- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 543
- Reaction score
- 2,805
Yes, activity in her bank accounts (especially withdrawals) is relevant. Presumably she had a bank account that she used and wasn't operating entirely in cash? I don't think whether she was on welfare or not is.
The tax free threshold was increased to $18,200 in 2012-13 financial year. It was only $6000 when Karlie was alive. So I guess that makes it more likely that any legitimate employer would have kept proper records of their dealings with her.
I guess the thing is, I think working out where she was working is useful. Finding out if she had some kind of relationship is useful. Nitpicking what payments she was getting or if she was getting them at all... I don't see how useful that is. A bit distasteful. I've done it myself, I'm not just criticising others. I think it's a red herring, just like suitcase man. Karlie seemed like she didn't want to be that stereotype of the single mum that just sits around collecting welfare. She actually wanted to get up and do something for herself and her daughter. Maybe she was getting some government help along the way - if so, it didn't help anyone track her down at all.
Well in actual fact I think it just did help police a hell of a lot. Bring on the arrests