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

[fruity]

Another not so nice or accurate way of reporting this. "A house his fiance once lived in" - if you don't listen carefully you get the impression she was 16 when Karlie & Khandalyce were at that house in 2008.

How do you suggest they report it?

I doubt very much a 12 yr old is the "witness" police have discussed interviewing in that house,
1. because the adults there at the time would be better suited.
2. She doesn't live there anymore but other family members obviously do

- so not only have they named a 16 yr old who was targeted by a 38 yr old man with a terrible past of violence, death & destruction aimed at the young women he habitually involved with, but media aren't even naming the right person.:banghead:

Link please, to prove they have named the wrong person? Media reports say that the police raided Ms Blundell's home and that she has spoken to police as a witness. Do you have information that proves those reports wrong?

She is 19 years old at present (unless she was engaged at 12 years old in 2012) and she also wrote on Facebook "have you ever looked at someone and thought ... yep, you have a person locked in your basement" ... do you suggest the police ignore that and decline to interview her because she was underage at the time she was in a relationship with someone they have now charged with murder? She could have invaluable information that she wouldn't have even realised was important.

Btw the following link confirms that:
1. The credit card Holdom had was in the name K. Pearce-Stevenson (not Karlie), and
2. Holdom was living with Bludell in a caravan park at the time he was pulled over in the red Mazda 626.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a...dalyce-murder-accused-killer-engaged-to-teen/

 

[antechinusRAWR]

One of my relatives was injured in a car accident. Only the one vehicle involved. The driver was found to be at fault and my relative was paid compensation. It was made up of a number of components, including future loss of earnings and future medical expenses. With regard to those, it was made very clear to him (my relative) that money should be kept aside for those purposes, if he went out and blew it all he was bang out of luck if he needed to claim from Centrelink or pay for medical expenses related to the injuries he was being paid out for. No Medicare, no disability payments. It was calculated x amount for x many years for loss of income... run out of money in the meantime, bad luck. x amount for future medical expenses... if you spend it on something else or your expenses turn out to be more, bad luck, that's the amount you agreed to, no Medicare for that.

There was more for pain and suffering etc. As a lump sum it can sound like a huge amount, but it could need to last a long time. I think sometimes people assume that if someone is disabled from an accident they automatically get a big payout and a disability pension as well and it may well not be the case (generally speaking, not directed to anyone on here!).

I should say..this was quite a few years ago and in a different state to what is being discussed here, so rules might have changed, be different etc etc.

All IMO only.

Sorry about the multi-posting but the compensation preclusion is absolutely true. In all the years I worked for Clink I only ever saw truly devastating results once. An older man who'd become an alcoholic because of his injury & his claim subsequently dragging through courts for decades, he went on the bender of all benders for a fortnight after his claim finally paid out.

He started drinking with hundreds of thousands of dollars in his bank account & he was destitute less than 2 weeks later - a couple of Sydney bookies got the benefit of that money he'd waited over a decade to receive. He was a really lovely guy & it was awful watching him realise what he'd done to himself, but in the end (& not for want of trying) there was nothing we could do for him other than put him in touch with a homeless men's hostel for the moment he was inevitably evicted.

I don' t know what became of him, he never came back - years ago now but I've never forgotten him : (

 

[fruity]

I think people need to get off the 'journalists are eeeevvviiiiiillll' bandwagon, it's getting old. Sure, ambiguous writing and sensationalism is annoying - but we're here to discuss this case. The facts as the media are reporting them are, on the whole, pretty clear. Too many straw men are taking the focus away from Karlie and Khandalyce IMO.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I think people need to get off the 'journalists are eeeevvviiiiiillll' bandwagon, it's getting old. Sure, ambiguous writing and sensationalism is annoying - but we're here to discuss this case. The facts as the media are reporting them are, on the whole, pretty clear. Too many straw men are taking the focus away from Karlie and Khandalyce IMO.

Totally agree, we'd have very little to talk about if it was for them! Nobody is goddamned perfect, but it's easy to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at people who are actually in the firing line. Literally in this case actually.

 

[antechinusRAWR]

I think people need to get off the 'journalists are eeeevvviiiiiillll' bandwagon, it's getting old. Sure, ambiguous writing and sensationalism is annoying - but we're here to discuss this case. The facts as the media are reporting them are, on the whole, pretty clear. Too many straw men are taking the focus away from Karlie and Khandalyce IMO.

It's also pretty clear the "witness" who was named & shamed was only 12 when Karlie was at the house that's been searched.She also doesn't actually live there. So it's inaccurate, not evil & it's certainly no strawman?? I'm not sure why it bothers you so but if facts are what we're all here for it's best they're corrected quickly when they've clearly been wrong for the past day - ie wrong person named as "the witness".

 

[antechinusRAWR]

How do you suggest they report it?


Link please, to prove they have named the wrong person? Media reports say that the police raided Ms Blundell's home and that she has spoken to police as a witness. Do you have information that proves those reports wrong?

She is 19 years old at present (unless she was engaged at 12 years old in 2012) and she also wrote on Facebook "have you ever looked at someone and thought ... yep, you have a person locked in your basement" ... do you suggest the police ignore that and decline to interview her because she was underage at the time she was in a relationship with someone they have now charged with murder? She could have invaluable information that she wouldn't have even realised was important.

Btw the following link confirms that:
1. The credit card Holdom had was in the name K. Pearce-Stevenson (not Karlie), and
2. Holdom was living with Bludell in a caravan park at the time he was pulled over in the red Mazda 626.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a...dalyce-murder-accused-killer-engaged-to-teen/

The link is the vid I quoted. The fiance was 16 when she became engaged to DH. The fiance once lived at the house searched. Karlie & Khandalyce were seen at the house in 2008. The fiance was 12 in 2008. Relatives of the fiance still live at the house. Her grandmother, standing outside the house said she hasn't seen the fiance for some time. Earlier reports : police said the person who lives at the home that was searched is being treated as a witness not a suspect.

Edit & as previously stated, it woulkd be unusual to interview a 19 yr old about things that occurred in her parents home (that she no longer lives in) back in 2008 when she was 12 yrs old, when her parents still live in the home & would have had far more contact with/knowledge of the missing adult who visited them at that time.


Edit 2 : after reviewing multiple reports I do think she *may* be a witness too, though as their relationship *appears* to have commenced mid-2012 ( ie after he ceased use of the ATM cards) her only input may be to confirm her parent's statements re Karlie's visits to the fiances childhood home in 2008, items DH may have had in his possession (such as suitcases or phones) & which ATM's he preferred to use in the area (helpful if there's no longer ATM security footage for his alleged transactions).


Edit 3 missed the part about her fb post. This is the other major issue here. Media are reporting incorrectly & ambiguously from a source that TOS prevents us from discussing. It wouldn't seem quite so unfair if it didn't relate to a minor (she was well under 18 when the relationship ended) who was potentially groomed as a child by a man in his 30's who had allegedly already killed one young woman.

Some of the media do report that the relationship was "volatile" by Dec 2012. The quotes that were implied/assumed to relate to DH having someone in his basement were late 2013. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Suziek]

Maybe he also dumped a small suitcase full of unwanted kids clothes... and other things!

maybe the landlord took photos of the state the the property was left in for tribunal purposes???

 

[Suziek]

I think they were a reconstruction, not the originals.
I doubt the landlord kept the originals for 7 years.
He/she would have chucked them out with the rest of the rubbish when cleaning for new tenants.
The story about leaving the "shrine" and false leg are someone's memory of events.

landlords often take photos now when tenants vacate properties incase they need t provide them at tribunals if things aren't left up to scratch

 

[fruity]

The link is the vid I quoted. The fiance was 16 when she became engaged to DH. The fiance once lived at the house searched. Karlie & Khandalyce were seen at the house in 2008. The fiance was 12 in 2008. Relatives of the fiance still live at the house. Her grandmother, standing outside the house said she hasn't seen the fiance for some time. Earlier reports : police said the person who lives at the home that was searched is being treated as a witness not a suspect.

Edit & as previously stated, it woulkd be unusual to interview a 19 yr old about things that occurred in her parents home (that she no longer lives in) back in 2008 when she was 12 yrs old, when her parents still live in the home & would have had far more contact with/knowledge of the missing adult who visited them at that time.

Firstly, do you have proof that the police haven't also spoken to the parents? As I said earlier, there is information here that you may not be aware of. Just because it hasn't been published does not mean it doesn't exist. What do you think is going to sell better - that police questioned old acquaintances or that they questioned his ex fiancée who was 16 when they got engaged? As I also said earlier, yes sensationalism is annoying, but don't let it ruin your day. It happens and you're not going to be able to stop it by pointing it out constantly here. That is taking the focus away from the reason we are here!

Secondly. Lives? Lived? Seriously?? Take a step back and look at the context. The bigger picture (ie that police have spoken to really important witnesses in this case).

I'm just going to be Elsa re the nitpicking. Let it go. The point of what bothers me was very clearly missed.

If you have a problem with police questioning a witness, go and talk about it with them. Complaining about it here is only taking the focus off Karlie and Khandalyce and it is insinuating that law enforcement don't know what they're doing. IMO they do indeed know what they are doing, as evidenced by the amazing progress in the case recently.

The fact is, as stated about 30 pages ago, this witness could have seen things she didn't realise were extremely important. eg "That old faded suitcase? Yeah, he packed that when we were moving in together but I didn't ever see it again." A 16 year old may not have had any idea of the importance of what she innocently saw. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. That's why the police ask people questions no matter how old they were or how long ago something happened.

Or do you think cold cases should be abandoned?

 

[Freddo Frog]

Being a country hermit...who doesn't get out much.....

Can anyone tell me if Print Media have had pictures of Daniel in their pages...has this story and his photo had a prominent place since his arrest??

Rural here too. Our regional paper had a 1 1/2 page spread about 5 or so pages in on the case yesterday but the only photo they had of him was the one with the 3 kids, the rest was of Hazel at the police station.

 

[melsmemories]

I think people need to get off the 'journalists are eeeevvviiiiiillll' bandwagon, it's getting old. Sure, ambiguous writing and sensationalism is annoying - but we're here to discuss this case. The facts as the media are reporting them are, on the whole, pretty clear. Too many straw men are taking the focus away from Karlie and Khandalyce IMO.

I agree . Without the media we wouldnt have any information at all . I think when all things are considered they would like justice for karlie and khandalyse too . Were all working on the same side .

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Karo]

I am left with wondering about our journalists, do they really have few comprehension skills or are they distorting the info they do have, to make a bigger story? I find it difficult to understand why they do it.
It matters because there are going to be quite a few innocent people caught up in this and mud sticks.
Something else I read about recently, when a crime is committed in one state eg: rape and kidnap in NSW, and the murder in Victoria, there are then police from 2 states involved, so a task force from each state is assigned and both must question the suspect, they can't use the information from the other task force.
I am now left thinking that with 3 states involved so far, which crime will they prosecute first?

Firstly, do you have proof that the police haven't also spoken to the parents? As I said earlier, there is information here that you may not be aware of. Just because it hasn't been published does not mean it doesn't exist. What do you think is going to sell better - that police questioned old acquaintances or that they questioned his ex fiancée who was 16 when they got engaged? As I also said earlier, yes sensationalism is annoying, but don't let it ruin your day. It happens and you're not going to be able to stop it by pointing it out constantly here. That is taking the focus away from the reason we are here!

Secondly. Lives? Lived? Seriously?? Take a step back and look at the context. The bigger picture (ie that police have spoken to really important witnesses in this case).

I'm just going to be Elsa re the nitpicking. Let it go. The point of what bothers me was very clearly missed.

If you have a problem with police questioning a witness, go and talk about it with them. Complaining about it here is only taking the focus off Karlie and Khandalyce and it is insinuating that law enforcement don't know what they're doing. IMO they do indeed know what they are doing, as evidenced by the amazing progress in the case recently.

The fact is, as stated about 30 pages ago, this witness could have seen things she didn't realise were extremely important. eg "That old faded suitcase? Yeah, he packed that when we were moving in together but I didn't ever see it again." A 16 year old may not have had any idea of the importance of what she innocently saw. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. That's why the police ask people questions no matter how old they were or how long ago something happened.

Or do you think cold cases should be abandoned?

 

[JaneSA]

The Tele had the photo saturation successfully covered as of friday. I was pretty shocked to see the fb family photo of him in the centre of her 3 kids, staring out from shelves & shelves & shelves across Shoalhaven that afternoon. It was an odd sensation seeing a pic I was already familiar with online, covering so much of local shelfspace & in my little regional supermarket. As it was the Tele, every town in NSW that gets daily newspapers will have seen multiple copies of that same front page too because the Tele is very widely read in NSW.

Orange, Bathurst & Dubbo (all are places I spent time in as a kid & I still have family there & further out) are all much bigger towns than mine so I expect they got a far larger dose of DH's face than my area did (& we're only 30-40 mins from Belanglo/Southern Highlands/Wingecarribee so that's southern NSW covered.


- anyway, your wish has been well & truly granted Puggle..

And that was after he had been formally charged?
If so, how is sub judice working in NSW?
That is confusing

 

[lampshade1]

Thanks Jane.....what!!! no cupcakes lol...

These are Adelaide Papers yeah....??

I think they should saturate the NSW towns of Orange, Bathurst and even Dubbo with front page headshots of the accused ..... and see what happens then... IMO.....could be interesting....there's a reason he doesn't want his face out there....and it isn't just this case...

I've' tried with no luck to search back through the pages.....and couldn't find the media link..I thought it was supposed to be clipped to the first page of each new thread?? .. What was the alias/or reported MSM name of the 16 year old he was engaged to??

Puggle do you not understand the sub judice law yet? NSW MSM would be loath to paste DH's photo all over their pages. And do you really think that DH has the luxury of saying what he wants and doesn't want printed in a newspaper?

BBM. What link is supposed to cipped to the front page of each new thread? We have a Media/Timeline thread if you want to find a specific link. The link to the Media/Timeline thread is on page one of this thread. And there is always Google.

The Tele had the photo saturation successfully covered as of friday. I was pretty shocked to see the fb family photo of him in the centre of her 3 kids, staring out from shelves & shelves & shelves across Shoalhaven that afternoon. It was an odd sensation seeing a pic I was already familiar with online, covering so much of local shelfspace & in my little regional supermarket. As it was the Tele, every town in NSW that gets daily newspapers will have seen multiple copies of that same front page too because the Tele is very widely read in NSW.

Orange, Bathurst & Dubbo (all are places I spent time in as a kid & I still have family there & further out) are all much bigger towns than mine so I expect they got a far larger dose of DH's face than my area did (& we're only 30-40 mins from Belanglo/Southern Highlands/Wingecarribee so that's southern NSW covered.


- anyway, your wish has been well & truly granted Puggle..

Makara, The Daily Telegraph in NSW (NSW's highest selling newspaper) has been running the picture of DH and the 3 children on their front page. The childrens faces are not blurred out.

Given this is the most circulated paper in NSW it is highly prominent in the towns Puggle mentioned.

 

[JaneSA]

I am astonished that anyone thinks misleading and even incorrect journalism is acceptable.
This is exactly why we can only trust in the police reporting for accuracy, as Makara is so often reminding people.
Personally, I would also include the ABC who at least make a concerted effort to get the facts correct and alway tag what is a reconstruction and what is genuine footage.

 

[Freddo Frog]

I hope that the families of Karlie and Khandalyce and TB are getting a lot of support from family and friends and, if need be, professionals. The stuff that is coming out, plus the media attention they themselves are gathering, must be intolerable to digest. If any of them are reading here, my heart goes out to you all.

 

[Karo]

I agree, it's ridiculous that they do it and never retract unless threatened with legal action.

I am astonished that anyone thinks misleading and even incorrect journalism is acceptable.
This is exactly why we can only trust in the police reporting for accuracy, as Makara is so often reminding people.
Personally, I would also include the ABC who at least make a concerted effort to get the facts correct and alway tag what is a reconstruction and what is genuine footage.

 

[fruity]

I am astonished that anyone thinks misleading and even incorrect journalism is acceptable.
This is exactly why we can only trust in the police reporting for accuracy, as Makara is so often reminding people.
Personally, I would also include the ABC who at least make a concerted effort to get the facts correct and alway tag what is a reconstruction and what is genuine footage.

I certainly hope you simply misunderstood the intention of my posts and you're not suggesting I think it's acceptable?

I am saying that yes, it happens, it's not good, but don't let it ruin your day or let it consume your thoughts. Put the focus in the right place - on Karlie and Khandalyce. Look at the context, the bigger picture.

 

[PainExpress]

I agree, it's ridiculous that they do it and never retract unless threatened with legal action.

They get threatened with eggs

 

[lampshade1]

The Daily Telegraph (print version) has a photograph of Karlie as a 6 year old in it today.

Nothing much else new in the article other than a Mt Gambier camera store owner (Rabbit Photo from the bank card I presume) saying she is haunted by the knowledge she served Karlie/someone else (although she doesn't remember anything specific).