AUS - Khandalyce Kiara Pearce, Wynarka, Bones of a Child Discovered, July'15 - #4

[perkerkel]

I also wonder if someone who knows what happened to this poor child is reading??

If that is the case..... I would implore you to come forward. The forensics of soil/flora samples that would have been caught up within the childs clothing WILL eventually lead back to you. If you are innocent of wrongdoing - except for trying to hide someone else's guilt it won't matter in the long run - as they will be caught. Think of this poor child - she deserves to have her story told and to have had her life matter.

I've been wondering if the soil and flora samples are the reason for the search area being mapped as it is: across the top from Morgan to Renmark ,and down the Murray River to Murray Bridge, pthen across. It seems pretty specific but doesn't include the Adelaide Hills. Someone earlier mentioned the theory that the fires there in the summer may have been the reason for the case needing to be relocated before a property was repaired or demolished. Made a lot of sense to me but the search area precludes that.

 

[kiwi50]

some people say "suitcase man" wanted the case to be found, I think his only concern was that HE was not found with suitcase, if he was worried that finding the suitcase anywhere would connect him, he would have made a much better job of hiding it.
I don't find it odd that no one driving along road remembers seeing him, it's not that memorable, if he was naked or something you might remember but carrying a suitcase isn't very unusual.

 

[jigzy]

17 guests

:thinking: :great: :lurk:

My iPad logs me out every 5 minutes or so, consequently I often appear as a guest. I only bother to log in if I'm going to post something or thank someone.

 

[Edinlass]

Same as me! I look on it but 9 times out of 10 I'm not logged in unless I have something to say of course!

I think the police are being quiet because they're onto something but of course they aren't going to let the public know that, detrimental to the case etc.

I hope they find a name for this poor poor innocent angel!

 

[ninjabynight]

I've been thinking about the guy with the suitcase again (who here hasn't?), and a couple things came to me.

It seems that several people have mentioned seeing a strange man walking in town, but has anyone mentioned seeing a vehicle they didn't recognize? I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere, but the majority of the guys I know would probably notice a car that didn't belong than a person (in an area so underpopulated.)

Many farmers/rural residents I know here very seldom go into town, especially if they raise their own food and animals for food. When they do go to town, they often don't bother cleaning up much because they're just going for hardware, lumber, seed or whatever. I've seen guys I knew fairly well who were dressed up for a funeral or something, and they looked like totally different people.

The same thing is true for someone who shaves after having a beard for years, colors their hair (or stops) and starts or stops wearing glasses.

Okay, too late to make a long story short but... Is it possible that this guy was a local who seldom goes into town, and usually has work clothes, some kind of hat, shaggier hair, full beard and glasses, but cut his hair, shaved and put on a suit to do this? If he drove to town and parked his vehicle where he wouldn't be likely to be seen but it wouldn't draw attention, it would explain why he was walking at that time of day rather than driving.

Once he was done, all he had to do was change back into his usual clothes, let his hair and beard grow back, and go on as if nothing had happened. If he wasn't around much, it's unlikely anyone would notice his absence while he returned to his former self.

Sorry, it's all I could come up with.

But if he didn't want to be seen, why on earth would be go through the town to begin with, requiring such an elaborate plan of disguise?

 

[Hericania]

But if he didn't want to be seen, why on earth would be go through the town to begin with, requiring such an elaborate plan of disguise?

I'm struggling to understand why someone would want to stage a walkabout to distract from a suitcase that hasn't yet had its contents discovered. It just doesn't add up.

 

[ninjabynight]

Yes I have many unanswered questions about suitcase man ... really wish the media had got all witness reported sightings correct so we could chronologically map out where and when he was seen.

and I think guilty conscience could be ruled out immediately.... also I don't think he committed the murder. These wreaks of a cover-up.

I know I am totally alone on this - I really don't think he wanted to be noticed. He chose the morning, I can't imagine a lot going on in the town at 7.30 - 8.00 am. His mistake was not knowing that two locals chose this time to do their "walk" at this time.

I'm sticking with the professional opinion of the forensic Criminologist who said the actions were indicative of someone simply wanting to distance themselves (Personally/location wise) from the suitcase as soon as possible and those actions also indicated the person would feel that no one would be able to feel they will be suspected of having this child anyway.

We know that the police suspect that the child did come from that immediate area...well that is what I think they are suggesting.

I can't figure out why exactly why the individual wouldn't think people wouldn't associate him with the child, but I have a few ideas.

He knew the child (possibly related) - but never had her stay with him at his residence for an extended period of time to be noticed, so his thought process is that locals wouldn't associate this child to him.???

He lived on one of the properties outside of the immediate town, this child had been at his property but would never have been seen by locals (the smaller tight knit community of houses).. There are no shops in the township apart from the post office...little angel could have been in a car seat and travelled down past the main street many of times without been noticed, as he/her mum/dad had business elsewhere...and no need to stop in at the post office...

The family that she was apart of always had a habit of being secretive and kept a boundary between themselves and other locals.

This morning I even wondered if this man was attempting to hide rather than dump..

This may explain him being sighted 44 days later ...was he going to retrieve the suitcase??

If he was - as suggested in the media seen hours apart walking along the hwy, could this suggest hesitation or even confusion??

Maybe he is covering for someone else (As the police suggested)

And the reason this disposal is so unusual to many other murder victims is .. ???

It could be for any reason - but specifically fear of the remains being found.

Relatives staying for an extended period of time.

Having to move for some reason.

Works being undertaken at his property; Telstra, water board, NBN...???.

Sale of home - property inspections.

Fear of being raided related to some other investigation - their involved in some criminal activity

Having strangers on property undertaking work for a specific reason; plumbing works, electrical, home renovation, extension, addition

some other maintenance requiring strangers to be on their property for extended period of time.

I am not surprised they are still pursing this mans identity - Your right the pieces don't really fit - but there has to be at least one eye witness report that is correct. Its a very small town

Im so tired....hope some of what I've typed makes sense..

otherwise...peace out fellow webleuthers xx

I think it's an interesting idea you have that suitcase man may have been returning on the second occasion to retrieve the suitcase. Whoever the original suitcase dumper was, I can imagine that he must have felt an enormous amount of anxiety as he waited for the case to be discovered. As weeks went by with no mention of a discovery in the media, perhaps they found this uncertainty intolerable. It's because of this that I can well imagine the dumper, whether it's suitcase man or not, returning to the scene. Before I had only considered that the purpose of returning to the scene might be to tip out the suitcase to make the discovery of the body more likely (since the person who tipped out the suitcase also hasn't come forward). But if the suitcase man is our guy, and he had the suitcase on both sighted occasions (which has not been confirmed, by the way), then this scenario does not explain why he would be carrying the suitcase around again the second time (unless he was temporarily considering relocating the evidence). On the other hand, if he returned hoping to retrieve the evidence his carrying a suitcase both time - and perhaps a different 'dark' suitcase - might be explained by his bringing a second suitcase in which to carry the offending one. Just ideas ... I think it's well worth thinking through all aspects of the suitcase man, because if he is not involved, which of course may well be the case, then we have so little to go by.

 

[Hericania]

If I was in a position where I had to dump a suitcase like that, (as the perp) I would want it to be a good distance from the place where I currently lived.

If I was getting rid for someone else I wouldn't be prepared to travel so far.

I would probably feel drawn to leave it in a place that I knew fairly well or had some link with.

It still seems a bit odd that they didn't hide the suitcase better. Kind of like they wanted it to be found. Maybe they feel confident they are untraceable, or are simply past caring.

 

[Oz Jen]

Yes I have many unanswered questions about suitcase man ... really wish the media had got all witness reported sightings correct so we could chronologically map out where and when he was seen.

and I think guilty conscience could be ruled out immediately.... also I don't think he committed the murder. These wreaks of a cover-up.

I know I am totally alone on this - I really don't think he wanted to be noticed. He chose the morning, I can't imagine a lot going on in the town at 7.30 - 8.00 am. His mistake was not knowing that two locals chose this time to do their "walk" at this time.

I'm sticking with the professional opinion of the forensic Criminologist who said the actions were indicative of someone simply wanting to distance themselves (Personally/location wise) from the suitcase as soon as possible and those actions also indicated the person would feel that no one would be able to feel they will be suspected of having this child anyway.

We know that the police suspect that the child did come from that immediate area...well that is what I think they are suggesting.

I can't figure out why exactly why the individual wouldn't think people wouldn't associate him with the child, but I have a few ideas.

He knew the child (possibly related) - but never had her stay with him at his residence for an extended period of time to be noticed, so his thought process is that locals wouldn't associate this child to him.???

He lived on one of the properties outside of the immediate town, this child had been at his property but would never have been seen by locals (the smaller tight knit community of houses).. There are no shops in the township apart from the post office...little angel could have been in a car seat and travelled down past the main street many of times without been noticed, as he/her mum/dad had business elsewhere...and no need to stop in at the post office...

The family that she was apart of always had a habit of being secretive and kept a boundary between themselves and other locals.

This morning I even wondered if this man was attempting to hide rather than dump..

This may explain him being sighted 44 days later ...was he going to retrieve the suitcase??

If he was - as suggested in the media seen hours apart walking along the hwy, could this suggest hesitation or even confusion??

Maybe he is covering for someone else (As the police suggested)

And the reason this disposal is so unusual to many other murder victims is .. ???

It could be for any reason - but specifically fear of the remains being found.

Relatives staying for an extended period of time.

Having to move for some reason.

Works being undertaken at his property; Telstra, water board, NBN...???.

Sale of home - property inspections.

Fear of being raided related to some other investigation - their involved in some criminal activity

Having strangers on property undertaking work for a specific reason; plumbing works, electrical, home renovation, extension, addition

some other maintenance requiring strangers to be on their property for extended period of time.

I am not surprised they are still pursing this mans identity - Your right the pieces don't really fit - but there has to be at least one eye witness report that is correct. Its a very small town

Im so tired....hope some of what I've typed makes sense..

otherwise...peace out fellow webleuthers xx

You are not alone, Puggle. I really don't think suitcase man wanted to be noticed, either. Even his demeanour walking through the town points to that: no eye contact, no conversation, no friendly nod of the head, no acknowledgment of the locals at all.

 

[MsDee]

I do agree that it might not be possible to go get stuff from that dump yourself.
But I still stink that if missDee had several very distinct identical items as were found with the remains. That is statistically unheard of.

So if she disposed of those items (and believe me, I'm convinced she has nothing to do with little Angels tragedy, in any way whatsoever)I still think that someone, somehow, must have been able to get a hold of items that other people disposed of.

And that is, I think, what can solve this case.

missDee, do you remember any special markers on your old kids clothes? Like missing buttons, broken zipper, stains, holes etc?
That could prove if they were yours at some point in time?

No special markers that I can think of. If I kept clothes for sale, they would be intact and in excellent condition. I have been thinking further, and I have remembered some other stuff as well that may be useful. I can recall giving out some clothing to people who needed it at the time, and I have recalled the times and dates of this, so I'm about to email crimestoppers (tried calling and lines were busy) and offer what I know. Have been drafting it to make sure I don't forget anything. It may be nothing, but at the very least it will be another family they can look into to make sure their children are safe.

I'm still caught up on the Wingfield/Gillman landfill area.

The areas that look like landfill I have outlined in red, Wingfield Tip is blue, and the Wingfield Waste and Recycling Depot is green.

It looks to me as though Garden Island, (and possibly Torrens Island) was also used for dumping.


View attachment 79867

Here is a view from the Grand Trunkway near the bridge. Not much fencing at that point.

Hericania, that area you have outlined in red is not all landfill. The dump does not go all the way to Grand Trunkway on the eastern side, there are other business in between the dump and the road. I am not sure about the land behind the dump, (north on your pic) down to the river, it could belong to the dump or it may be crown land. Never really thought about it before now. I doubt they would be able to put any rubbish too close to the river, due to leeching concerns. I am pretty sure the dump is sealed off in all directions by a big fence, and security is tight there.

I don't think Garden Island has ever been owned by the dump. There are only a few useable sections of it, and though there are council tracks that go through the middle of it, they are fenced off. A lot of the land is very swampy. I only know this because my 11 yr old was doing a project recently on shipwrecks, and we were over there at the ships graveyard. As I said above, dumping would not be taking place too close to the water.

 

[Kyja]

In regards to the clothes found I just wanted to mention that I have a large family and my not so little ones are all over 16. I definitely recognise a few items of clothing, the fluffy jackets were really popular around 5 to 10 years ago as were that style of slipper with the little butterfly's. My son had those holden boxers around 7 years ago and the little kitten boxers are familiar too. My point being if anyone had looked through a bag of clothes destined for an op shop from our family around 8 years ago they likely would have found quite a similar mix of clothes. I feel these clothes did belong to the family of little Angel and were all placed with her body originally until she was recently moved.

 

[JaneSA]

Going back to suitcase man, I still have so many unanswered questions about him.

Why would he want to have been seen...

Because he wanted to make it look like the case was dumped on a different date.

 

[JaneSA]

Wouldn't it up just be easier to take the suitcase to the dump or put it on a skip? If you already took the trouble to put it in your car to drive it somewhere, why not drop it at a real disposal place rather than just throwing it out of the window - probably not an easy manoeuvre from a physical point of view?
And walking a long distance with it, if that's what happened, would be even more physical effort.

Exactly! This is why I have been saying from the beginning that suitcase-man wanted to be seen.
Nobody in the Wynarka area is without a car.
There are acres and acres of scrub around small dirt tracks everywhere.
If you want to dump a suitcase there are a billion more obscure places you could do that.
There is no reason to carry the case UNLESS you want to be seen.

 

[MsDee]

In regards to the clothes found I just wanted to mention that I have a large family and my not so little ones are all over 16. I definitely recognise a few items of clothing, the fluffy jackets were really popular around 5 to 10 years ago as were that style of slipper with the little butterfly's. My son had those holden boxers around 7 years ago and the little kitten boxers are familiar too. My point being if anyone had looked through a bag of clothes destined for an op shop from our family around 8 years ago they likely would have found quite a similar mix of clothes. I feel these clothes did belong to the family of little Angel and were all placed with her body originally until she was recently moved.

Thank god I am not the only one. I was going to post before that they said there were 50 items of clothing in that suitcase, and I imagine that if they showed them all, there would be a lot of people that would recognise at least 5 items, especially people with a few kids.

I have just emailed crimestoppers with the info I could recall. FWIW.

 

[CSIDreamer]

An Admin was talking about a timeline. I tried to put one together using the bare minimum facts known. The times we know that relate directly to the little girl are in bold. Items not related to her or her items are italicized.

2003 - 2005 potential birth years
2007 - ? potential murder years
Mid-march, 2015 suitcase containing remains are noticed
April 13 2015 mystery man in Wynarka (Monday)
May 26 2015 mystery man in Wynarka (Tuesday)
July 14 2015 suitcase containing remains reported to police
August 5 2015 large scale canvass by police


​I know there was road construction in there, but couldn't find the dates for sure.
I believe several people reported they had stopped and looked at that suitcase between mid March and July as well.
Wasn't there a festival around there? Maybe that should be added in?

 

[Confusion]

Because he wanted to make it look like the case was dumped on a different date.

I was wondering if he may have been afraid that someone saw him the day he brought it out there and came back a couple more times hoping someone would ask him to show what was in the suitcase. If that had happened, and he just had some of his own clothes packed in the later one, they'd most likely assume that's what was in it the first time too. I know that's not very sensible, but a stranger walking around with a suitcase in a town that size doesn't seem real sensible for any reason.

MOO

 

[browneyedsusan]

Hello,

I'm a newbie to this forum, and what a respectable way to have discussion. You are actually helping the police in this investigation. So happy a good Samaritan can make a difference.

I have been following the Madeleine Mccann case and found this one as well. In America in Boston they have one named Baby Doe found a week or two after this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/massachusetts-dead-toddler/

I'll start her a thread of her own, but thought it would also interest you.

I've looked at a map of your area and you are a straight shot from a cape on the ocean. I don't think this is a local child, but that is only an opinion. The town Angel was found in looked convenient for a random pick. The clothes I think were stolen or taken from the trash dump.

I found a free patent picture of the black camel available to any person to use. Any manufacturer can use it in any pattern easily. The heart by itself looks nonpatentable too. Together may be used in a patent, but if you want to search for anyone using this camel, the search will be many.

https://www.colourbox.com/browse/an...104KpA.0&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

I hope this helps, but not likely. The clothes were likely stolen locally when the perp got on dry land. I hope they announce the dna. It will tell if the child is a boy or girl.

 

[Hericania]

Hericania, that area you have outlined in red is not all landfill. The dump does not go all the way to Grand Trunkway on the eastern side, there are other business in between the dump and the road. I am not sure about the land behind the dump, (north on your pic) down to the river, it could belong to the dump or it may be crown land. Never really thought about it before now. I doubt they would be able to put any rubbish too close to the river, due to leeching concerns. I am pretty sure the dump is sealed off in all directions by a big fence, and security is tight there.

I don't think Garden Island has ever been owned by the dump. There are only a few useable sections of it, and though there are council tracks that go through the middle of it, they are fenced off. A lot of the land is very swampy. I only know this because my 11 yr old was doing a project recently on shipwrecks, and we were over there at the ships graveyard. As I said above, dumping would not be taking place too close to the water.

I just googled Garden Island and it WAS used for landfill, right up until 2000! I know it's not really relevant in this case, but I thought it was interesting. Apparently there are big concerns about leeching, because of all the wildlife, and it is estimated that to sort it out will cost around 14 million. Pretty shocking eh?!

 

[CSIDreamer]

Hello,

I'm a newbie to this forum, and what a respectable way to have discussion. You are actually helping the police in this investigation. So happy a good Samaritan can make a difference.

I have been following the Madeleine Mccann case and found this one as well. In America in Boston they have one named Baby Doe found a week or two after this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/massachusetts-dead-toddler/

I'll start her a thread of her own, but thought it would also interest you.

I've looked at a map of your area and you are a straight shot from a cape on the ocean. I don't think this is a local child, but that is only an opinion. The town Angel was found in looked convenient for a random pick. The clothes I think were stolen or taken from the trash dump.

I found a free patent picture of the black camel available to any person to use. Any manufacturer can use it in any pattern easily. The heart by itself looks nonpatentable too. Together may be used in a patent, but if you want to search for anyone using this camel, the search will be many.

https://www.colourbox.com/browse/an...104KpA.0&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

I hope this helps, but not likely. The clothes were likely stolen locally when the perp got on dry land. I hope they announce the dna. It will tell if the child is a boy or girl.

They'd probably have came by ocean to go that direction, but not sure. Last time I went to Australia (I'm from the U.S.) I left from the west coast via air.

 

[browneyedsusan]

I think he got mad no one found her and came back. There's no telling how long the child sat in someones garage.
They should be looking at who moored their boat there in that year and who just moored when the suitcase showed up.