AUS - Khandalyce Kiara Pearce, Wynarka, Bones of a Child Discovered, July'15 - #7

[JaneSA]

" Inspector Hutchins said immunity from prosecution could be on the table for those not directly involved in murder of the Wynarka child. "If you're on the periphery of this crime, come to us before we come to you," he said. "There is things we can offer, like immunity.""


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/little-gi...s-homicide-20150923-gjt1ah.html#ixzz3nWpnfYDS


I think they are referring to whoever first emptied the suitcase, because so far that person has not come forward.
If I am right, and it was stolen, then the first to empty it would the be thief or thieves and hence they are "peripheral" to the crime because they are not personally involved in the murder or concealment.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

https://www.police.sa.gov.au/sa-pol...l-service-area/task-force-mallee#.VhAWOPntmkp

Clothing and a suitcase – a new version of which was also displayed by police today - were found along with the remains.


bbm= :thinking:

 

[AtaraMalka]

BBM: The town has some 27 homes..if we said that each home contained at least two people you would have at least 54 people that would have to comply with this secret...so maybe not what your suggesting...as that is way too many to keep quite.

I have always thought that when they mentioned the word "periphery" ... and taking into accounts the other media stories..more specifically the psychologist's.... that maybe they meant that this could have been a domestic violence situation where the partner has killed the child and the other partner has been scared to come forward because they are..... either still in this controlling relationship or have fear that person may come after them.....probably if that is the case...they are thinking that they will be charged as an accessory ...as this is what those scums make woman think in those types of situations... You Tell..we both go down!!!....us rational people Know that isn't true.....but someone living in an abusive relationship can't see reality..as their reality is what the controller makes it..

Definitely agree that 'periphery of the crime ' could be applied to various scenarios, like the one you describe. The extent to which women are intimidated by these dangerous men sadly is great.

Statistically, it's more than likely that a father or stepfather is involved here, but even if he is totally innocent or uninvolved, he may be resisting coming forward for fear of being falsely implicated.

 

[AtaraMalka]

" Inspector Hutchins said immunity from prosecution could be on the table for those not directly involved in murder of the Wynarka child. "If you're on the periphery of this crime, come to us before we come to you," he said. "There is things we can offer, like immunity.""


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/little-gi...s-homicide-20150923-gjt1ah.html#ixzz3nWpnfYDS


I think they are referring to whoever first emptied the suitcase, because so far that person has not come forward.
If I am right, and it was stolen, then the first to empty it would the be thief or thieves and hence they are "peripheral" to the crime because they are not personally involved in the murder or concealment.

Well, there are rather a lot of people who haven't come forward, unfortunately.

I do remember Des Bray saying that the person who emptied the suitcase had 'done nothing wrong' - as they haven't.

Doesn't the term 'immunity' [from prosecution] necessitate an actual crime? It's not a criminal offense to fiddle with discarded property out of curiosity, another reason to suggest that police have a criminal or criminals in mind - people who are involved or semi-involved in the murder itself - when they use the word periphery.

 

[AtaraMalka]

The timeline never fitted.
He was seen with a suitcase AFTER the case with the child's remains was already on the roadside.
That was clear from the first police reports about this crime.

That's true, but appearing on the scene after the suitcase was discovered on the roadside doesn't mean that he wasn't involved. He could have been going to look at the suitcase or move it, subsequent to it having been placed there.

And just because he was seen after the suitcase was there, doesn't mean that he wasn't in the area on a previous occasion, unwitnessed.

All speculation of course - but very possible in logical terms.

 

[Rayemonde]

Well, there are rather a lot of people who haven't come forward, unfortunately.

I do remember Des Bray saying that the person who emptied the suitcase had 'done nothing wrong' - as they haven't.

Doesn't the term 'immunity' [from prosecution] necessitate an actual crime? It's not a criminal offense to fiddle with discarded property out of curiosity, another reason to suggest that police have a criminal or criminals in mind - people who are involved or semi-involved in the murder itself - when they use the word periphery.

Yes, JaneSA thinks that an unsuspecting burglar may have stolen the suitcase from somewhere thinking it could contain something of value, then dumped it by the road when they opened it and saw what was in it. So they could be offered immunity for the original burglary offence.

 

[AtaraMalka]

Yes, JaneSA thinks that an unsuspecting burglar may have stolen the suitcase from somewhere thinking it could contain something of value, then dumped it by the road when they opened it and saw what was in it. So they could be offered immunity for the original burglary offence.

Yes, that would fit with the idea of 'immunity'.

Personally, I wouldn't factor in a burglar and a burglary into the scenario to make the idea of immunity fit (since the term makes complete sense within itself, when applied to people involved in the actual murder - Occam's razor), when police have given us no indication that burglary is part of this crime. But of course, it's definitely a possibility!

 

[Puggle]

The timeline never fitted.
He was seen with a suitcase AFTER the case with the child's remains was already on the roadside.
That was clear from the first police reports about this crime.

Im confused.....I thought police had only worked out that the suitcase wasn't there whilst road works were carried out.....and said the suitcase must have been placed sometime after that was completed in Mid March.......so that could entirely open up the suggestion that he placed it there on April 13th.......was there an earlier date the suitcase was observed along the hwy??

 

[JaneSA]

Yes, that would fit with the idea of 'immunity'.

Personally, I wouldn't factor in a burglar and a burglary into the scenario to make the idea of immunity fit (since the term makes complete sense within itself, when applied to people involved in the actual murder - Occam's razor), when police have given us no indication that burglary is part of this crime. But of course, it's definitely a possibility!

I absolutely agree with using the Occam's Razor approach; ie using the fewest number of assumptions.

That is actually why I think "stolen from shed" is the simplest explanation.

In the "stolen from shed" scenario there are only 2 assumptions:
1. the remains were being kept for sentimental reasons
2. the suitcase containing the remains was stolen

In the "suitcase man" scenario we need many more than 2 assumptions.
We need to make assumptions that explain:
1. a situation in the killer's life that cause them to be alarmed enough to hurriedly remove a case they had kept for years
2. a reason why he/she was unable to find a good dumping spot in thousands of acres of scrub
3. a reason why no attempt was made toe destroy the evidence or separate bones from clothes.
4. how suitcase man dumped the case weeks before he was seen by witnesses
5. why he was wandering about again in subsequent weeks
6. why he was unconcerned with being seen
7. why he was walking in the township area at all since it is 2kms away from the location of the remains

There are actually so many assumptions that we have to make in order to tie suitcase man into this crime that using Occam's razor correctly, we should probably ignore him.

 

[JaneSA]

Puggle - I was going by the original reports from locals who saw it on the roadside prior to April.
The man who said he saw it suspended in a bush and removed it said that happened in late March.

 

[JLZ]

Doesn't the term 'immunity' [from prosecution] necessitate an actual crime? It's not a criminal offense to fiddle with discarded property out of curiosity, another reason to suggest that police have a criminal or criminals in mind - people who are involved or semi-involved in the murder itself - when they use the word periphery.

If somebody knowingly transported the body, instead of reporting it where they found it, that would be a crime (I believe): interfering with a corpse.

 

[AtaraMalka]

@ Jane

I think your thinking is very interesting.

I happen to agree with you on suitcase man, in the sense that he may be completely un-involved. By the same token, I don't think it's a case of 'stolen suitcase theory, vs suitcase man theory'. Someone other than suitcase man could turn out to have dumped and moved the suitcase, for reasons as yet un-ascertained, in which case suitcase man could be ruled by investigators as a person they need to talk to. As to who did dump the suitcase, it could have been a thief, or it could have been someone involved in or party to the actual murder - or someone doing it for an entirely different reason!

(Just to clarify regarding my earlier post regarding a possible thief when I said that I don't believe we need to bring in the idea of a thief because of Occam's razor, that was in reference to the statement police made regarding the meaning of their expression 'on the periphery of the crime'. Suitcase man doesn't have to come into that either, because a person 'on the periphery' is most obviously - in IMO, and I could could be wrong of course - a spouse or family member of the person who killed the little girl.)

Anyway, my thoughts, for what they're worth, on your interesting points:

I absolutely agree with using the Occam's Razor approach; ie using the fewest number of assumptions.

That is actually why I think "stolen from shed" is the simplest explanation.

In the "stolen from shed" scenario there are only 2 assumptions:
1. the remains were being kept for sentimental reasons
OK. And not necessarily by the mother, either, if she is dead - a real possibility that explains many unanswered questions. Another close family member could have been holding onto them. Though I still find it more likely that a person who loved a child would give them a proper burial in the ground.
2. the suitcase containing the remains was stolen
OK. Very possible. I still find it hard to believe that someone would steal a suitcase not knowing what it contained, or, if they looked inside, saw that it contained such old degraded clothes. (And we know from their condition that the little girl probably decomposed amidst those clothes). Possibly the thief mistook the suitcase for something else? ...but that would be more assumptions.


In the "suitcase man" scenario we need many more than 2 assumptions. .
Probably. For starters, the assumption that the suitcase he was carrying contained the clothes and remains (as the false Daily Mail headline went!).
We need to make assumptions that explain:
1. a situation in the killer's life that cause them to be alarmed enough to hurriedly remove a case they had kept for years
That would be a false assumption, since suitcase man doesn't have to be the actual killer. He could be anyone - from close family member to completely uninvolved thief!
But in any case, it's not a wild assumption that something changed in the killer's life - personal circumstances change readily and dramatically. A killer's existence is likely to be especially erratic. And we know about pedophile investigations, etc. Lots of possibilities here.
2. a reason why he/she was unable to find a good dumping spot in thousands of acres of scrub
Yes, or elsewhere..such as a river or hole underground.
However, that's assuming that the person was working on concealment. They may have been attempting to bring the suitcase to public attention. No evidence for that, but possible.
3. a reason why no attempt was made toe destroy the evidence or separate bones from clothes.
Again, that's assuming that the goal was destruction of evidence. Indeed, there would have been much better ways of concealing the contents and therefore the crime. Perhaps the goal was to attract attention. Or, as the psychologist said, the dumping of the suitcase looked like the act of a person who wanted to distance themselves from events. In which case suitcase man himself could indeed - amongst many other possibilities - fit into your thief scenario!
4. how suitcase man dumped the case weeks before he was seen by witnesses
He was fortunate not to have been seen the first time. ( Was it so many weeks? After the roadworks were completed in March, but before he was first seen in April). Or, he wasn't the dumper. The dumper was someone else, who could have remained undetected by throwing the suitcase from a car.
5. why he was wandering about again in subsequent weeks
He could have been checking to see if the suitcase had been opened and its contents discovered. Perhaps he was awaiting news of someone having reported the crime ad wanted to see how things looked on the ground. Maybe he made repeated trips to move the suitcase back into public view after it had been moved further back from the roadside (by geocachers, motorists, animals). This could be somewhat corroborated by current dashcam evidence. The suitcase moved significantly, hence the apparent length of time he spent near Wynarka one day (he was seen at two separate times of day), which could have been spent looking for the suitcase after someone else moved it. Maybe he didn't find it at all and kept returning to look for it. Alternatively, perhaps he wanted to retrieve it, having regretted dumping it, but couldn't find it, hence all returning /looking. Or perhaps someone else dumped the suitcase, which he somehow found out about, and tried to retrieve it to conceal evidence....Just suggestions...endless possibilities at this point..
6. why he was unconcerned with being seen
On the contrary, he avoided eye contact with witnesses. Perhaps his mission was so important and desperate, he had no choice to be there in Wynarka, and for whatever reason, repeated trips were unavoidable.
7. why he was walking in the township area at all since it is 2kms away from the location of the remains
Good question. Perhaps somehow Wynarka is involved. Or perhaps, if he wasn't the original dumper - and as you say, he wasn't witnessed until after the suitcase was already there (are we sure about that?) - then he knew of the general whereabouts but not the exact ones, so Wynarka was his starting point.

There are actually so many assumptions that we have to make in order to tie suitcase man into this crime that using Occam's razor correctly, we should probably ignore him.

So some of these assumptions, IMO, would have to be altered or knocked off the list. Others, there could be good explanations for - we just don't have enough information as yet.

But I do admire your two-point short list for thief man!​

 

[AtaraMalka]

If somebody knowingly transported the body, instead of reporting it where they found it, that would be a crime (I believe): interfering with a corpse.

I hadn't thought of that - thanks for the clarification.

It would also be deliberate waste of police time (also an offence, yes?) to send them on a wild goose chase - at the taxpayer's expense, in addition - rather than telling them what they know. Even if that isn't everything, it would at least be a start.

I was also reading about all the families who have been investigated since this operation began. What an un-necessary ordeal for the innocent ones among them.

 

[Jilliiwilli]

I have a theory.

The elderly gentleman was well dressed as it was his way of paying Angel his respects when he was placing her where someone would find her to give her the burial that she deserves.

He didn't speak to anyone as he was trying to give Angel a chance to have the burial that she deserves. He was maybe protecting his family's history or something similar.

I don't get the accidently burglary theory, someone would have spoken up by now.

Just my thoughts, but hey.

 

[visioneye]

Sorry if this has already been reviewed in the previous threads but I am really interested in how the suitcase came to be hanging in a tree when originally found.
Scenarios on how this could occur:
a) thrown or falling from a fast moving/ high vehicle - would be interesting to see if this scenario could be reproduced
b) Placed by an person deliberately in this position (note to self....I have to stop watching true detective...)
c) Moved from another location by a natural occurrence - would have to be significant flood or tornado (they do occur in this region however not within the time line we have been given)
d) being in position for a long time and growing up with the tree - again does not fit the current time line scenario..
Any other thoughts welcome

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=45119#.VhFrSPntmkp

It is also important not to see family violence in isolation but in its full human context. Childhood experience of violence is associated with many other aspects of disadvantage which, as a recent study shows, interact with and intensify one another.

Violence at the home is likely to be linked to irregular eating habits, poor educational achievement, mental illness, contact with the justice system, and substance abuse. Those affected are likely to live in areas where disadvantage is marked and services are poor. In such a culture family violence is likely to be accepted as normal.

To make the home safe from violence, we must first care for children who are exposed to violence in the family, ensuring that they are safely housed, educated and helped to learn ways developing respectful relationships.

This demands that the victims of violence have support in living and raising their children. The many services they will require must be available in a coordinated and human way.

It also demands that men who act violently in the home have access to counselling through which they can learn better ways of living. If incarceration is the only way of protecting women and children from violence, it must be supported by programs directed at change of life.

Royal Commissions cannot stop abuse or violence. They can only show their extent and offer a path to follow.

 

[eneri12]

Sorry if this has already been reviewed in the previous threads but I am really interested in how the suitcase came to be hanging in a tree when originally found.
Scenarios on how this could occur:
a) thrown or falling from a fast moving/ high vehicle - would be interesting to see if this scenario could be reproduced
b) Placed by an person deliberately in this position (note to self....I have to stop watching true detective...)
c) Moved from another location by a natural occurrence - would have to be significant flood or tornado (they do occur in this region however not within the time line we have been given)
d) being in position for a long time and growing up with the tree - again does not fit the current time line scenario..
Any other thoughts welcome

I'm with scenario 1.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Has anyone ventured to guess how high up in the tree the suitcase was?

 

[visioneye]

Sorry if this has already been reviewed in the previous threads but I am really interested in how the suitcase came to be hanging in a tree when originally found.
Scenarios on how this could occur:
a) thrown or falling from a fast moving/ high vehicle - would be interesting to see if this scenario could be reproduced
b) Placed by an person deliberately in this position (note to self....I have to stop watching true detective...)
c) Moved from another location by a natural occurrence - would have to be significant flood or tornado (they do occur in this region however not within the time line we have been given)
d) being in position for a long time and growing up with the tree - again does not fit the current time line scenario..
Any other thoughts welcome

Sorry for replying to myself but I have to also add the obvious one
E) Some one stopped in a hurry, in the dark, and pitched the case as quickly and as hard as they could so as not to be caught.. with no thought as to where it landed.

 

[JaneSA]

Great post, Atara and thanks for your comments.

I actually thought the suitcase was an item stolen from a shed as soon as I heard about it and before there were any reports of suitcase man.

The reason I immediately thought of it being stolen was because thefts from out-buildings was a really big story in the Murray Bridge area over the previous few months.

Property owners had been reporting a massive increase in thefts with perimeter fences cut to avoid using the homestead driveway and 4WD vehicle tracks being left after a shed was targeted. Often the entire content of sheds were being stolen, but the emphasis seemed to be on tool sheds rather than implement sheds, presumably because smaller items like chain saws and power tools are easier to sell on, as well as to transport.

The shed theft reports have mentioned some very odd items. A horse stud had over 30 neck rugs stolen but the main rugs were stored elsewhere so not stolen. But it seems the thieves did not know what they were stealing because they were stored in a hay bale cover (those big canvas ones). They just grabbed it and examined it later.

It seems the thieves check the sheds on foot, then come back later, at night, approach across country and clear out the lot. They use bolt-cutters on padlocks.

Anyway, these shed thefts have been driving locals crazy for a couple of years because it seems to be impossible to secure a shed to prevent them and because the thieves seem to just grab anything and everything.

So prevalent had shed thefts become, that locals (and probably police too) were of the opinion that once the crimes were being reported other people were copying, since it is after all a simple crime with a low possibility of getting caught and on-selling tools is easy and low risk. There were reports that some people had the same shed broken into numerous times.

So as you can see, when I heard of a dumped suitcase, my very first thought was that it was probably from a shed theft since that's the big topic in the area - or was until this.

If you want to read about shed thefts just google "shed theft murray bridge" or tailem bend, karoonda, mannum etc and you will see what I mean. It's like an epidemic.

What WOULD be interesting would be to know if the shed thefts have decreased since the discovery of the bones. Are thieves in the area getting wary after this?