AUS - Khandalyce Kiara Pearce, Wynarka, Bones of a Child Discovered, July'15 - #5

[Puggle]

And thank you to whomever brought up the Geocaching last Saturday night .... I went and did my first one Sunday on my lunch break... had a little help from a farmer lady who came out to see what I was doing... I said I am so sorry if I scared you...she said.."Are you looking for a treasure"?...lol...she told me I was very close and directed me to the general direction of the correct tree...where I found my first "Cache".... it was very exciting... and now I'm hooked.

Brings me back to the location of the suitcase .... having read the reviews on the Geocaching website .... that particular area was rife with "Caches" ... and many, many people would have trampled over that area where the suitcase was found... the suitcase very well could have been moved numerous times.

 

[AtaraMalka]

I don't believe the time of day was consequentially relevant to this individual .... I probably didn't word it right or explain my theory correctly.
The person described by the witness appeared to be on a "Mission".
There's the clue there.

He may have had some trepidation about being seen but avoided eye contact, didn't engage or offer a friendly wave - His sole purpose was to either hide the remains .... or possibly even retrieve the remains... IMO

If this man is involved in the placement of the suitcase - attempted retrieval of its contents - I am erring more on the side of the forensic criminologists statements ....which were reported at the very beginning when the case was found ...

I can't seem to find the link ....but going on memory they said whomever placed the suitcase there, they more than likely wouldn't be directly involved or at the very least has no fear the child could be traced back to him.

It smells like a family member of the mother attempting to hide/conceal her crime or involvement in a crime. The catalyst for the need to remove the evidence hastily will most likely be "key evidence".

There are only a certain number of things I can think of why the remains needed to be hastily removed/hidden (Certainly not destroyed - indication of some emotional attachment):
House Sale - Inspections, Home Renovation - contractors, Visitors for an extended period of time, having to leave the home for an extended period of time for whatever reason, Works in or around the home or property by a government agency.... probably heaps more possible scenarios...brains tired lol...

Possible reason for retrieval - There wasn't much thought process happening in the disposal stage apart from distancing the remains as quickly as possible for that individual's residence, but once the need or reason for the quick removal was no longer present - there became a sense of urgency to retrieve it (thought process had kicked in) ... Maybe they had become aware that the suitcase had been found and its contents were now closer to the highway and items from it were scattered.

Him being seen in the morning and (suggested) later in the day still wandering the highway makes me think the suitcase he hid had been found and moved .... and now he was the one looking for it, maybe that's why he was carrying a suitcase that was described differently ... the one he was carrying was to retrieve the items ???

I see what you mean, Puggle.

Regarding the psychologist, I have an article where she is quoted - if it's the same person I think you're speaking of - on my other computer at home . I'll post it for reference when I get back.

If I may say, I think there's somewhat of a contradiction in saying that suitcase man, if he was involved, was distancing himself from the remains by dumping them, and suggesting at the same time that he was a grandfather or family member. If he was, and the girls identity was ascertained, then he himself would be traceable. That's the part - one of them! - I don't understand.

 

[AtaraMalka]

And thank you to whomever brought up the Geocaching last Saturday night .... I went and did my first one Sunday on my lunch break... had a little help from a farmer lady who came out to see what I was doing... I said I am so sorry if I scared you...she said.."Are you looking for a treasure"?...lol...she told me I was very close and directed me to the general direction of the correct tree...where I found my first "Cache".... it was very exciting... and now I'm hooked.

Brings me back to the location of the suitcase .... having read the reviews on the Geocaching website .... that particular area was rife with "Caches" ... and many, many people would have trampled over that area where the suitcase was found... the suitcase very well could have been moved numerous times.

And unfortunately, forensic information thereby fudged or erased.

 

[Puggle]

This is is extremely interesting.

Firstly, around .44 secs, the reporter says that suitcase man had an 'eerie presence,' though we don't hear the witness saying this in her own words.

While that does look like sensationalism, the witness then adds that that was the reason she didn't acknowledge him.

(Note that she is saying she chose not to acknowledge him - not that he didn't acknowledge her, as some of the other witnesses said.)

Secondly, listening carefully at .52, the reporter narrates: "When Mrs Edwards reported her sighting to police, another piece of the puzzle emerged: a link between Wynarka and the remains of a little girl with no name found in a suitcase on the Karoonda highway just out of town."

Doesn't that wording suggest she reported her sighting to police before the suitcase was discovered?

Our minds obviously think alike...

Yeah I took notice of the oddness of the report...

Really the only thing she stated as being odd was the "place and time" she saw him.

She specifically mentions: "nothing odd"

I think it's a case of contagious sensationalism ... the reporter has put it too her that it was "eerie" and she has simply agreed.

Secondly, listening carefully at .52, the reporter narrates: "When Mrs Edwards reported her sighting to police, another piece of the puzzle emerged: a link between Wynarka and the remains of a little girl with no name found in a suitcase on the Karoonda highway just out of town."

Doesn't that wording suggest she reported her sighting to police before the suitcase was discovered

It could .... but if that were the case I think they (reporters) would have caught onto it before now.... it's all in the wording though isn't it..

But yep... some food for thought in the interview for sure.

 

[JaneSA]

I don't believe the time of day was consequentially relevant to this individual .... I probably didn't word it right or explain my theory correctly.
The person described by the witness appeared to be on a "Mission".
There's the clue there.

He may have had some trepidation about being seen but avoided eye contact, didn't engage or offer a friendly wave - His sole purpose was to either hide the remains .... or possibly even retrieve the remains... IMO

If this man is involved in the placement of the suitcase - attempted retrieval of its contents - I am erring more on the side of the forensic criminologists statements ....which were reported at the very beginning when the case was found ...

I can't seem to find the link ....but going on memory they said whomever placed the suitcase there, they more than likely wouldn't be directly involved or at the very least has no fear the child could be traced back to him.

It smells like a family member of the mother attempting to hide/conceal her crime or involvement in a crime. The catalyst for the need to remove the evidence hastily will most likely be "key evidence".

There are only a certain number of things I can think of why the remains needed to be hastily removed/hidden (Certainly not destroyed - indication of some emotional attachment):
House Sale - Inspections, Home Renovation - contractors, Visitors for an extended period of time, having to leave the home for an extended period of time for whatever reason, Works in or around the home or property by a government agency.... probably heaps more possible scenarios...brains tired lol...

Possible reason for retrieval - There wasn't much thought process happening in the disposal stage apart from distancing the remains as quickly as possible for that individual's residence, but once the need or reason for the quick removal was no longer present - there became a sense of urgency to retrieve it (thought process had kicked in) ... Maybe they had become aware that the suitcase had been found and its contents were now closer to the highway and items from it were scattered.

Him being seen in the morning and (suggested) later in the day still wandering the highway makes me think the suitcase he hid had been found and moved .... and now he was the one looking for it, maybe that's why he was carrying a suitcase that was described differently ... the one he was carrying was to retrieve the items ???

Yes, I agree.
I have always felt suitcase-man was searching, not concealing.

 

[Makara]

This is all my fault, I am so sorry to have mentioned such a dreadful scenario. I didn't intend to start a discussion on that, but I do get so upset over this poor discarded little one - it is just beyond my comprehension how this all happened or why.
Ms Jinx, your post was revealing and again I do apologise for my own post which has caused difficulties.
:bang: love and peace to all. :yourock:

Jessie what we're dealing with here is an horrific scenario. A little girl, (she was only a baby) has been brutally murdered, her remains stuffed in a suitcase and dumped on the side of a road. You don't need to apologise for the scenario you put forward, as horrific as it is. Whoever did this to little Angel is capable of anything in my opinion. All opinions are welcome here. If someone doesn't agree they have three options; reply respectfully. Scroll on by. And thirdly if they feel that a post is in any way offensive, alert a moderator by clicking on the small triangle at the bottom left of the message box.

 

[DutchTreat]

I see your point. I'm currently using my deceased father's clothes to make a quilt for my daughter. And have my deceased father in law's shirts to turn into baby quilts.

I'm not seeing anything but that piece surviving. I can't wrap my mind around how it would have been folded to preserve one hex. And keep it that much cleaner than anything around it.

I think it must have had some sort of 'treatment' 'wax coated'(does that word exist?)? Something that makes is water resistant, heat resistant. Or just not pure cotton but something systhetic in it. I tend to believe it was some old kitchen item.

 

[Makara]

It's funny that so many feel the pumpkin fabric is familiar but can't place it.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up, but I associate it somehow with those "cafe style" kitchen curtains.

If it was sold as a kitchen décor fabric, I wonder is it is treated with a fire retardant that has caused the excellent preservation.

Yep, the pumpkin fabric is also familiar to me and I also associate it with cafe style curtains back in the late '80's.

 

[JaneSA]

This is is extremely interesting.
Firstly, around .44 secs, the reporter says that suitcase man had an 'eerie presence,' though we don't hear the witness saying this in her own words.
While that does look like sensationalism, the witness then adds that that was the reason she didn't acknowledge him.
(Note that she is saying she chose not to acknowledge him - not that he didn't acknowledge her, as some of the other witnesses said.)
Secondly, listening carefully at .52, the reporter narrates: "When Mrs Edwards reported her sighting to police, another piece of the puzzle emerged: a link between Wynarka and the remains of a little girl with no name found in a suitcase on the Karoonda highway just out of town."
Doesn't that wording suggest she reported her sighting to police before the suitcase was discovered?

This is quite a different attitudinal description, isn't it?
He was "eerie"?
And because he was eerie she avoided him?
Previously we have heard that he was walking intentionally as if on a mission and that he was the one who failed to acknowledge the women.

I think memory is being rewritten in light of her current thought that the man was carrying the remains.
It makes me treat her earlier recollections about the man she saw with more scepticism too.

Also, I don't think she reported the sighting before the bones were discovered. I think that bit of the script is just poorly worded.

 

[DutchTreat]

Yep, the pumpkin fabric is also familiar to me and I also associate it with cafe style curtains back in the late '80's.

Are curtains treated in a special way? Could it be that the fabric is different cause curtains aren't supposed to fade by sunlight?

 

[AtaraMalka]

Our minds obviously think alike...

Yeah I took notice of the oddness of the report...

Really the only thing she stated as being odd was the "place and time" she saw him.

She specifically mentions: "nothing odd"

I think it's a case of contagious sensationalism ... the reporter has put it too her that it was "eerie" and she has simply agreed.

Secondly, listening carefully at .52, the reporter narrates: "When Mrs Edwards reported her sighting to police, another piece of the puzzle emerged: a link between Wynarka and the remains of a little girl with no name found in a suitcase on the Karoonda highway just out of town."

Doesn't that wording suggest she reported her sighting to police before the suitcase was discovered

It could .... but if that were the case I think they (reporters) would have caught onto it before now.... it's all in the wording though isn't it..

But yep... some food for thought in the interview for sure.

It's typical ambiguous journalism. Looks at first blush like they are saying that she went to the police, and when she did so, another piece of the puzzle then emerged - namely the discovery of the suitcase. However it most probably means simply that suitcase man himself is part of the puzzle.

It's also ambiguous in that it is hard to tell if she went to police merely on the basis of her feeling of unease about suitcase man (i.e. without knowing anything about the little girl) or if she went to police after the suitcase was discovered, thinking about suitcase man in retrospect.

What is unambiguous however, are journalistic attempts to cast suitcase man in the role of someone who is unequivocally involved. Almost every news report or article uses these techniques to suggest that he is connected to the crime.

Are Australian news agencies in cooperation with police to get this message across?

 

[AtaraMalka]

This is quite a different attitudinal description, isn't it?
He was "eerie"?
And because he was eerie she avoided him?
Previously we have heard that he was walking intentionally as if on a mission and that he was the one who failed to acknowledge the women.

I think memory is being rewritten in light of her current thought that the man was carrying the remains.
It makes me treat her earlier recollections about the man she saw with more scepticism too.

Also, I don't think she reported the sighting before the bones were discovered. I think that bit of the script is just poorly worded.

Yes, all agreed.

Is she the witness who was interviewed before, though? She wasn't one of the two ladies walking together was she? Or was she?
And she isn't the lady (Ms Roz, I think) who lives in the end house.

I got the impression that she was being interviewed here for the first time, though maybe that was part of the 'journalism' as well...

 

[DutchTreat]

Hello All I'm a first time poster, recently registered, but a long time thread stalker Finally feeling brave enough to jump on in - hopefully I'm doing this correctly!
First of all - what an amazing bunch of individuals you all are! Your opinions, theories and observations are just incredible! And now, just throwing my thoughts in .....
I work in one of those industries where the worst of human nature is revealed on a daily basis. I know that the pedophile circle seems a bit far fetched, but perhaps I'm considering it from a different angle? I've worked on cases where children have been sexually abused by numerous family members from infancy to adulthood, including being "shared" amongst pedophile circles in their younger years (some of these stories would be enough to make you vomit). I also recall accounts of infants/young children dying (including experiencing violent deaths) and being carelessly discarded like rubbish. These children had been registered at birth, attended mainstream schools and been seen within the community. The reality of these situations was that as soon as anyone started asking questions or looking too hard, the families would pack up and move on to another town in another state.
I think, from hearing some of these stories, that it's possible that our little Angel could have been in a similar situation. Meeting a violent end at a young age and being discarded, in a suitcase, on the edge of a highway, as a family made a run to another state.

You know, I think you could be right. What stands out to me is that it looks like the poor girl died in her most extravagant dress. The black tutu dress. Which I personally find (and I could be wrong) a somewhat odd color for such a little girl). It wouldn't be my choice for such a young child. Wouldn't little girls that age have preferred barbie colors and princess colors?
To me the dress could very likely have been picked by an adult. And maybe indeed an adult that had horrendous plans for her.

So no. I think you could be very right. If she died in such a violent way, wasn't reported missing etc. The worst scenario, might very well be what actually happened.

 

[Makara]

Are curtains treated in a special way? Could it be that the fabric is different cause curtains aren't supposed to fade by sunlight?

I really have no idea Dutch. Some curtain fabrics do have a 'sun guard'. I don't mean the curtain fabrics with a backing but something is woven into the actual fabric or it's treated during manufacture. But why would anyone use that for a quilt? Unless whoever they made if for really liked that particular print. The pumpkin fabric on the quilt looks to me to have been added at a later date or was protected by something that may have been placed on top of it. None of it makes sense!

 

[Makara]

Yes, all agreed.

Is she the witness who was interviewed before, though? She wasn't one of the two ladies walking together was she? Or was she?
And she isn't the lady (Ms Roz, I think) who lives in the end house.

I got the impression that she was being interviewed here for the first time, though maybe that was part of the 'journalism' as well...

Mrs. Edwards and a Mrs. Martin are the two women who were walking their dogs when they apparently saw the suitcase man. Mrs. Roz apparently saw a man heading east past her house (away from the highway) and he was not carrying a suitcase.

 

[DutchTreat]

I really have no idea Dutch. Some curtain fabrics do have a 'sun guard'. I don't mean the curtain fabrics with a backing but something is woven into the actual fabric or it's treated during manufacture. But why would anyone use that for a quilt? Unless whoever they made if for really liked that particular print. The pumkin fabric on the quilt looks to me to have been added at a later date or was protected by something that may have been placed on top of it. None of it makes sense!

Maybe pumpkin was the 'pet name' (am I saying that right?) of the little girl.

 

[JaneSA]

It seems quite possible to me that "suitcase-man" may consist of nothing more that this witness seeing someone with a case who she didn't recognise, one day at one end of town, and another resident seeing a man she didn't recognise without a case at the other end of town on a different day.

Initially, we were told there were 4 witnesses (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...shes-since-march/story-fni6uo1m-1227447492630)

"Police now have four witnesses who have come forward reporting a sighting of a caucasian man, aged about 60, carrying the suitcase in and around Wynarka, 2km from where the remains were found.
.... two witnesses had seen the man carrying the suitcase along the side of the Karoonda Hwy, heading west towards Murray Bridge, several hours after another two witnesses reported seeing him in Wynarka while on their morning walk"

Yet we also know that these sightings were AFTER the case had already been seen and rummaged through by people who stopped.

Obviously the police have put that together and know the timeline doesn't work (duh!) but why haven't the news media?

Is it possible the police are encouraging the media to focus on suitcase man, even though they know he wasn't dumping the case at the time he was seen?
If so, why?

Or is it, as I believe, that to the commercial media any story is better than none and they don't give a toss for facts or timelines?

 

[JaneSA]

Mrs. Edwards and a Mrs. Martin are the two women who were walking their dogs when they apparently saw the suitcase man. Mrs. Roz apparently saw a man heading east past her house (away from the highway) and he was not carrying a suitcase.

Yup, that's what I have too.

 

[Puggle]

Yes, all agreed.

Is she the witness who was interviewed before, though? She wasn't one of the two ladies walking together was she? Or was she?
And she isn't the lady (Ms Roz, I think) who lives in the end house.

I got the impression that she was being interviewed here for the first time, though maybe that was part of the 'journalism' as well...

Not sure ... but it indicated she was walking her dog at the time of her sighting. I think we have records here on the threads that two ladies were out walking... and there was mentions of "dog walking"... they apparently parted ways and one of the witnesses then watched from her front window ... as the man disappeared in the distance heading towards the highway...

Pretty sure I can link the articles .... have to wait till tomorrow some time.. way past my bedtime here xx

 

[JaneSA]

Yes, all agreed.

Is she the witness who was interviewed before, though? She wasn't one of the two ladies walking together was she? Or was she?
And she isn't the lady (Ms Roz, I think) who lives in the end house.

I got the impression that she was being interviewed here for the first time, though maybe that was part of the 'journalism' as well...

I think she must be the one who a couple of days ago was described as being unwilling to be seen on TV, although they kindly showcased the front of her house [eyeroll]