AUS - Khandalyce Kiara Pearce (Wynarka) and mum Karlie Pearce-Stevenson (Belanglo) #6

[Panda]

Its difficult to grasp, I agree & I suppose it's up to everyone's individual perception as to what what comes through ... mainly by the expression in Karlie's eyes, if you like, her body language at the time the photo was taken, the positioning of the person behind the lens.

I agree with crabstick & note her eyes are rolling back. What I get from this is that it looks like Karlie has just looked up & has realised that photo taking person has camera poised for a shot. To me, Karlie's eyes look as if she's thinking along the lines of .... "Are you kidding me??? I mean, really, you're going to take a photo of me now ... really, at this point of time???". Not impressed.

Karlie's eyes almost seem to be expressing an 'innapropriateness" at the timing of the photo being taken. Of course, thats just my take on it & I know everyone has their own individual take on it.

Thanks symbah (love the name by the way). Yes, I understand that, and I generally agree. But what I don't get is how it is surmised that she is looking above the camera at someone standing up. I take this to mean, it's being alluded that someone is standing behind the person who is taking the photo? This I just don't get.

 

[Makara]

Where has it been confirmed Karlie was in the "drug running business"?

It hasn't been confirmed by police LolaAngelina. This presumption has now grown legs and almost become fact. MSM reports have stated that Karlie had a drug debt of $25K, or that she left Alice Springs with $25K cash to buy drugs in Adelaide and bring them back, or....and the list goes on. This information apparently came from a call to Crimestoppers. The police have confirmed that they received this call from Crimestoppers, not that the information is true. The police have not said that Karlie was in the drug running business and until they do, I'll reserve my judgement.

 

[Makara]

Check the other post Panda with the picture of Karlie only

If her eyes look any higher, they will roll back in Karlies head. She is not looking at the photographer. She is looking elsewhere. Possibly at someone else. Someone looking behind the photographer.

The point is, there was more than one person with the photographer. Thats the point. More than one person,who looks tall.

Possibly the friend who took the photo had Karlies mate now in jail, behind her.

Zoom in, you will see how high Karlie is looking up. Karlies pupils, are nearly in her eyelids.

Crabstick, this is obviously your opinion so please just state that it is your opinion and not fact. None of us know the full story behind that photo. We all have our own theories and ideas and each of them is as viable as the other.

 

[crabstick]

Its my opinion that Karlie is looking high up at someone. It is my opinion Karlie is not looking at the camera.

Crabstick, this is obviously your opinion so please just state that it is your opinion and not fact. None of us know the full story behind that photo. We all have our own theories and ideas and each of them is as viable as the other.

 

[Panda]

Check the other post Panda with the picture of Karlie only

If her eyes look any higher, they will roll back in Karlies head. She is not looking at the photographer. She is looking elsewhere. Possibly at someone else. Someone looking behind the photographer.

The point is, there was more than one person with the photographer. Thats the point. More than one person,who looks tall.

Possibly the friend who took the photo had Karlies mate now in jail, behind her. Hence, the photo turned up, after the other person was in jail.

Zoom in, you will see how high Karlie is looking up. Karlies pupils, are nearly in her eyelids.

Okay, thanks Crabby. I kind of see what you're talking about. To me personally, I get the impression that she is looking directly up at the photographer, who has just interrupted her by taking the photo, but I take your point. Someone else could be standing off to the side and she could be looking at them, whilst someone else is taking the photo. Got it, thanks.

 

[symbah]

Thanks symbah (love the name by the way). Yes, I understand that, and I generally agree. But what I don't get is how it is surmised that she is looking above the camera at someone standing up. I take this to mean, it's being alluded that someone is standing behind the person who is taking the photo? This I just don't get.

Thanks panda. Perhaps the person taking the photo is standing up & has their IPhone or whatever at a lower level. Karlie may be looking at the person taking the shot, not at the actual lens which, itself, may be at a lower level.

I think its a good point that you've made. There may be someone else behind the photographer, someone taller than the photographer ...someone that Karlie may be looking at.... other than the photographer. I hadn't seen that myself in the photo. So, there may be someone else that was present at this particular gathering at Marion. Good point!

 

[Panda]

Thanks panda. Perhaps the person taking the photo is standing up & has their IPhone or whatever at a lower level. Karlie may be looking at the person taking the shot, not at the actual lens which, itself, may be at a lower level.

I think its a good point that you've made. There may be someone else behind the photographer, someone taller than the photographer ...someone that Karlie may be looking at.... other than the photographer. I hadn't seen that myself in the photo. So, there may be someone else that was present at this particular gathering at Marion. Good point!

Thanks Symbah ... if it is a good point, it was an unintentional one which I just fell into - I can't take the credit I'm afraid - I was just trying to make sense of what other's were saying.

 

[crabstick]

Karlie has her arm across her lap and phone down. IMO Karlie may have just taken a photo herself. They have taken photos of each other maybe. 2 way selfie IMO. This IMO says Karlie was ready for the photo. IMO Karlie looked up at the wrong time at someone. Karlie covered herself so the photo didn't shoot up the skirt. IMO Karlie has a hint of a smile but may not of wanted to show her teeth.
Karlie has the ring on her finger. IMO Maybe it was an, Im engaged photo for friends.


www.smh.com.au

 

[scandinavian girl]

Who would Karlie owe the debt to? If there was a 'drug' debt who wanted their money back?



Karlies eyes are right up in her head. If her eyes look any higher they will roll back in her head.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/karlie-pea...30-gkn3rr.html

This is what I have been thinking, maybe Karlie was rolling her eyes at this person, not liking her taking the photo or to something said or not liking her at all. Just a thought

 

[JLZ]

If she's not just rolling her eyes 'not impressed but I don't have the energy to combat you', Karlie could be looking up at a screen, for example waiting for her number to come up. She sort of looks more like she's reading than looking at a person.

 

[symbah]

Karlie has her arm across her lap and phone down. IMO Karlie may have just taken a photo herself. They have taken photos of each other maybe. 2 way selfie IMO. This IMO says Karlie was ready for the photo. IMO Karlie looked up at the wrong time at someone. Karlie covered herself so the photo didn't shoot up the skirt. IMO Karlie has a hint of a smile but may not of wanted to show her teeth.
Karlie has the ring on her finger. IMO Maybe it was an, Im engaged photo for friends.

www.smh.com.au

Mmmm ...... The engagement ring. We know that DH/DM was engaged to the 16yr, TB, at one time.

http://newsinformer.info/au-nationa...-james-holdom-engaged-to-teen-the-australian/

Does anyone know if DH was ever engaged to HP?

 

[crabstick]

I don't think there were Iphones then. The screens were low res. If it were a phone IMO, the person would have to bend down to look at the low res phone screen to take the pic. They were pretty primitive compared to todays tech

I agree with the JLZ that said "Maybe Karlie is looking up to see if her food is ready"

If she's not just rolling her eyes 'not impressed but I don't have the energy to combat you', Karlie could be looking up at a screen, for example waiting for her number to come up. She sort of looks more like she's reading than looking at a person.

Thanks symbah (love the name by the way). Yes, I understand that, and I generally agree. But what I don't get is how it is surmised that she is looking above the camera at someone standing up. I take this to mean, it's being alluded that someone is standing behind the person who is taking the photo? This I just don't get.

Thanks panda. Perhaps the person taking the photo is standing up & has their IPhone or whatever at a lower level. Karlie may be looking at the person taking the shot, not at the actual lens which, itself, may be at a lower level.

I think its a good point that you've made. There may be someone else behind the photographer, someone taller than the photographer ...someone that Karlie may be looking at.... other than the photographer. I hadn't seen that myself in the photo. So, there may be someone else that was present at this particular gathering at Marion. Good point!

June 29, 2007
It was introduced in the United States on June 29, 2007 and featured quad-band GSM cellular connectivity with GPRS and EDGE support for data transfer. On June 9, 2008, Apple announced its successor, the iPhone 3G. The original iPhone has not received software updates from Apple after iPhone OS (now iOS) 3.1.3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)

 

[snapey]

What I get from this is that it looks like Karlie has just looked up & has realised that photo taking person has camera poised for a shot. To me, Karlie's eyes look as if she's thinking along the lines of .... "Are you kidding me??? I mean, really, you're going to take a photo of me now ... really, at this point of time???". Not impressed.

Karlie's eyes almost seem to be expressing an 'innapropriateness" at the timing of the photo being taken. Of course, thats just my take on it & I know everyone has their own individual take on it.

I think the person taking the photo is holding their phone down lower and she doesn't even realise it's being taken. It looks like she's looking upwards, but she's looking at the person taking the photo's face.

 

[Meli]

Thanks symbah (love the name by the way). Yes, I understand that, and I generally agree. But what I don't get is how it is surmised that she is looking above the camera at someone standing up. I take this to mean, it's being alluded that someone is standing behind the person who is taking the photo? This I just don't get.

It's simply perspective, the camera is roughly at the level of Karlie's face if it were lower you would see more under her chin and up her nostrils. If the photo was taken from a higher position we would see more of the top of her head ( and the top of the surfaces behind her) She is looking up and over the left shoulder of the person with the camera, she is not looking at the camera. If you take a lot of photos, you know the perspective from a given position in relation to the subject. what she is looking at I can't possibly know, but her gaze is falling where someone standing behind the left shoulder of where a seated photographer would be. I take a lot of portrait photos.

 

[JaneSA]

It hasn't been confirmed by police LolaAngelina. This presumption has now grown legs and almost become fact. MSM reports have stated that Karlie had a drug debt of $25K, or that she left Alice Springs with $25K cash to buy drugs in Adelaide and bring them back, or....and the list goes on. This information apparently came from a call to Crimestoppers. The police have confirmed that they received this call from Crimestoppers, not that the information is true. The police have not said that Karlie was in the drug running business and until they do, I'll reserve my judgement.

Yes, exactly.

 

[JaneSA]

Thanks panda. Perhaps the person taking the photo is standing up & has their IPhone or whatever at a lower level. Karlie may be looking at the person taking the shot, not at the actual lens which, itself, may be at a lower level.

I think its a good point that you've made. There may be someone else behind the photographer, someone taller than the photographer ...someone that Karlie may be looking at.... other than the photographer. I hadn't seen that myself in the photo. So, there may be someone else that was present at this particular gathering at Marion. Good point!

Thanks. That's what I think too, as I tried to illustrate in post 572.

 

[JaneSA]

Page one of this thread had a link to Karlie's thread before she was identified. There is lots of information there.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...langlo-State-Forest-NSW-WhtFm-Skeletal-Aug-10

Thanks for the link, Makara.
I have now reread that thread in its entirety and any links to police reports I could find.

However, I have been unable to find any references to her hair colour or length in the years prior to her identification.

BTW this is not just idle curiosity on my part.

The reason I am asking about her hair is that I was wondering if she had dyed or cut her hair since the Marion photo.
IMO, if, as I suspect, she was running and attempting to hide from someone, one of the first things most women would think to do to change their appearance is to change hair colour and cut.

ANyway, I will continue to search, but thanks again for the link.

 

[sleepinoz]

Thanks for the link, Makara.
I have now reread that thread in its entirety and any links to police reports I could find.

However, I have been unable to find any references to her hair colour or length in the years prior to her identification.

BTW this is not just idle curiosity on my part.

The reason I am asking about her hair is that I was wondering if she had dyed or cut her hair since the Marion photo.
IMO, if, as I suspect, she was running and attempting to hide from someone, one of the first things most women would think to do to change their appearance is to change hair colour and cut.

ANyway, I will continue to search, but thanks again for the link.

This article gives the length, not the colour - her hair could have been sun bleached or too damaged by elements to determine the colour.

* She had shoulder-length hair, although investigators do not know the hairstyle.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/who-is-sh...constructed-20111202-1oa1x.html#ixzz3r5HC17dH
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
​

 

[sosocurious]

This article gives the length, not the colour - her hair could have been sun bleached or too damaged by elements to determine the colour.

* She had shoulder-length hair, although investigators do not know the hairstyle.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/who-is-sh...constructed-20111202-1oa1x.html#ixzz3r5HC17dH
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
​

Hope it is OK to post here.
A trail bike rider discovered the skull, spine, pelvis and at least one femur lodged under a log in dense bushland on Sunday, close to an area known as Dalys Waterhole.
Police said the skeleton, and a clump of long hair lying next to it, was located in a section of the forest not previously searched.

Grisly find reopens wounds of Milat's killing field at Belanglo State Forest
BY CLEMENTINE CUNEO AND JANET FIFE-YEOMANS THE DAILY TELEGRAPH AUGUST 31, 2010 1:32AM
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...ts-killing-field/story-e6frea8c-1225912119172

 

[Puggle]

Yes I am well aware it was in the media. That's hardly confirmation.

You are correct it's not confirmation. Yet it has been alluded to in prior MSN articles where SAPOL have even considered it themselves.

<modsnip>