The Good Crook
(Andrew Rule, 2022)
Most Victorians will know a fair bit about Ron Iddles. Ron Iddles has been a fairly distinguished detective in this state over many years before his retirement a few years ago.
Back in 1989 exactly thirty years ago this month in April 1989, Ron Iddles was in the drug squad and his crew arrested three people over a fairly major amphetamines sting. Two of the men were arrested in the Noble Park Pub and the third man, probably the brains of the outfit was arrested at his home at Bittern, near Hastings down on the Mornington Peninsula.
The third man is the one that is interesting to us. Now his name was Alf Gay known as, Alfie Gay. Alfie Gay was a hard man despite the name. He was well known in those days as someone who had been around, he had been sort of a painter and docker type of guy and it was widely held that he and his very good friend - who we won't name just now, were heavily involved in the legendary armed robbery of an MSS security office in South Melbourne back in 1970. Now, before the Great Bookie Robbery of 1976 shocked the lights out the big robbery in Melbourne that the police and crooks, and the public talked about was the MSS Robbery. It was the entire Ford factory payroll. It is said that Alfie Gay might have been of those who disguised himself as a security guard, handcuffed a real security guard to a cage and calmly wheeled out, I think 48 cases of cash and loaded them onto a stolen Holden ute, and disappeared into the sunset.
No one was ever caught. One guy, who might have been Alfie Gay’s mate might have been charged two years later but I think he beat it and that was that.
That is just by way of introducing Alfie Gay and putting him in context. He was a major respected, armed robber, safecracker, and all-around sophisticated crook and respected in his circles also, by those police in that era who couldn't help having a grudging respect for those that they call ‘good crooks” Alfie Gay was one of them.
After Ron Iddles and his crew locked up Alfie Gay and his 2 co-accused, one the younger brother of a barrister, interestingly. Alfie serves his time quietly, probably in Pentridge or a country prison. He gets out, his in his late fifties by the time he gets out in the 90s and he lives along quietly, I think back down Mornington peninsula with his wife. A long time later, this could be in the early 2000s, 2002, 2003, or 2004. Ron can’t recall exactly when and it doesn’t matter.
A long time after the amphetamines charges, Ron goes to visit Alfie Gay to talk about other crimes and other stuff to get a bit of background and he said they had a long chat about safe cracking. A lot of entertaining stuff. Ron either did or didn't find out what he wanted to know and he went to leave and he walked outside to get in his car to drive away he stopped because Alfie Gay walked outside and knocked on the window. “Ron I’d like you to come back inside I’ve got something to tell you”
Ron Iddles put the keys back in his pocket, walked back inside, and sat down with Alfie Gay and he said “What is it?”
Alfie Gay says to him “Would you like to know who Mr. Cruel was?”
Who is the the man who proclaimed to know the identity of Mr. Cruel ? A terrible secret he kept to himself for more than a decade? Andrew Rule refers to him as a good crook, and goes so far as calling him a hero but is a little light on details and facts. Alfred Hugh Gay was born in 1936. He was a labourer at 21 years old and living in Heidelberg when he married in 1958. His mother Hazel Gay and his father Horace Gay were living in Keele St, Collingwood when Alf was born. His father, Horace passed away just a few years prior to his wedding in 1958. Archived news clippings from the early 1970s describe Alf Gay as a Burnley man, employed as a rigger on the Melbourne waterfront. How long he had been employed as rigger on the Melbourne docks prior to this date is unknown or anything of his previous employment history other than ‘labourer’ as stated on his wedding certificate 1958.
Andrew Rule in his podcast reports Alf Gay's connection to MSS Robbery in 1971 but again, incorrectly states that no man was charged or convicted of the crime. Alf was one of a number of men charged and convicted of the robbery and on June 21, 1974, Alfred Gay was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in imprisonment on a charge of having taken part in the $289,000 MSS Robbery on June 11, 1971. The theft of the Ford Motor Company’s payroll from the Metropolitan Security Services was done with military planning and was said to be the largest amount stolen in Victoria at that date. Others were also charged and convicted of this crime.
R v Gay [1976] VicRp 59; [1976] VR 577 (16 September 1975)
R v GAY
SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA FULL COURT
YOUNG(1), CJ, GILLARD(1) and MURRAY(1), JJ
17-18, 21-22 July, 16 September 1975
The Full Court (Young, CJ, Gillard, and Murray, JJ.) delivered the following judgement: After a lengthy trial before Kaye, J., and a jury the applicant was on 21 June 1974 found guilty of armed robbery. He was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment and a minimum term of ten years was fixed before which he was not eligible to be released on parole. The robbery was committed in the early hours of the morning of 11 June 1970, and a number of other men with whom the applicant was originally presented had been convicted for their part in it before the applicant's trial began. (See R v Burns, [1975] VicRp 25; [1975] VR 241.) Although the applicant lodged his application for leave to appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules, the hearing of the application was delayed until the outcome of an application for leave to appeal to the High Court by Burns from the decision of this Court to which reference has just been made became available. The High Court's decision refusing Burn's application for special leave to appeal to that Court was given on 20 June 1975.
It is not necessary for the purposes of this application to describe the robbery in very great detail. The victim was one Robert Charles Gruar, an employee of a company named MSS. Security Express Pty. Ltd., the premises are situated at 101 Clarke Street, South Melbourne. The company's business included receiving large sums of money in cash, dividing it and placing it in "pay envelopes" for its clients, and later delivering it to those clients. The conduct of the business normally required the company to hold large sums of money at its premises ov I ernight. For the week in which the robbery took place, the premises were guarded by only one security guard who was known as the control officer. On the morning of 11 June 1970, the control officer was Robert Charles Gruar.
The company's premises were, of course, locked and barred at night. Access could be obtained through the main entrance door which could be opened only by a catch operated from within the premises by the control officer. A person wishing to obtain admission was required to identify himself by speaking to the control officer through a microphone located near the entrance. A suitably placed mirror enabled the control officer to see the person seeking admission. The evidence suggested that the control officer would only admit during the night an employee of the company or some person in an official position such as a police officer engaged in some business that concerned the company.
The Crown led evidence to prove that a week before the robbery a bunch of keys was stolen from a vehicle belonging to the company. There were about 100 keys in the bunch and they gave access to the premises of a number of clients of the company. The applicant is alleged to have admitted to the police that he stole the keys. Apart from that admission, there was no evidence as to who stole the keys.
There was evidence to show that shortly before midnight on 10 June 1970, the East Melbourne police station was forcibly entered by some unknown person or persons, and a police uniform was stolen. There was no evidence as to the identity of the person or persons who stole the police uniform although it was said that the applicant admitted to the police that he knew who had done so. He denied that he had entered the police station.
Evidence was led by the Crown to show that at about 2 o'clock in the morning of 11 June 1970, two men, one in a police uniform and the other in civilian clothes sought entry to the premises at 101 Clarke Street. The man in civilian clothes (who was later identified as one Monash) informed the control officer that he was a detective and had recovered the stolen keys. The control officer, who knew of the stealing of the keys, looked into the mirror and saw a policeman's cap. Being satisfied that the two men seeking admission were police officers, the control officer opened the door and admitted the two men. They immediately threatened the control officer with a pistol and overpowered him.
Apparently, the two men with the assistance of others gained entry to a cage where a quantity of money was held. It was said that the applicant had admitted to the police that he had assisted in the removal of the money but there was no other evidence that directly identified the applicant as one of those who participated in its removal.
The applicant was never identified by any witness as a person seen at or near the premises where the crime was committed. The evidence led by the Crown to implicate the applicant in the robbery fell into three categories, viz.:--(1) the applicant made a number of admissions and these will be referred to later; (2) evidence was called to prove that the applicant was in financial difficulties immediately before the robbery but that within a short time after the robbery, he expended substantial sums of money which could not be accounted for from the earnings of his wife and himself in their respective employments and that he sometimes used a false name whilst expending such sums; (3) evidence was called to establish that as the investigation by the police proceeded, the applicant fled on four separate occasions.
[The Court proceeded to consider and decided to vary the sentence imposed.]
Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed but the application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed and sentence varied.
The Canberra Times reports on 29 March 1972 that “Mr. Alfred Hugh Gay. 35 painter and docker was charged in the company of another painter and docker from Moorabbin, with having being armed with an offensive weapon, a 12 gauge shotgun, at Port Melbourne on January 19.” The arresting officer said that he had seen Mr. Gay with his hand on the loaded gun lying across the floor of a panel van. He allowed Gay and his accomplice to drive back to the police station in their panel van while being followed by the police divisional van. “Mr. L.S.F Smith said it was extraordinary that the painter and docker and his accomplice were allowed to drive their own vehicle back to the police station.” Both men pleaded not guilty to having been armed with felonious intent, having been armed with an offensive weapon and a rope cosh. The charges were dismissed by Mr. Smith.
“The COSH is an honoured part of shipboard lore.... carried aboard by the Boatswain and his Mates and ashore by press-gangs and sailors, it was a preferred method of defence to the knife... no less deadly in skilled hands, but also useful in quieting-up a boisterous shipmate or maintaining order when required. Some were made of cordage with a lead-filled "Star Knot" at the end or were of harder materials or whale-bone/baleen.”
Prior to that, Alf gets a mention in the …..when he was 18 years old he was convicted on 6 counts of housebreaking in the company of another, for which he received a 15-month sentence.
Ron Iddles in his interview with Matt Dunlop (Melbourne Marvels) revealed that he arrested Alf at his home in Bittern, Victoria and charged him in relation to methamphetamine trafficking in December 1989. Two other Men were also arrested in the Noble Park pub in connection, one the son of a barrister. Andrew Rule incorrectly expands on this information in his podcast “The Mr. Cruel Triangle” stating that Alf Gay does his time in a country jail and is released in the early 90s. After his arrest, Alf Gay received bail which was unopposed by Iddles and there is no public record that Alf did time on these charges, if he did, was he sentenced after 1991? Ron Iddles himself could provide more detail surrounding the circumstances of that case. The fact that Ron Iddles was the detective who dealt with Alf in connection to trafficking further amplifies the thought that Alf may have done a deal of sorts and turned to the other side to provide information to Iddles, given the detective has been outspoken in his use of criminal informants. It is also interesting the text written by the offender in Chan's car in relation to drugs . Could the trafficking of methamphetamines have some connection to the text? Not forgetting, that Alf was arrested and would have been facing a lengthy prison term if convicted around the same time that Karmein was abducted. It’s well known in underworld circles that those who have spent lengthy periods in prison are more likely to trade information or lie to police to avoid further time behind bars. A person who had already spent a decade in prison would certainly not want to “go back”.
From the period of his being released from Pentridge for the MSS robbery to the date of his death in 2006, it is not known the status of Alf. The only other public record to be found in his brother's will, which named Alf the beneficiary of his estate. His brother passed away on 14 April 1985 leaving Alf his property on passing - the property address is unknown, his brother's last documented address was Holly St, Preston, and has since been demolished. Alf signed the will on 12 June 1985 and listed his employment as a builder.
Alf was a rigger on the waterfront prior to being charged and convicted with the MSS Robbery in 1974. In the maritime industry, a rigger is responsible for the installation, operation and maintenance of the ship’s rigging . The essential skills of a rigger include, physical fitness, agility, flexibility and knowing how to use knots and hitches, a match to the rope skills exhibited by Mr. Cruel. Alf had a history of burglary offences and armed robbery giving him the required skill set to carry out surveillance and to break and enter into the homes, a criminal background consistent with Canter’s research, which has been tested and proven that most serial offenders have a background in house burglaries.. The multiple sets of handcuffs used in the MSS robbery were never retrieved so it’s possible he had access to the sets of handcuffs used to restrain the victims. The term “I’ll blow your heads off” seems to be more likely the phrase of an armed robber. In telling his secret, Alf weaved his way into the Mr. Cruel story. Why did he lie? It is not uncommon for criminal informants to lie. The innocence project in the US lists dozens of people who have been convicted and imprisoned on the false information provided by criminal informants. Most commonly it is an exchange for something in return or a personal vendetta. Sometimes it’s the gift of money or the chance to continue their criminal behaviour without fear of criminal charges- given the “green light”. It may have been just for the mere fact that Lee had lived in Eltham for a period and died in 1992 which provided some credibility to his story- A cover for himself or somebody else.
It’s not an easy game to catch a serial offender who clearly holds a high level of intelligence and a seemingly unusual knowledge of forensics. Police have indicated there may be an item for possible DNA testing but are not positive it could still be located. Rope evidence left at one of the crime scenes mysteriously disappeared into the ether and three decades on the police are still none the wiser. What’s left in the toolbox? We know from routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson 1979) and crime pattern theory (Brantingham and Brantingham 1991, 1993a) that crimes occur where opportunity (i.e., the presence of a suitable and available target) overlaps with offenders’ awareness spaces: the locations known to offenders through their routine non-criminal activities such as where they live, work or socialise with family or friends. In other words, serial offenders will generally operate in the areas they are familiar with. By mapping the crime locations in a previous blog we could conclude that Mr. Cruel must have had knowledge of the areas he committed his crimes and the trail paths that were most likely calculated into his planning. This brings us back to the question “How did Mr. Cruel know the areas so well?”
This is a difficult question to answer but knowing that Alf lied about Lee and the fact he maintains the skills that equal Mr. Cruel, seems an excellent starting point.