Today the news that Sharron Phillips killer has finally been found will be festooned across the pages of every newspaper and website, and feature as the headline story on every TV channel and radio station across Queensland.

It’s a seemingly great story, but there’s just one problem.

It ain’t true.

In fact it is absolute and utter unmitigated bullsh*t.

Let’s look at some of the ‘facts’ that the Courier-Mail are claiming.

The taxi driver who police say murdered Sharron Phillips “processed dead bodies: during the Vietnam War and returned a violent, mentally unstable man.

Raymond Peter Mulvihill spent a grand total of 65 days in the army during the Vietnam War, most of them in basic training at Kapooka.


Mulvihill “became a bit of a professor” on how to kill – and dispose of bodies – while in Vietnam

Oh yeah?

When in the 2 months between enlistment, training and discharge did he

(a) Actually serve on Vietnamese soil?

(b) learn to kill and dispose of bodies?

Did they really have to hide bodies in Vietnam did they K-K-K-K-Katie?

From who exactly?

Weren’t they in the middle of a war where people from opposite sides were killing each other left, right and centre? I’m sure they were.

In fact I”m absolutely certain that there were.


Just as I’m certain that the chaps in the 2nd Advanced Ordnance Depot were storeman, clerks and bean counters as recorded in the war diaries of the Unit Commander reprinted above, lean mean fighting machine soldiers who were out there in the field killing ‘gooks’ and disposing of their bodies.

Mulvihill, a driver for Ascot Taxis in the 80’s, had previously worked as a locksmith, security guard and crime scene cleaner.

Really? Are you sure K-K-K-K-Katie?

What’s this then?



It looks to me like Raymond Peter Mulvihill was always a taxi driver, or at least since 1972 anyway. So when exactly did he work as a locksmith, security guard and crime scene cleaner K-K-K-K-Katie?

I’ll tell you when. Never.

I’ll tell you something else too. Back in 1986 the taxi industry was highly regulated, and cabs could only work the ranks and pick up fares within their defined geographical areas. That’s the reason that there were so many localised services, including Sandgate Taxis, Gold Coast Taxis, Ascot Taxis, Ipswich Taxis and others.

Ascot Cabs didn’t have any depots at Goodna, because under law they weren’t allowed to.  I’ve spoken to 4 former cabbies in the past 20 minutes who have confirmed it. \

The son of the alleged murderer is lying.

I’ll tell you another thing as well. The taxis back in those days (and probably now) were worked 24/7, and drivers worked 12 hour shifts. My best mate The Eagle was one of them, and I was often traveling to and from casinos in his cab so I know, but I checked it with the other sources and they all say the same thing.

The story the son is telling is a lie.

The changeover time was pretty well uniform across all companies. It was 4am. So there is no way on earth that the so-called murderer was taking his car back to the depot for a change over at midnight, the time that Sharron Phillips disappeared. It just would not have happened, not unless the driver had fallen ill or needed to get home for an emergency, and no-one is saying that either scenario occurred.

And why did the son follow his ‘father’ on this particular evening? Wouldn’t the likely scenario be that he either followed him every evening, ot not at all because the old man had his own car that he drove to and from work each day or night and left in the car park?

It’s quite simple logic isn’t it? Dead set I worry about some of these journos, I really do.

To be fair to K-K-K-K-Katie, she is not the only ingenue reporting this nonsense as if it is fact. The Fairfax media is too, and this is what their report says.


It’s a person who has come forward is it?

Not a horse? Or a dog? Or a raving f*cking loon?


And they have never spoken to police before?

Is that right?

They say something a wee bit different.


How does one reconcile the glaring anomaly between the two accounts?

Here’s an even better question: how does one treat seriously an account given 21 years after the event by a person who claims to have been the next best thing to an eyewitness to the brutal alleged abduction, murder and no doubt rape of an innocent 20 year old girl from the wrong side of the tracks whose great misfortune was that her car had broken down on the way home from work and nobody would help her?

How does a police officer treat the evidence of a witness who says he rather admired the man that he claims committed the abduction, rape (that he doesn’t talk about) and murder of a young woman, and then says that he was impressed because the alleged murderer told him that he had other notches on his belt?

Can you really write away the witnesses coming forward now, all these years later, simply on the basis that his conscience was troubling him? You’d have to be a goddamn moron wouldn’t you?

What about the drain?

The cold case copper told the Brisbane Times that if there was a body there, or there had been, he was confident that they would find something.

They didn’t.

The copper tried to explain it away by saying that it was cleaned out in 2001.


Just days ago they said it had lain dormant in bush land for years until a housing estate was built, but anyone with half a brain knows that it was swamped by the 2011 floods and would have been flushed by the storm water, not that it mattered anyway because Sharron Phillips body had never been there in the first place at all.

This whole story from the ‘son’ is a jack up, and the reporters who are re-telling it as if it is gospel are jack arses.

Here’s the simple truth, and you can see it it in the picture below.


There was a Police Academy, an Army Barracks, a lunatic asylum, and two prisons within a kilometre or two of where poor Sharon Phillips disappeared. Any one of the people who populated these joints could very well be a suspect, as could the thousands of truck drivers, motor cyclists and commuters who drove past the stranded young woman and left her to her fate.

The only person who couldn’t have killed her is the bloke that the police and the mainstream media claim is a certainty to have done it.

So why is the ‘son’ claiming that his ‘dad’ was the killer?


Two reasons.

One, because he is mad, hates his father, and craves media attention.

And two, this.

250k pricks a whole lot of consciences.

Just ask poor old Garry Dubois, the innocent man in a living hell.

Funny isn’t it that it’s the exact same reward that got him slotted, and the exact same squad that have solved the Phillips murder without a body, a murder scene, a weapon, a motivation, any fingerprints or DNA, or a single shred of evidence other than that uttered by a man you wouldn’t trust with your wallet even if it had moths in it.

Oh yeah, it’s real funny.