Kylie's case kept me up till sunrise this morning. Poor baby
I'd never heard of her either. But I was only two at the time. I had those freckles and my mum used to cut my hair like Kylie's - oh how I hated it! Kylie reminds me somewhat of Alanna Gallagher murdered in Texas last year. She was also 6 and was lured by a 17 year old drug addled neighbor who raped and suffocated her before dumping her body wrapped in a tarp on a suburban street nearby. He borrowed a car to get rid of the body before his mum came home.
I'm intrigued by the DNA in this case. I read an article last night about how Victoria started freezing samples since 1981 but hundreds of sample weren't analysed until the last couple of years, when new technology became available. Initially I thought maybe Kylie's was one of those, but then I realized Robert Lowe was cleared by DNA in 1997. So detectives have had the DNA of Kylie's killer on file for at least the past 17 years. The granddad and uncle could be cleared by a familial test with Kylie's mother, I guess. So this got me wondering about the current and previous Victorian laws around collecting DNA from offenders. This has me pretty stumped and I'll need a long afternoon if I want to understand it. But from what I gather, legislation changed in 2001 to allow police to take samples without consent. And that's why Robert Lowe wasn't officially cleared until 2001. In the last couple of years, laws have changed again so that samples can be taken for any indictable offense with minimum 12 months imprisonment. Suspects for certain crimes can forced to give samples now too - can't recall if that was introduced in 2001 or 2013. What I'm effectively trying to figure out is whether there is a cut-off date prior to which DNA was less likely to have been collected, and after which it was more likely collected. My impression is that anyone convicted, in prison or on parole for violent or sex offences from 2001 is likely to have their DNA on record. But just how likely I'd like to know. I'd also like to know whether those laws were retrospective, and if so, is it standard practice to collect samples from convicted offenders who finished their sentence before 2001? Would that be routine, only if police want to compare a suspects DNA with a crime scene, or not at all? I think the sex offender record in Victoria is retrospective. What I'm getting at is whether offenders who were convicted, in prison or on parole for violent or sex offences after 2001 can be ruled out for Kylie?
I spent ages looking at the mako files for just Victoria. I don't know how complete those files are. It's not pleasant reading and there's some ridiculously lenient sentences. So for the ones who were convicted and finished their sentences in the 90's - I think they'd go on the sex offender record (if eligible) but not sure about their DNA. For some reason I kept coming back to this guy - Kevin John Carr. However, he's serving an indefinite sentence and surely his DNA is on record. He had numerous sex offences since the 70's. He might have been in prison at the time of Kylie's death. Among others he attacked a four year old girl in her driveway in the 70's, a 20 year old woman in Thornbury in the 80's, and an elderly woman at Spencer Street station in 1994. He was a violent rapist, attacked random girls/women, and in broad daylight. But no murder. I'd love to know if he's been ruled out. It also goes to show that some offenders are indiscriminate of victim age. Reading the mako files is just depressing - so many that could have done this to Kylie just in Victoria and then there's the offenders not recorded anywhere.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/repeat-sex-offender-denied-release-20090618-clw8.html
http://www.mako.org.au/temp_c.html
Very interesting article on DNA testing of cold cases in Victoria -
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...ted-to-be-solved/story-fni0ffnk-1226929110661
