AUS - Khandalyce Kiara Pearce, Wynarka, Bones of a Child Discovered, July'15 - #6

[riverch]

I think that it's a real shame that not a single piece of clothing had a name or initials written on the tag, as you might do so you don't lose clothing at child care or school. Which leads me to wonder IF none of the items of clothing had anything identifying who owned it - did this child ever did go to school or child care?

 

[crabstick]

If it was a paedophile dumping, you wouldn't have any clothing that was associated with the crime would you? Any chance of DNA in the case, or around it would be potential for uncovering the identity of the criminal. So is it safe to presume that if it is, none of the clothing items are related to the crime?
If someone was making movies etc, they would have thought carefully before throwing a case by a main road. Unlike most of us, they put significant thought into avoiding detection by police?

Unless of course, someone is playing a game with police, deliberately placing items in the case in a game of dare to find him?

Crikies, on the news, father pours petrol on 3 children, sets youngest on fire. People have some serious issues.

 

[CSIDreamer]

they threw her body next to the suitcase above ground and left her there. It was onlyu recently they scooped up the remains to move them. No mother or father would watch the decaying of their child and decide after 7 years later,to move her dumping her off on an abandoned road. I think it can be said easily there weren't people who cared. It makes you mad.

I missed the story about the body decomposing next to the suitcase. Can you grab that link for me?

There have been several cases here in the U.S. where mothers stashed babies in the freezer. And where they were found wrapped and mummified in garages. Hideous, I know.

 

[MsDee]

On that note I will go to bed resting a little easier.... you are right....revenge in these cases is wasted.....as those who perpetrate such heinous crimes are not of the norm and can't rationalize as most decent, civil, emotionally balanced humans..... they have no understanding.... our words, thoughts.... emotions are of little consequence to them.

Just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify this. A timely reminder, if you like. Re pedophiles. Those who are attracted to younger people, from teens to pre teens all the way to toddlers and babies are, to most of our disgust, much the norm and can very much rationalise as decent, civil, emotionally balanced humans. Which is why there is so much of it going on.

The majority of them live beside all of us in the community, and a percentage of them will never act on their feelings. They can be a member of your family, or a family friend, and you would never know. They may marry and have relationships in a bid to deny they are in fact attracted to children. You may never know who they are. Unless they do something and get caught, you may spend your whole life around a pedophile and not even know it.

They are no different to you and I, apart from the fact they are attracted to kids. Some say they hate themselves for it, others will embrace it, and get very good at hiding it. Some have been victims of childhood abuse themselves, and that has "normalised" it for them.

The point I am trying to make is, they could be anyone you already know! Most crimes of this nature are perpetrated by people known to the family. You would not look at these people now and decry them as monsters. You probably think they are good people. They come from all walks of life.

Our society is one that the majority of us are hard wired to protect kids. Which is a very good thing. But it is a mistake to think these people are somehow different in any visible way to us, and you would be able to pick them, because the only difference to us is where their sexual attraction lies. And that is nearly always impossible to know, until it is too late in some cases.

I have known other women who are too scared to let their kids do anything on their own outside of the house, whereas I have always given my kids a fair amount of freedom to walk to school, play in the park, ride their bikes etc. I get told I am crazy for allowing this. I tell them if anything is going to happen to their kids, it would most likely be someone they already know. They get very uncomfortable at this, and some even get mad. But it is the truth.

Pedo's aren't cruising the streets in vans waiting to snatch kids off the footpath. Sure, it has happened, but a lot less than we think, it's just the thought of it. A bit like not wanting to get eaten by a shark in the ocean, but you are statistically much more likely to be hit by a car. The majority of child sex abuse happens within someones home by someone trusted by them, and we should never forget that, and never let our kids be in that situation to begin with. A sobering thought indeed.

 

[debirlfan]

Let me run another idea past you. Family possibly druggies. Father goes to prison for some years (dealing? theft?) Mother (possibly high) gets angry, beats child. Perhaps doesn't even realize she's dead until she sobers up the next day. Remorseful and scared, stashes body - maybe in a shed, box, chest? At some point she has to move, so transfers body to suitcase. Perhaps does not communicate with husband in prison, or tells him child is fine, or that she was taken by relatives or child services.

Fast forward to March. Father gets out of prison. Demands to know where child is. Mother confesses. Father freaks. May feel responsible due to his absence. Wants child to receive a proper burial but is afraid to come forward and/or doesn't want mother jailed. Leaves suitcase where it will be found.

"Suitcase man" is unrelated - possibly a salesman.

 

[LEO123]

they threw her body next to the suitcase above ground and left her there. It was onlyu recently they scooped up the remains to move them. No mother or father would watch the decaying of their child and decide after 7 years later,to move her dumping her off on an abandoned road. I think it can be said easily there weren't people who cared. It makes you mad.

There is actually no evidence that the person who placed the suitcase on the highway "threw" anything. Police have been trying to pinpoint who initially opened the case and tipped it out. It could have been placed much further back in the scrub, and its eventually ended up in full view of the highway by various passersby. Who really knows how long it has been there. The police only have the witnesses who drove by and saw the suitcase to use as an approximate date of placement. Mental illness of either parent could possibly have meant they did keep the child close, but something changed.....even just greater progression of mental illness due to violent partner and loss of child years before. Suddenly mum decided the child needed finding. Paedophiles do not keep the children they abuse. Just my opinion. The parents are involved, otherwise the poor girl would be a missing person.

 

[crabstick]

You might want a lawyer to rephrase that for you. There has been more than one lawyer marry a person under 20. It encompasses a large part of the internet *advertiser censored*.

Just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify this. A timely reminder, if you like. Re pedophiles. Those who are attracted to younger people, from teens.
.

 

[Imagining]

I am having the following thoughts that might rule out that paedophile might be involved in this child bones’ case:

- Paedophile not usually a killer

- Paedophile kills usually when he is getting a hostile resistance from the child and the child could be running back to their parents / alert other people, which I think is very unlikely for a 2-4 yo child

- It is unlikely the child was severe malnutrition before death, as the child bones suggested that the child was through a violent death, it is unlikely to have to kill a hardly moving child due to malnutrition with such violent effort, except in some very psychopathy situation

- Paedophile don’t usually keeps victim’s body, not to mention that this might be for 8 years, paedophile has no sympathy, no conscience and no act of humanity except pretending to be. If a paedephile killed a child, his only first thought would be to get rid of it as quickly as possible, get it out of his life and unlikely to be care enough to wrap the child into a quilt.

 

[Imagining]

It did crossed my mind that someone, who left the child bones in the suitcase in a bush of Wynarka, might be trying to give the child a final resting place.

 

[Bethechange]

My apologies if this has already been suggested and discounted, but what if this was a foster child?

As a mother, it is horrifying to think that any child could be discarded in such a manner, but if this is a child that "the system failed".... The suitcase of random clothing may have been all this little girl had- maybe bits and pieces handed down from other foster children along the way, or maybe hastily thrown together when she was originally removed from her biological home.

How often do social workers check in on young children that have been placed with new families? Is it possible that this is a more recent tragedy (last 2 years, rather than 7)? Is it possible that a child could slip through the cracks for that long, without a wellness check?

Maybe this little girl was handed over to her killers, who coldly discarded her little body, along with her suitcase of hand me down clothes. If this is the case, and she was a foster child, her biological parents would not be aware of her fate, and the murderer(s) may still be collecting a cheque for her care.

MOO

 

[sunnybree]

<modsnip>

Back to the clothes and my two cents: they look normal to me. The tutu is a bit distinctive but could have been bought as as a play dress. My little niece had tutus she used to wear around the house. She used to wear them with her fairy wings and say she was flying. She wore them until they fell to pieces she loved them so much.


Regarding the foster child scenario , not possible due to the length of time elapsed - the child would have been identified as missing long ago. Children are not sighted as often as they are supposed to but there is no way that no one checks on them for that long. Plus, carers has to receive written permission to move away with the child, have to receive special permission to home school, are checked on to ensure that the child is being immunized etc. As I said it's only the length of time elapsed that makes this impossible, otherwise it could be as likely as any scenario. The child protection system in Australia is far from being in a great place but it's not THAT bad lol.

Edit: Children are to be sighted a minimum of once a month by the Department in QLD, I imagine its the same as other states. Also these children have contact with agency workers, independent advocates, counselors, school staff (permission to home school is rarely granted for children in care), court staff, their biological family members etc. I work with foster children and their usual feedback is that they want to see less people, not more!

If the child's remains had been only a few weeks old this could be feasible, but not where no one has seen her for 1-8 years. I do think it possible however that her parents have come to the attention of the Department in the past.

 

[Bethechange]

Regarding the foster child scenario , not possible due to the length of time elapsed - the child would have been identified as missing long ago. Children are not sighted as often as they are supposed to but there is no way that no one checks on them for that long. Plus, carers has to receive written permission to move away with the child, have to receive special permission to home school, are checked on to ensure that the child is being immunized etc. As I said it's only the length of time elapsed that makes this impossible, otherwise it could be as likely as any scenario. The child protection system in Australia is far from being in a great place but it's not THAT bad lol.

Edit: Children are to be sighted a minimum of once a month by the Department in QLD, I imagine its the same as other states. Also these children have contact with agency workers, independent advocates, counselors, school staff (permission to home school is rarely granted for children in care), court staff, their biological family members etc. I work with foster children and their usual feedback is that they want to see less people, not more!

If the child's remains had been only a few weeks old this could be feasible, but not where no one has seen her for 1-8 years. I do think it possible however that her parents have come to the attention of the Department in the past.

Thanks for your insight, Sunnybree.

The reason that I am hung up on this idea currently is due, in part, to the number of horrific abuse stories that make the news here in regards to foster children in the USA. There are cases of children that are kept caged, beaten, killed, and in at least two separate cases, where children disappeared (murdered), went unreported, and the foster "parents" continued to collect benefits for up to 10 years! In one case, this amounted to over $175,000 paid out after the child was "out of the picture". (Google Austin and Edward Bryant for precedent)

I prefer to think that these cases are few and far between, and I rarely hear of Canadian cases that are this extreme, but the system is not perfect, and there are terrible, opportunistic people out there.

Sadly, nothing is impossible.

MOO

 

[hideoustroll]

In any article the SAPOL have been interviewed in. They clearly say beaten in a heinous crime.

No, they haven't. It's been said in one or two newspaper articles but not by SAPOL.

 

[Makara]

In any article the SAPOL have been interviewed in. They clearly say beaten in a heinous crime.

Please supply a link for your statement. SAPOL has never said that little Angel was beaten in a heinous crime. They stated that she died a violent death under terrible circumstances.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lent-death-remains-unidentified-10403658.html

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3...egional-south-australia-photos-video/?cs=2452

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hirt-child-s-body-battered-suitcase-road.html

 

[browneyedsusan]

Please supply a link for your statement. SAPOL has never said that little Angel was beaten in a heinous crime. They stated that she died a violent death under terrible circumstances.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lent-death-remains-unidentified-10403658.html

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3...egional-south-australia-photos-video/?cs=2452

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hirt-child-s-body-battered-suitcase-road.html

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...-met-violent-end/story-fni6uo1m-1227446040185

It clearly says a violent death under terrible circumstances. There has never been a misunderstanding the child was not beaten.

 

[ashyboy16]

Violent death doesn't mean beaten.
A violent death could mean anything, js.

 

[Makara]

MOD ALERT: I've closed this thread until I can clean up the mess.

 

[Makara]

This thread is now open again. Please continue and thank you for your patience.

 

[JaneSA]

Statistically, 90% of all child murders are committed by a parent
(stats here >>> http://www.smh.com.au/national/seeking-to-understand-the-inexplicable-20120224-1trvd.html).

It's about 50/50 whether the killer is the mother or the father (from same stats linked above).


Bearing in mind that the child's remains were obviously cherished and looked after for many years before they mysteriously ended up on the roadside, I think it is logical to think she was most probably killed by a parent.

 

[Jenz]

It did crossed my mind that someone, who left the child bones in the suitcase in a bush of Wynarka, might be trying to give the child a final resting place.

That has always been my thought too.....but what was the catalyst?