It interests me that the toddler was not dismembered, but her mother was. Also the toddler was left with her blanket correct? These two things lead me to believe that the mother was the target and the toddler was collateral damage and viewed as a burden. It also tells me that possibly the killer wanted only to make an example of the mother, yet not the child, b/c the mother was dismembered. I kind of feel like the child was just "there" when the mother was murdered and the killer just had to rid of the child somehow. I've wondered often if the child was murdered before being left off the side of the road or if she passed away due to the elements
How did the child die? This would tell us much about her murderer.
Also, I'm not positive that peaches and the toddler are victims of LISK. I've been thinking more along the lines of a domestic relation or someone who was associated with the mother on a daily basis. Why would Peaches Doe be left with her tattoo (LISK presumably removes tattoos) and other items of evidence like the rubbermaid tub and pillow covers AND the toddler left with jewelry and a blanket, yet her killer made sure to obscure her identity by dismembering her? I think Peaches was intended to be found with some identifying features to leave an impression on those who knew her, but could not come forward. It could have been a pimp wishing to intimidate his other working girls or drug runners.
I don't think LISK would be so disorganized to leave Peaches like that and also have the added burden of murdering her while her child was with her. Also LISKS proven victim profiles are typically young women who appear to be caucasian (the 4 in burlap). *However he could have made exceptions to this early on with his first victims b/c he was less savvy and had to choose victims of opportunity/anyone high risk regardless of race.*
as far as the race of the toddler and mother, I tend to think biracial black and white. JMOO