AUS - Khandalyce Kiara Pearce (Wynarka) and mum Karlie Pearce-Stevenson (Belanglo) #7

[ilk28]

How do you know he is a he? And how do you know he is a junkie?

It was Connies carer. The police have time to get this right. They are in no hurry. They have a big case on their hands.

And how do you ( trooper) know Connie's carers statement is 100% untruthful?

 

[Wolfinator]

The inconsistencies between what SAPOL confirm/repudiate in MSM (such as the alleged serial killer) or let slide such as (alleged drug running/debt/bounty) really bug me. They confuse us all.

The wheels of justice turn....

I can understand them taking on the Serial Killer issue as that is a civil safety issue.

I wouldn't give more credence to one because of the denial of the other.

There is so much going on behind the scenes and this story is prime click bait. Expect more sensationalist reporting as Rupert and his friends cash in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trooper]

And how do you ( trooper) know Connie's carers statement is 100% untruthful?

I prefer to take on board stories that have some empirical backup to them.. that is, some corroboration, some similar story from another source, but most of all, at the very least, some agreement from the SA and NSW police in this instance , rather than one junkie telling a whole lot of stories, to a newspaper long long after the event and leaving out the interesting part where this story teller is himself a user, a buyer of, and a holder of a sellable amount of illegal substances.. ie. junkie.

Based on these circumstances , Ilk , it is , for me, the rational thing to do , to dismiss the core of the story and all its peripheral embroidery as nonsense, HOWEVER... I make a proviso..

It is entirely believable to me, that possibly Connie took a call from the person impersonating Karlie, using Karlie's phone, Connie gets told this story, ( the $25,000, the bounty, the running etc ) , tells the carer who then absorbs the story as coming from Karlie, which is reasonable..and how awful it must have been for Karlies family to now find out that those calls to her mum, and possibly to her Gran, and other members of the family were not made by Karlie, but by a person who fooled them, deliberately , into thinking it was Karlie.. there is something so hideously creepy in that whole event , it defies words . Because, once the detectives determing Karlie's date of death, naturally, any calls after that, supposedly from Karlie are most decidedly not and therefore are part of the crime scenario in and of themselves ) ...

that's the only proviso I make concession to. But the storyteller hasn't explained, as yet, where this story he tells came from at all. Until then..... I call ********e on it.

 

[JaneSA]

Or cognitive dissonance.

I think we are seeing a lot of examples of that.

 

[JaneSA]

I really hate how this drug debt story has cast aspersions on Karlie's character and the family has to just grin and bear it.

Even if it is true, Crime Stoppers is were it should have stayed.

We can only hope it has flushed some rats out of the shadows and will serve some purpose in the end.

It keeps reminding me of when Baden Clays family/defence tried to paint ABC as suicidal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally, I think the police are happy to have this story out in the media.
As Bohemian said, they have denied some MSM rumours, such as the "serial killer" one, but not denied others.
I think they want this particular story in the media for good reason, and it is not just inefficiency and inconsistency.
They have a lot to gain by allowing it to be known that they are on this particular track, without stating it formally.

 

[crabstick]

You would be an idiot to judge Karlie. Not the only report. Have a look around the media.

They were killed in a barbaric manner. Dead people cant tell their story which is convenient for some.

Like I said, where is the other woman? There is more to this.

Personally, I think government should have a road block into Alice Springs for 12 months. Stop every car going in and out.

There is a reckoning coming.....

I really hate how this drug debt story has cast aspersions on Karlie's character and the family has to just grin and bear it.

Even if it is true, Crime Stoppers is were it should have stayed.

We can only hope it has flushed some rats out of the shadows and will serve some purpose in the end.

It keeps reminding me of when Baden Clays family/defence tried to paint ABC as suicidal.

 

[ilk28]

Personally, I think the police are happy to have this story out in the media.
As Bohemian said, they have denied some MSM rumours, such as the "serial killer" one, but not denied others.
I think they want this particular story in the media for good reason, and it is not just inefficiency and inconsistency.
They have a lot to gain by allowing it to be known that they are on this particular track, without stating it formally.

I think so too. Leaving aside any media interviews the caregiver may have taken part in ( which aren't important) the police have chosen to confirm the info that was received via crime stoppers. They have done that for a reason.

7 Nov
"KARLIE Pearce-Stevenson was being pursued over a $25,000 drug debt in the months before her murder, police have been told...
NSW homicide detectives have confirmed they have received the information provided through Crime Stoppers a fortnight ago."
news.com.au

http://www.news.com.au/national/cri...d/news-story/0a02d6e213952e96e3e7b022c4d6007e

<modsnip>

 

[Trooper]

I think so too. Leaving aside any media interviews the caregiver may have taken part in ( which aren't important) the police have chosen to confirm the info that was received via crime stoppers. They have done that for a reason.

7 Nov
"KARLIE Pearce-Stevenson was being pursued over a $25,000 drug debt in the months before her murder, police have been told...
NSW homicide detectives have confirmed they have received the information provided through Crime Stoppers a fortnight ago."
news.com.au

"The Crime Stoppers informant, who has spoken exclusively to The Advertiser, was charged along with Mrs Duffy in August 2010. Mrs Duffy died a year later."

The Advertiser

well.. yes.. the confirmation that this particular crimestopper phonecall was received is perfectly obvious, no point in stating that didn't happen.

What the police are careful about though, is giving credence to the information given in that call. Which, emphatically, they have not.

So ... thinking up a reason as to why the police would deny receiving that call makes my head ache.. it doesn't make any sense. Why would they? I think the confusion here is that confirming receiving that call, and confirming the information in that call was (a) relevant and (b) factual are two entirely opposing matters, that have somehow, for some people, morphed into one issue.

 

[Trooper]

It's all about trying to establish a motive for a double murder.
To me, stealing Centrelink payments sounded like a weak motive from the beginning.
Other motives are much more logical.

Luckily, legally, the State Prosecutor doesn't have to establish a motive... it isn't a requirement for indictment or conviction. Naturally, some murders have a motive written all over them, in letters high and proud, then some don't. . At least, not obvious, and some murderers take their motive to the grave with them.

I didn't know that 'stealing the Centrelink payments' had been proposed by the police as a motive.. I cant find it anywhere.. perhaps it was a throwaway line.

 

[ilk28]

Something went seriously wrong (double crossing?) within this group of associates to end with a double murder, followed by identity fraud of a deceased person.

 

[Trooper]

an awful lot of murderers are very shy about the motive for their killing/s. ... very secretive and often very protective of 'the Motive'.. its often an intensely private thing between the person killed and the killer.

One thing that stands out though, is that there are some motives that killers routinely deny.. .. one is 'jealousy'.. another is 'humiliation'... all that embarrassing stuff is buried deep, usually.

In the days when 'provocation' was a defence, murderers of women were not at all embarrassed about shouting out loud how this woman had called them out on their sexual failure time and time again, which is why they killed them, but its a defence that has far too slowly been repudiated as civilized, and sound, from legal point of view just about all over Australia.... it could raise it's ugly head again any time soon, though, nothing is forever in the law.

 

[Trooper]

hard to see Khandalyce as a 'provocation'....

 

[crabstick]

I think motive is going to be all of the above JaneSA and some.

Just have to wait for those at the coal face to bring down the info in court. They have a big job. It is going to take some time.

It's all about trying to establish a motive for a double murder.
To me, stealing Centrelink payments sounded like a weak motive from the beginning.
Other motives are much more logical.

 

[Bohemian]

well.. yes.. the confirmation that this particular crimestopper phonecall was received is perfectly obvious, no point in stating that didn't happen.

What the police are careful about though, is giving credence to the information given in that call. Which, emphatically, they have not.

So ... thinking up a reason as to why the police would deny receiving that call makes my head ache.. it doesn't make any sense. Why would they? I think the confusion here is that confirming receiving that call, and confirming the information in that call was (a) relevant and (b) factual are two entirely opposing matters, that have somehow, for some people, morphed into one issue.

You're right NSWPOL et al haven't denied the call, Troop, but there was no comment on the information received. I find it strange they didn't shut him down; gIven they had two weeks to do so before he went to MSM.

What strategy anyone had in allowing GM's carer to shoot his mouth off all over MSM, I'm not sure of; except maybe as part of a defence strategy to make Karlie look bad. After the care and respect given to Khandalyce by SAPOL this week; I can't see NSWPOL or any of the other investigators treating Karlie any differently. By allowing the 'drug runner/debt/bounty story' to stick in the minds of the public (and it will) it devalues her morally because of that perceived connection even if it is unfair. I think this is victimising someone who is already a victim.

I find it inconsistent because NSWPOL et al jumped on the Australian's Senior Crime Editor, Mark Morri (no less) PDQ when he printed the alleged serial killer story and he quoted 'police' as sources. Police were all over MSM like ants on honey; making sure the 'correction' got an outing; right down to a segment on ABC TV's Media Watch.

So you can't cast aspersions on the alleged murderer and it's not OK to misinterpret/sensationalise general police comments in the media but it's perfectly permissible to attack the character of an alleged murder victim? I know alleged criminals are protected because priors are sub judice when a case goes to trial and because of the public safety aspect, but I still think it seems a little imbalanced; added to by the new 'news stories' from DJH's 16 year old ex-fiance and now; an anonymous ex-friend.

No wonder people would end up viewing DJH (and HP; for that matter) in a more 'positive light' when all they read are opinion pieces in the media; ie 'the good guy that wouldn't hurt a fly' about DJH, and for HP, pictures and descriptions of her laughing and joking with detectives and being chauffered home in their car!

The interest piqued by the 'junkie's delusion' as you so put it; may be based on a minutiae of dubious information and seem irrelevant but, to me, and others on this thread, it is worth discussing. The discussion may lead nowhere in our understanding of how or why Karlie's and Khandalyce's remains were found with what DS Bray described as brutal and violent injuries but, it also may lead somewhere; just like a little pink dress and a torn and dirty quilt sewn by a loving GGM led to identifying Khandalyce and her mother.

 

[Wolfinator]

Personally, I think the police are happy to have this story out in the media.
As Bohemian said, they have denied some MSM rumours, such as the "serial killer" one, but not denied others.
I think they want this particular story in the media for good reason, and it is not just inefficiency and inconsistency.
They have a lot to gain by allowing it to be known that they are on this particular track, without stating it formally.

JaneSA be very very careful about giving weight to information that police have "not denied"

Serial killer angle is a public safety issue that could have generated a lot of hysteria and unnecessary calls to crime stoppers etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JaneSA]

Something went seriously wrong (double crossing?) within this group of associates to end with a double murder, followed by identity fraud of a deceased person.

Yes, Ilk, that is what it is looking like.
The work of the police now is tracking down who the various associates are and interviewing each one.
And let's face it, they are not going to be people who readily cooperate with a police investigation.

 

[Bohemian]

JaneSA be very very careful about giving weight to information that police have "not denied"

Serial killer angle is a public safety issue that could have generated a lot of hysteria and unnecessary calls to crime stoppers etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, Wolfie, it was a public safety issue and would have led to people jumping at shadows (not that you shouldn't walk away PDQ if you see a great hulking figure coming at you on a dark lane way at night!)

 

[JaneSA]

You're right NSWPOL et al haven't denied the call, Troop, but there was no comment on the information received. I find it strange they didn't shut him down; gIven they had two weeks to do so before he went to MSM.

What strategy anyone had in allowing GM's carer to shoot his mouth off all over MSM, I'm not sure of; except maybe as part of a defence strategy to make Karlie look bad. After the care and respect given to Khandalyce by them this week; I can't see NSWPOL treating Karlie any differently. By allowing the 'drug runner/debt/bounty story' to stick in the minds of the public (and it will) it devalues her morally because of that perceived connection even if it is unfair. I think this is victimising someone who is already a victim.

I find it inconsistent because NSWPOL et al jumped on the Australian's Senior Crime Editor, Mark Morri (no less) PDQ when he printed the alleged serial killer story and he quoted 'police' as sources. Police were all over MSM like ants on honey; making sure the 'correction' got an outing; right down to a segment on ABC TV's Media Watch.

So you can't cast aspersions on the alleged murderer's character and it's not OK to misinterpret/sensationalise general police comments in the media but it's perfectly permissible to attack the character of an alleged murder victim? I know alleged criminals ate protected because priors are sub judice when a case goes to trial but I still think it seems a little imbalanced; added to the new 'news stories' from DJH's 16 year old ex-fiance and now; an anonymous ex-friend.

No wonder people woukd end up viewing DJH (and HP; for that matter) in a positive light when all we get are opinion pieces in the media; ie 'the good guy that wouldn't hurt a fly' about him, and for the latter, pictures of her laughing and joking with detectives and being chauffered home in their car!

The interest piqued by the 'junkie's delusion' as you so put it; may be based on a minutiae of dubious information and seem irrelevant but, to me, and others on this thread, it is worth discussing. The discussion may lead nowhere in our understanding of how or why Karlie's and Khandalyce's remains were found with what DS Bray described as brutal and violent injuries but, it also may lead somewhere; just like a little pink dress and a torn and dirty quilt sewn by a loving GGM led to Khandalyce and her mother.

Excellent post and I could not agree more!
Every possible idea is worth discussing and perusing if it leads to discovering the truth.
Even seemingly silly ideas have borne fruit.
Don't forget that it was on these boards that the possibility that the child in the suitcase and the body in Belanglo might be connected was first suggested, and while some thought it was way off track and even silly, it turned out to be absolutely correct.
I believe all ideas should be encouraged; even those that seem absurd, because they leads other to think more creatively too.

 

[JaneSA]

You would be an idiot to judge Karlie. Not the only report. Have a look around the media.

They were killed in a barbaric manner. Dead people cant tell their story which is convenient for some.

Like I said, where is the other woman? There is more to this.

Personally, I think government should have a road block into Alice Springs for 12 months. Stop every car going in and out.

There is a reckoning coming.....

Yes, what has happened to the "one man and two women" the police spoke of?
I wonder if they still consider that to be the case?

 

[Trooper]

Excellent post and I could not agree more!
Every possible idea is worth discussing and perusing if it leads to discovering the truth.
Even seemingly silly ideas have borne fruit.
Don't forget that it was on these boards that the possibility that the child in the suitcase and the body in Belanglo might be connected was first suggested, and while some thought it was way off track and even silly, it turned out to be absolutely correct.
I believe all ideas should be encouraged; even those that seem absurd, because they leads other to think more creatively too.

well.. no.. not all ideas should be encouraged, especially, those ideas that have been shown to be ridiculous, without foundation and unsupported by empirical confirmation. We would all still be talking about a flat earth or the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel if every idea was to be encouraged. Some discernment is not only necessary, but compulsory. Websleuths isn't the place for it, Facebook, Twitter, etc, sure.. but not here. Creativity has it's place, but creating stories merely for the sake of it is counterproductive and misleading for the sake of mischief.

The fact is, the story you so firmly adhere to, Jane, the one about the $25,000, the bounty, etc etc etc has no foundation. None. It is merely an unconfirmed tale, told by a convicted drug user and this has been pointed out many times, not just by me. Never confirmed by either the NSW or the SA police at any time. Not even close. The continued adherence to the story with all it's follow -on and added embellishments that inevitably arise, such as the 'associates', the 'plan'...the endless re hashing of the story into all it's myriad labyrinthine paths is just misleading for the sake of it, ultimately useless, really