Ahhhh it was you Jane.... well done! Although i bet this wasnt what you had in mind when you said you thought a woman was involved!!!
You are right, it wasn't
My concern then was, and still is, why on earth did the killer keep Khandle's clothes?
I can see no logical reason whatsoever to keep the clothes of a murdered child.
Even more baffling is the idea of reuniting the decomposed body with the clothes and then dumping them in Wynarka.
A litre of kero and a backyard fire would have removed any evidence of her murder forever.
My thought that there must be a woman involved was related to this because keeping these clearly identifiable items seems like a sentimental and emotional thing to do.
I know many have said that the remains were probably packed into the suitcase with her clothes because of some urgent need to move them.
But despite being scumbags, these people are not total morons if they can manage this financial scam for 4 years. Yet only a total moron would dump bones and recognisable clothing together in the same case.
I think this is why the police keep referring to someone "on the periphery of the crime".
Personally, just because I can think of no other explanation, I think the bones, clothing and suit-case were in the possession of some other person who was holding them for blackmail of either the killer(s) and/or the fraudster(s) or for personal defence.
I'm still holding to the idea that the case was ultimately stolen from somewhere (the shed theft theory)before being dumped:
A. because if a third party was holding onto the case there is nothing to indicate their blackmail or protection value was gone
B. because if the third party chose to destroy the evidence, well, they would have destroyed it, not just dumped it publicly
C. if they decided to lead the police to the crime (blackmail had failed) then they would have left it somewhere it could be more easily found and maybe sent the police a note or called Crimstoppers with their info.
I don't think the suitcase was intentionally dumped.
