AUS - Khandalyce Kiara Pearce (Wynarka) and mum Karlie Pearce-Stevenson (Belanglo) #4

[antechinusRAWR]

Same thing also mentioned here - http://www.9news.com.au/National/20...-of-Khandalyce-are-found-on-her-Facebook-page
So, in 2012, he would have been 38. Engaged to a 16 yr old. He really is the gift that keeps on giving.

He is but Ch9 SUCK!! for showing her legal minor, 16 yr old face on national tv in connection with a child murder.

She was only 12/13 when Karlie & Khandalyce were murdered & her only knowledge in relation to the case is probably an ability to place DH at particular Canberra ATMs in 2012, & possibly as a witness to normal items people keep in their homes - like suitcases for instance, that only become significant with hindsight.

 

[reasypeasy]

surely not...that would be infruriating
she is equally as evil because she did know about these angels deaths and did what she did

If she knew of their deaths after they died, covered up their deaths and profited from their deaths but did not instigate, plan or implement their deaths then I'm afraid I must disagree with you... someone would be nowhere near as evil in doing that as the person who did all that and *also* got the idea in the first place, planned the deaths and did the actual killing. If that were the case then it is obvious that if the victims had interacted only with HP and not with DH then they'd still be alive. The same may not be true if they'd interacted only with DH and not with HP. There's a difference there. The difference between a and a murderous .

 

[Mountain Misst]

So, this makes me wonder... Reports have suggested both Karlie & Khandalyce suffered violent deaths, which I just assumed meant similar. Interestingly, it is now being reported that while Karlie's injuries were consistent with "being heavily stomped on", they say this about Khandalyce's-

"But her daughter Khandalyce’s injuries were of a different kind, police sources say. The little girl was two when she died."

Someone in a past thread posed the question of bones could show signs of malnutrition/neglect??? Maybe in Khandalyce's case, that is what was being indicated when they "horrific death".

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/...e-and-khandalyce/story-fns0kb1g-1227589010006

IMO from the LE quote - that gives a window between mid Dec 2008 and June 2009 (SM info)

 

[Panda]

IMO yes, they are.

Editing - detectives were able to get Karlie's DNA from clothing in that suitcase. I have no doubt they will be testing for the DNA of other people as well. Like DH, HP and HP's deceased children.

Did they actually obtain Karlie's DNA from clothing in the suitcase? I must have missed that.

 

[Panda]

Courts are usually open to the public but there's no televised video of the trial. Court reporters tweet the details in real time though. The next major step will be the committal hearing where a magistrate will decide if there's enough evidence to go to trial. Then there's indictment, arraignment etc before a trial is held in the supreme court. I would think it will take at least a year.

Probably substantially longer if he doesn't plead guilty. Given the media and general public interest in this case, they are going to want to ensure everything is carried out to the letter of the law. Not that I'm suggesting other cases aren't carried out to the letter of the law - just that with this one, they will double check everything and take their time to make sure everything is right (I would think).

 

[CSIDreamer]

Insane paranoia? How fast would you have to move to leave a prosthetic behind? Or maybe, maybe you didn't return?

Wasn't it 2011 when the bank or CentreLink questioned that bank account? I need to go back and find it.

I can't keep up with y'all!

 

[Neuromancer]

IMO yes, they are.

Editing - detectives were able to get Karlie's DNA from clothing in that suitcase. I have no doubt they will be testing for the DNA of other people as well. Like DH, HP and HP's deceased children.

No. They got DNA from the bones of both. Then when a crime stoppers report suggested that the child was Khandalyse, they were able to obtain blood samples from both mother and child kept from her birth, and comparison with these enabled ID. Scientists are now trying to see if they can get any usable DNA from the clothing (apparently getting a decent sample from the bones was hard enough)


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/forensic-team-searches-wynarka-suitcase-for-dna/6874714

"The forensic science centre here in Adelaide spent many weeks piecing together a DNA profile [from Khandalyce's remains] that would be useful enough to get this identification," he said.

He said it was a "miracle" that police were able to find "ante-mortem" samples, or blood samples collected from both mother and daughter at birth and stored in medical record systems.

"That allows you to positively identify one set of remains to a person whose DNA was collected before they were killed," professor Austin said.

"It's an amazing piece of forensic work really."

Mr Pearman said the team was refocusing its attention on the items found with the girl's remains.

"We now move onto a different phase [in] the investigation where we will look at the clothing in the suitcase and the suitcase itself to see if there is some DNA profiles there that might prove useful for the police in their investigation," he said.

 

[Panda]

I still find this interesting:

"It was interesting because the bones themselves weren't bleached, so it didn't look like they have been out in the sun for a great period of time. They weren't dirty, so they didn't look like they had been buried. So it was surprising the level of degradation that we saw."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/forensic-team-searches-wynarka-suitcase-for-dna/6874714

 

[JaneSA]

Well you wasted 20 hours there because of sub judice. Everything would have been pulled. I don't understand why some of the media are still allowed to refer to him as a pedophile because it could really impact his case.

Also, you seem to have missed the Maitland Mercury link that confirms he was an inmate at Cessnock. Therefore he had some kind of conviction.

Remember when Adrian Bayley was named? Everything about his priors had been scrubbed by the time his name was out there.

Cheers Fruity, but I'm not actually doing this research with an intention to post it here.
Nor did I miss the MM link, but thanks for pointing it out.
However, as far as I can ascertain, the MM story is just factually incorrect - like so much of the media's speculative rubbish that passes as journalism.
What I am trying to do is to work with verifiable facts.

I find a good rule of thumb is to look at the introductory phrases used.
If they say things like "it is believed...", "sources say" or "according to neighbours" you can be sure they don't really have a source.

I'm still unable to find verifiable evidence of prior offences but if I do, don't worry, I won't post the details here.

 

[Bliss_Perth]

Good Morning glad to see the forum is still open for discussion. Thanks for your hard work makara it's appreciated.

 

[crabstick]

Because they were under a white plastic sheet?

I still find this interesting:
"It was interesting because the bones themselves weren't bleached, so it didn't look like they have been out in the sun for a great period of time. They weren't dirty, so they didn't look like they had been buried. So it was surprising the level of degradation that we saw."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/forensic-team-searches-wynarka-suitcase-for-dna/6874714

 

[JaneSA]

IMO yes, they are.

Editing - detectives were able to get Karlie's DNA from clothing in that suitcase. I have no doubt they will be testing for the DNA of other people as well. Like DH, HP and HP's deceased children.

Wow!
That's the first I've heard of Karlie's DNA being found on the suitcase clothing.

I thought the link was from the partial DNA extracted from the bones and the mitochondrial link.
I think the last I read from the DNA experts was that they were going to attempt to sample DNA from the clothing and the case itself but they felt it was unlikely due to weathering.

Good, old-fashioned fingerprints however, are another story.

I am thinking that it is the lack of DJH's fingerprints on the suitcase anywhere that is the main reason he has not been charged with anything relating to Khadles' murder. I suspect the same may be true about HP.

When you think about it, it is really odd how quickly the police charged him with Karlie's murder and yet not with her daughters.
Given that he is reportedly uncooperative, they must have a good evidence based reason not to charge him with both murders.

 

[fruity]

Did they actually obtain Karlie's DNA from clothing in the suitcase? I must have missed that.

I remember it was posted in one of the previous threads. Something about extracting DNA from the bones and obtaining a sample from the clothing.

editing to add:

Here it is - no wonder I remembered it, I was the one who posted it!

In a twist stranger than fiction, the single mother, who was 20 when she died, was identified by DNA taken from a pink dress near another body at the centre of a murder mystery some 1200km away – that of Karlie's two-year-old daughter, Khandalyce.

Post 164

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Stevenson-(Belanglo)&p=12131288#post12131288

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...3qRIIyCgZDO.99

 

[Bliss_Perth]

I still find this interesting:

"It was interesting because the bones themselves weren't bleached, so it didn't look like they have been out in the sun for a great period of time. They weren't dirty, so they didn't look like they had been buried. So it was surprising the level of degradation that we saw."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/forensic-team-searches-wynarka-suitcase-for-dna/6874714

I did too, i posted that a few days ago. I remember in the early threads before we found out who little kandles was, lots us us were baffled why the bones were found in Wynarka and why were they found when they were. It would have been so easy to make the suitcase vanish and never be seen again.

I always thought the bones had been held onto for some kind of insurance and used as blackmail.

Im still wanting to know the link to Wynarka, it could be nothing like belangalo was used to throw people off but i don't think so. Police were pretty sure the suitcase was put there in March or early April this year.

 

[Kal]

The following comment is "IMO"

Criminal law in Australian is mostly State or Territory based, although some crimes fall under Commonwealth Law. State Courts dealing with crimes under State law (eg a murder that took place in NSW) don't have jurisdiction to punish people for contempt of court (including sub-judice contempt) in other States or Territories. It would be different if the crime was a Federal one (eg drug importation to Australia), where the Federal Court has jurisdiction throughout Australia. Therefore the SA based Advertiser can publish in SA a newspaper that calls DJH a convicted paedophile even after criminal proceedings commence in NSW for an NSW crime but NSW newspaper cannot say the same once proceedings commence. Therefore NSW media is not going to say that DJH is a convicted criminal in NSW and presently serving time here.

The basis of the law relating to sub-judice contempt of court is that discussion of actual or supposed past crimes can cause the potential jurors in a State, and even the judges, to become actually or apparently biased against an accused person thus jeopardising the possibility of a fair trial. If the prejudiced caused by a such public speculation becomes so strong that the court forms the view that the accused could not have a fair trial then it is possible the person would get off scot-free, so that the public speculation would prevent the victim and/or victim's family from having justice for a crime.

Therefore reputable media organisations in any State or Territory of Australia, and also reputable public interest forums like websleuths, want to prevent the publication of any content that could jeopardise a fair trial for the accused and the associated right of the victim to have justice done. Loss of the right to speculate and imagine scenarios about the accused or people who might be associated with him or her is a very small price to pay if the end result is a fair and just criminal legal system.

EDIT: a matter only becomes sub-judice against a specific person once legal process has commenced eg they are charged. If a media organisation only cares about the possibility of being prosecuted for sub-judice contempt, it would be able to publish material about the prior convictions of a possible suspect prior to charging. Therefore things may have been published before DJH was charged that NSW media would not publish after the charges were laid.

It gets a bit tricky with the internet. The date published could be argued to be the date viewed, copied or downloaded. It could work in a criminal's favour for their defence lawyer to have a pile of articles and comments repeating information about prior convictions. IMO.

 

[Theodora]

He is but Ch9 SUCK!! for showing her legal minor, 16 yr old face on national tv in connection with a child murder.

She was only 12/13 when Karlie & Khandalyce were murdered & her only knowledge in relation to the case is probably an ability to place DH at particular Canberra ATMs in 2012, & possibly as a witness to normal items people keep in their homes - like suitcases for instance, that only become significant with hindsight.

The following all IMO and is a general comment on the term paedophile, not aimed at any person who may have been involved in this case.

I agree that it is disgusting that the video showed a photo of a girl at age 16 who has not done anything wrong except to be the fiancee at that age of a man who is now charged with a terrible crime. It also made me think in general about the work "paedophile" and its uses by MSM and others. I think most of us probably think of small children but this article from a senior analyst for the National Crime Authority in Australia points out that there is no legal definition of paedophile, it is simply a case whether the person has committed a sexual offence against a person under the relevant age.
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/paedophilia/miller.pdf

I remember when a former High Court judge was falsely accused of "paedophilia", the definition used in press reports related to boys under the age of 18, which was the relevant age of consent in NSW at that time. That, ie being under the legal age of consent, is the definition of Paedophilia used by many people. I checked a list of state and territory laws and it shows that in SA and Tas the age of consent is 17, while it is 16 in all other States and Territories, including in ACT where the former fiancee of DJH lived.
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/age-consent-laws

 

[Panda]

Because they were under a white plastic sheet?

Good thinking crabby ... that would do it I would think. And no, no ... I'm not going to set up an experiment to find out, lol.

 

[JaneSA]

The following comment is "IMO"

Criminal law in Australian is mostly State or Territory based, although some crimes fall under Commonwealth Law. State Courts dealing with crimes under State law (eg a murder that took place in NSW) don't have jurisdiction to punish people for contempt of court (including sub-judice contempt) in other States or Territories. It would be different if the crime was a Federal one (eg drug importation to Australia), where the Federal Court has jurisdiction throughout Australia. Therefore the SA based Advertiser can publish in SA a newspaper that calls DJH a convicted paedophile even after criminal proceedings commence in NSW for an NSW crime but NSW newspaper cannot say the same once proceedings commence. Therefore NSW media is not going to say that DJH is a convicted criminal in NSW and presently serving time here.

The basis of the law relating to sub-judice contempt of court is that discussion of actual or supposed past crimes can cause the potential jurors in a State, and even the judges, to become actually or apparently biased against an accused person thus jeopardising the possibility of a fair trial. If the prejudiced caused by a such public speculation becomes so strong that the court forms the view that the accused could not have a fair trial then it is possible the person would get off scot-free, so that the public speculation would prevent the victim and/or victim's family from having justice for a crime.

Therefore reputable media organisations in any State or Territory of Australia, and also reputable public interest forums like websleuths, want to prevent the publication of any content that could jeopardise a fair trial for the accused and the associated right of the victim to have justice done. Loss of the right to speculate and imagine scenarios about the accused or people who might be associated with him or her is a very small price to pay if the end result is a fair and just criminal legal system.

EDIT: a matter only becomes sub-judice against a specific person once legal process has commenced eg they are charged. If a media organisation only cares about the possibility of being prosecuted for sub-judice contempt, it would be able to publish material about the prior convictions of a possible suspect prior to charging. Therefore things may have been published before DJH was charged that NSW media would not publish after the charges were laid.

Thank you, Theodora. I think you have summed that up really well.

 

[Theodora]

It gets a bit tricky with the internet. The date published could be argued to be the date viewed, copied or downloaded. It would work in a criminal's favour for their defence lawyer to have a pile of articles and comments repeating information about prior convictions. IMO.

Yes the internet makes it very difficult. That's why judges go to such lengths to lecture juries about the need to keep an unbiased mind and instructs them not to do google searches or look for other information online about the case. It's even harder that people in Australia can read online reports of foreign newspapers. In NSW it's a criminal offence for a jury member to research the case on the internet
http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/the_jury.html#d5e7158

 

[fruity]

No. They got DNA from the bones of both. Then when a crime stoppers report suggested that the child was Khandalyse, they were able to obtain blood samples from both mother and child kept from her birth, and comparison with these enabled ID. Scientists are now trying to see if they can get any usable DNA from the clothing (apparently getting a decent sample from the bones was hard enough)


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/forensic-team-searches-wynarka-suitcase-for-dna/6874714

"The forensic science centre here in Adelaide spent many weeks piecing together a DNA profile [from Khandalyce's remains] that would be useful enough to get this identification," he said.

He said it was a "miracle" that police were able to find "ante-mortem" samples, or blood samples collected from both mother and daughter at birth and stored in medical record systems.

"That allows you to positively identify one set of remains to a person whose DNA was collected before they were killed," professor Austin said.

"It's an amazing piece of forensic work really."

Mr Pearman said the team was refocusing its attention on the items found with the girl's remains.

"We now move onto a different phase [in] the investigation where we will look at the clothing in the suitcase and the suitcase itself to see if there is some DNA profiles there that might prove useful for the police in their investigation," he said.

Yeah that's what I'm finding now too.

I'm hoping to find the other part about the clothing quoted in one of the old threads. I've found a few things that have changed in MSM as more details have been released by police.

editing to add:

Here it is - no wonder I remembered it, I was the one who posted it!

In a twist stranger than fiction, the single mother, who was 20 when she died, was identified by DNA taken from a pink dress near another body at the centre of a murder mystery some 1200km away – that of Karlie's two-year-old daughter, Khandalyce.

Post 164

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Stevenson-(Belanglo)&p=12131288#post12131288

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...3qRIIyCgZDO.99