an article about U.S. events the US doesn't have to be put in front of the dollar amounts. Do you agree?

Also, in Mr Cruel article I moved the "A" to in front of the first mention of money (A$200,000), per convention. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No doubt US and Canadian articles should do the same. No doubt most US ones don't - one is lucky if it occurs to them to state what country they are talking about at all. That's Americans for you. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Surely it's obvious that Australian dollars are being referred to here? Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Why $300,000?

The fourth paragraph of the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Cruel#Investigation says there is a $300,000 reward for helping catch Cruel. But the article lead says the rewards now total $1,200,000. So is the $300,000 inaccurate? Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed and believe other editor(s) worked on as well. Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s odd like which one 😭😭 49.183.1.76 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Names of victims

I am a little hesitant to have the names of several victims in this article. As these events occurred in the early 1990s, the names of the young girls were released by the Australian media including several national newspapers. However, because the victims themselves were not just sexually assaulted and kidnapped, they were also all underaged. I really wonder if it's appropriate to keep the victims’ names especially as they do not give public interviews (that I could find and I searched a while). Does anyone else agree or disagree? Miss E Kelly 04:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELKelly23 (talk • contribs)

"Identified as Cathal"?

Is the name Cathal supposed to be there in the 2nd paragraph? I can't see any other references to the name online when searching for Mr cruel.

Was this autocorrected from something else,.or vandalised? 92.236.255.175 (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

The page is currently vandalised, see the start of the 2nd paragraph "Mr. Cruel has been identified as Cathal". I believe in earlier versions of the article this said he was unidentified. Stuartp1213 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Golden State Killer

Incorrect photo of Mr Cruel, photo is of the Golden State Killer 122.62.139.18 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Restored removed content

@SENSEISEAGULL: Why did you restore in this edit content I removed that user 2A00:23C7:9B14:4C01:5F:AE9D:8C1E:AF6B added on the 10 March 2023. In the edit comment when I removed it I said the new content was "unsourced content WP:CITE, WP:OR, and content not related to Mr Cruel WP:DISRUPT".--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I only restored the suspected cases excluding the murder cases which are only conjecture. I did not intend to vandalise the page if that is was it looked like. SENSEISEAGULL (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@SENSEISEAGULL: Mr Cruel is not a suspect in "murder cases" as the intro now says, there are only three confirmed cases not what the infobox or "confirmed crimes" now says four. He is a suspect for the Karmein Chan crime it's not a confirmed crime. The sentence starting "However, authorities generally" is not cited and is WP:OR. He is only possibly involved in earlier crimes. 2A00:23C7:9B14:4C01:5F:AE9D:8C1E:AF6B misrepresented the sources WP:DISRUPTIVE editing - the 1985 Donvale is not in the citations, the 1985 Warrandyte is not in the citations and the 12 year old girl after Chan is not in the citations. The 14-year-old girl is mentioned in a citation but not all the information again misrepresenting a source. The 14-year-old boy is barely mentioned in the citation. Also, the names of the three confirmed victims were removed in October 2021 see the above talk page post.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay! Glad you sorted that out then. :) SENSEISEAGULL (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ashley Mervyn Coulston

A theory is that Ashley Mervyn Coulston AKA "The Balaclava Killler" is Mr Cruel As the Mr Cruel attacks stopped in the same time he was arrested. Itisi5 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that make that suggestion? HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

$300,000?

Idk if he still hasn’t been caught till this day I think there should be a higher price you know? 49.183.1.76 (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)