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

[Puggle]

Jeremy Austin from the Centre for Ancient DNA said as much, didn't he?
They only have partial DNA and he said :
“You also have to be lucky,” Professor Austin says. Even with a complete DNA profile, you still have to find a match.

(ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...503314684?sv=4e6b36b918befbd4e548cd904e4e4ce4)

Yeah Jane .... is a partial any good? .... I am so not up on how DNA works..

 

[Puggle]

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


"....died a violent death under terrible circumstances"

Does anyone else think this statement is revealing?

If a child was battered to death it was indeed violent and terrible, but to say that the circumstances were terrible must surely mean that there was something about the remains that indicated something of the circumstances at the time of death.

Sorry to be graphic, but I'm thinking not along the lines of dismemberment or anything that might have happened after the violent death, but that the child might have been bound (mouth, ankles, wrists) at the time of death and this was evident in the remains. A child who was being restrained in such a way would be extra, extra vulnerable and unable to even attempt any kind of defence/avoidance of blows - this, IMO, would fit with "a violent death under terrible circumstances."

Another scenario I've considered is that there were historic fractured bones that were healing badly without having been properly set by health professionals. That also would fit with the LE statement, IMO, as the child would have been in a poor state of health and probably living in a lot of pain already.

There's just something about that quote that bugs me. So much we don't know...yet.

All jmo.

Even though I don't think Angel came from the house of Horrors - only because I think such a secret would be hard to keep amongst so many people...

But having said that (The Bolded) - If that was the case that Angel was bound ... well that would also sit well with a house of Horrors connection - as I'm pretty sure I read that at times that the children were restrained (tied up) and locked in the bedroom ... sorry can't find the link...

 

[Freddo Frog]

Lovely mothers ...

View attachment 80869




I think: Tania to the left and Trudy to the right (though the caption says the opposite).

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=...ved=0CDoQ9QEwA2oVChMIkqiCsYHaxwIVCrYaCh2MqwUZ

At first glance I thought the one standing was a man...

 

[bearbear]

It's sounding like the RSPCA could be more proactive than the authorities who care for our children.
(Our grandoggie's oncologist said she's now in remission)

so pleased your little girls getting better!
yes, i imagine rspca have a lot of work in these cases, sadly, where theres domestic violence and abuse to children theres usually often an animal suffering too

 

[Freddo Frog]

Ice is notorious for adding decades onto people's looks. I am assuming ice was involved in the HOH case...

I read that ice is believed to have played a part in the death of the little girl found dead in the ceiling recently

 

[JaneSA]

While apparently they have a partial DNA sequence, it's not surprising that they cannot get a complete profile.
But if they have someone they suspect that won't matter as even a tiny partial DNA sequence can be enough to assume a close match.
However, the DNA is utterly useless until they have someone to compare it to.

Theoretically, they could compare it to the 3 National DNA databases, but it's just not that simple.
They don't just stick the code in and wait for a resultant match.

In fact, although they have DNA data from convicted criminals since 2003, they can't access it without a warrant and to get a warrant they still need cause.

So say, for example, they wanted to compare the Wynarka girl with someone from the House of Horrors; they must first show a judge a reason why they suspect that person and get a warrant to access their DNA sample for comparison.
In this respect it works the same was as a warrant to search premises.

Of course, they will have easily gained permission for these people who are obvious potential parents, but they can't get permission to just cross-match DNA willy-nilly.

In other words, to give a concrete example, while they may have the DNA on file of a convicted drug lab operator from the area, unless they have a reason to suspect that this person was in some way involved in the murder of the Wynarka child, they won't get permission to cross-match DNA.

Without a suspect, all the DNA in the world is useless.

 

[JaneSA]

Yeah Jane .... is a partial any good? .... I am so not up on how DNA works..

It becomes a statistical question if trying to gain a conviction.
Lets's say you have a partial DNA sequence and it partially matches a suspect.
The jury would have to consider the statistical probability, whatever that was, of the person having the same partial sequence.

So your expert witness might say that, given the sequence they recovered from the crime scene, and matching against the suspect's DNA there is a xx% probaiblity that it is a match.

Of course, in the case of the murdered child it is even trickier because you are not looking for a DNA match but a familial link.
In that case, like on Jerry Springer, to prove parentage you need a full DNA sequence from the child and BOTH parents for comparison.

So, until they have a person they suspect may be one of the parents, any DNA is useless.

 

[crabstick]

It becomes a statistical question if trying to gain a conviction.
Lets's say you have a partial DNA sequence and it partially matches a suspect.
The jury would have to consider the statistical probability, whatever that was, of the person having the same partial sequence.

So your expert witness might say that, given the sequence they recovered from the crime scene, and matching against the suspect's DNA there is a xx% probaiblity that it is a match.

Of course, in the case of the murdered child it is even trickier because you are not looking for a DNA match but a familial link.
In that case, like on Jerry Springer, to prove parentage you need a full DNA sequence from the child and BOTH parents for comparison.

So, until they have a person they suspect may be one of the parents, any DNA is useless.

Indeed, but they can refine who they are looking for too.
There is an article on Wynarka and DNA somewhere.
Im at work so havent time to hunt it down as reference.


http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/so...449308265?sv=f7d315c8c16e4948ad2a9e0654c74b2f
Jeremy Austin from Adelaide Univeristy is helping police with DNA testing.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/...503314684?sv=4e6b36b918befbd4e548cd904e4e4ce4

 

[Fortunate]

I wonder, why haven't Sapol released Identikit of a man seen with a suitcase?

 

[Imagining]

I had a thought about the couple’s age ie the parents of the child bones, I came up with:

Mother’s age between 22 – 40
Father’s age between 30 - 63

This is based on the following assumptions :

• It is a couple, one or both parents are involved in the child’s death
• It is the father who is violent
• The mother was at a young age, 18 the minimum and 32 the maximum, and too afraid to report the violent or death. This might be an age range when a woman not speaking out
• A man who is or became very controlling at home, I am just guessing, an age somewhere between 30 to 55
• The death happened between 2007 (8 years ago) to 2014 (1 year ago)

For examples :
-the child’s death happened 8 years ago and the mother was at 32yo, now she would be about 40yo
-the mother gave birth at 18yo, the child was 3yo at the time of death, this death happened a year ago, 18+3+1 = 22yo

We could be looking at a younger woman with an older man. Also, the woman could be a non-english speaker which might be why she hasn’t told anyone in Aust about it but she has to be a western heritage as the child has fair hair. The man might be cutting off her contact with her family.

All speculation.

 

[Found]

I originally thought that police had DNA for Angel and were just keeping us (public) in the dark.....sadly I feel getting a DNA profile from the bones has not been achieved...

I don't think they necessarily can't get a DNA sample. It's just the will need someone else's Dna to compare it too. And even if they have people of interest they need a court order to obtain a sample. Unless the persons DNA is on file.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Found]

I had a thought about the couple’s age ie the parents of the child bones, I came up with:

Mother’s age between 22 – 40
Father’s age between 30 - 63

This is based on the following assumptions :

• It is a couple, one or both parents are involved in the child’s death
• It is the father who is violent
• The mother was at a young age, 18 the minimum and 32 the maximum, and too afraid to report the violent or death. This might be an age range when a woman not speaking out
• A man who is or became very controlling at home, I am just guessing, an age somewhere between 30 to 55
• The death happened between 2007 (8 years ago) to 2014 (1 year ago)

For examples :
-the child’s death happened 8 years ago and the mother was at 32yo, now she would be about 40yo
-the mother gave birth at 18yo, the child was 3yo at the time of death, this death happened a year ago, 18+3+1 = 22yo

We could be looking at a younger woman with an older man. Also, the woman could be a non-english speaker which might be why she hasn’t told anyone in Aust about it but she has to be a western heritage as the child has fair hair. The man might be cutting off her contact with her family.

All speculation.

I don't see any logic except for suitcase man. The parents I believe could be any age from 16 to 60 at the time of death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crabstick]

If someone refuses to give a DNA swab the coppers can go to a family member for comparison.

 

[symbah]

I wonder, why haven't Sapol released Identikit of a man seen with a suitcase?

I can only assume that the various witnesses of Suitcase Man have provided similar but different descriptions of him.

I think the description of him being clean cut, neat, 60ish & carrying a suitcase is a description that all witnesses have given Sapol.

Perhaps the style, combination & colour of clothing Suitcase Man was wearing has differed between witnesses. Either that or not one of the witnesses recalled anything at all about the style, combination or colours of the clothing/shoes he was wearing when seen.

 

[sosocurious]

Wynarka bones murder investigation calls on expertise of ancient-DNA team

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/wynarka-bones-murder-centre-for-ancient-dna/6751748

 

[Makara]

If someone refuses to give a DNA swab the coppers can go to a family member for comparison.

But only if that family member agrees to the DNA test.

 

[crabstick]

But only if that family member agrees to the DNA test.

I would think that if family suspected murder they would be lining up.
I guess it depends on the circumstance. How wide can yhey go?
I have heard of break ins to peoples houses for hair brushes. Inadmissable in court but still narrows down their culprit in a hurry.

But only if that family member agrees to the DNA test.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I can only assume that the various witnesses of Suitcase Man have provided similar but different descriptions of him.

I think the description of him being clean cut, neat, 60ish & carrying a suitcase is a description that all witnesses have given Sapol.

Perhaps the style, combination & colour of clothing Suitcase Man was wearing has differed between witnesses. Either that or not one of the witnesses recalled anything at all about the style, combination or colours of the clothing/shoes he was wearing when seen.

We haven't even the haircolour. That must be intentional, I think.

 

[symbah]

We haven't even the haircolour. That must be intentional, I think.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall reading somewhere that he had short grey hair.

 

[Found]

We haven't even the haircolour. That must be intentional, I think.

This may sound a bit mean but most men in their 60s are ether greyish or bald. Yes some may still be brown, blonde etc but it's never a bright pigment remaining so not easily identifiable. Woman often at that age still dye their hair but not men.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk