I've just got a copy of the September Australian Womans Weekly and read a few bits I can't recall being posted in here.
http://www.aww.com.au/latest-news/in-the-mag/who-is-the-little-girl-in-the-suitcase-21859 Its behind a paywall so I'll quote some and paraphrase the rest...
Most interestingly Detective Superintendent Des Bray is quoted as saying that 'What we found after the boys called the police was a full skeleton, although some of the structure had collapsed. The way it was, enclosed within the clothing inside the suitcase, it wasn't really identifiable as a skeleton"
He goes on to say that there were signs that the body may have partially decomposed INTO the clothing.
Personally my understanding until reading this was that they were a disconnected array of bones. I also thought that the body was thought to have decomposed separately from the clothing but it seems not necessarily. The word 'within' instead of 'with' makes it sound like she could have been wearing some of the clothes.
He's also quoted as saying that the suitcase was "...turfed by the side of the road. That's in relatively recent times. Whether that's months, whether it's a year I don't really know."
The article...not Bray... says the suitcase is a large 40cm wide Lanza (would you consider 40cm wide large?)and around the same size and colour as that seen with the mysterious old man (would you call 60 old???)
It also refers to the butterfly slipper as a dancing slipper....which it doesn't look like to me!
So some of the article is possibly inaccurate however Brays quotes seem specific and might be of use to the super sleuths in here who can take info and come up with plausible scenarios!...I'm with you JaneSA regarding the stolen suitcase!