Current Abduction of 4yo Blowholes Shacks WA *Terence Kelly Convicted

[Kurve]

MEDIA
Current - The Bunker Part 2

 

[sprockets]

I don't think that video features exactly the same tent.


Ms Smith says it was the family's first time camping in a new tent, which had a number of divided sections and different entrances.

She was sleeping on a blow-up mattress with Mr Gliddon in one part of the tent, while Cleo and her seven-month-old sister Isla slept in another.

When she woke up to Isla wanting a bottle about 6am, she noticed the zip on the outside of the tent was almost completely open.

Yesterday, for the first time, Inspector Jon Munday, who is leading the search, revealed there was more than one entrance to the tent and that the open zipper was too high for Cleo to reach.

"The positioning of that zipper for the flap is one of the circumstances that has caused us to have grave concerns for Cleo's safety," he said.

The tent is being forensically examined by police.

Here's what we know so far about the disappearance of Cleo Smith from WA's outback

It's been nearly a week since Cleo Smith vanished from her family's tent at the Blowholes, north of Carnarvon. Amidst all the information they have been able to gather to date, police remain baffled.

www.abc.net.au

I was going on the article posted below. It wouldn't be the first time the media got it wrong.

I've had access to the answer all day.
Only just realised I hadn't opened my digital West Australian Newspaper today.
So looks like no-one else in here read p5 of the West today.

Confirmed on page 4-5 of today's West Australian Newspaper as an 8 person Coleman Instant up tent.

'Just a paper thin piece of polyester separated Ellie Smith and Jake Gliddon from their sleeping kids.'

'The room divider, suspended between the tent’s two chambers by pieces of elastic cord, didn’t even reach the tent’s floor or ceiling.'

'The tent’s front flap — one of four entrances — had been left almost completely open, with the zipper just 30cm from its apex.'

'Also gone was the distinctive sleeping bag she was last seen snuggled up in.'

'It was the family’s maiden trip in their spacious new eight-person tent, similar to the one pictured here.'

'Designed to be put up in under three minutes, the Coleman Instant Up tent was perfect for a family with two small children with little patience for fussy guy ropes and poles. The West bought a similar Coleman design yesterday off Gumtree for $200.'

Made of polyester, the designs boasts plenty of ventilation openings. One spiel on a camping site says the tent’s multiple entry points mean its occupants don’t have to wake the family for midnight toilet breaks.'

View attachment 1265124

 

[Mudman85]

If the perp wasnt wearing gloves, more than enough DNA can be collected.

Assuming the zip wasn’t touched by anyone else. Plus, given it would be plastic or metal and the size of it the chance of getting even a partial print, a drop of sweat or anything remotely useful would be low. Very low.
My opinion, mention of dna is a scare tactic at this stage. Bit like when they tested every taxi driver in wa despite have nothing to match it too

 

[Eagle Wrath]

Assuming the zip wasn’t touched by anyone else. Plus, given it would be plastic or metal and the size of it the chance of getting even a partial print, a drop of sweat or anything remotely useful would be low. Very low.
My opinion, mention of dna is a scare tactic at this stage. Bit like when they tested every taxi driver in wa despite have nothing to match it too

But they did have something to match it too. They had the Claremont killers DNA for years.

 

[Mudman85]

But they did have something to match it too. They had the Claremont killers DNA for years.

They didn’t know they had his dna when they did the taxi driver swab.
Solving it 20 years later doesn’t mean much to the family going through it now.

 

[Catdogbirdman]

I

To me, describing a female child as "delicate" is somewhat indicative of her demeanor generally. The equivalent of referring to a male child as "gentle".

2 four year old girls I know.
1 wants to wear a tutu every single day, loves everything pink, wouldn't pick up a snail, picky eater, frightened of most creepy crawlies. I would describe her as far more delicate than the 2nd 4year old who will collect up all the snails to show the first there's nothing to be afraid of. Prefers to wear a work shirt & work boots just like he dad, will dive on a fish flapping around on the ground to get it in the bucket & happy to eat an oyster cut straight from the rocks. Not so delicate. Both are very compassionate & kind. The 1st far more likely to burst into tears than the 2nd.

I haven't watched the parents press conference, but that's how I'd interpret that description generally in relation to a child & in the absence of any reference to something specific.

Based on the few early articles I read, it appears they alerted everyone & had a good search crew out looking via various means long before any officials arrived on scene. It was said they both camped there as kids themselves & immediately looked in all the places they knew of where a child may have gone, then called police.

I take your point about the word delicate but I think 'gentle' and 'sensitive' are both pretty commons descriptors for children and both probably apply to Cleo. 'Delicate' kind of fits for a child who is fragile, for example a child with a serious illness. Mum says Cleo was premature so maybe it's related to this but then she goes on to talk about how strong she knows Cleo is because she's been a fighter from the day she was born. Probably nothing at all, just an observation

 

[Eagle Wrath]

They didn’t know they had his dna when they did the taxi driver swab.
Solving it 20 years later doesn’t mean much to the family going through it now.

They had the killers DNA for years. But no one to match it too, hence they would test any suspect they could find like taxi drivers.

If for example I had touched that zipper on the tent and they get my DNA off it now, it would do them no good until I get DNA tested or one of my family members.

 

[one eyed spy]

Maybe Police did not close the site for a few hours was a smart tactical move, in the knowledge that everyone that left before it was officially closed, had already been recorded and was now being monitored, and even more pegged as POI, than than those that remained at that location.

Suggest it wasn't intentionally tactical, more so the time taken to get to the site & secure the scene.
Personally, I'd prefer to leave prior to getting caught up in any official investigation regardless & especially if it was likely the entire site would be treated as a crime scene & movement limited. Pack up & get out before getting caught up in it is what I think I'd agree to if it was suggested to me. In reality, it probably wouldn't be me to think of that, but it would no doubt cross peoples minds & you couldn't begrudge them for doing so. Enquiries would rightly extend to anyone there at the time irrespective if they were still there or not, so trying to avoid being hindered by it is a plausible consideration that doesn't necessarily cast any additional suspicion.

Whilst we generally assume any perp would want to be as far away as possible when the cops arrive, we know some do hang around whilst others return to the scene, even assisting in official search parties. Someone who randomly abducts a child is not all there full stop so predicting their next move is next to impossible. Hence, they look to clear everyone.

 

[BFew]

They only caught the Claremont killer because his daughter got DNA tested after a traffic infringement. Drink driving i think it was. Then they got a lucky familial match with the killer and knew it wasnt the 20yr old daughter obv.

How many daughters or step daughters does the Claremont Killer have?

Only one step daughter has been reported.
No blood sons or daughters as far as media reports go.

 

[BonzaRam]

In regards to the possible DNA collected. It is not just the zipper that it could possibly found on. If someone abducted her they had to enter the tent (we shed DNA constantly - predominately skin particles), we know that from the CSK court case DNA experts. Apart from the sleeping bag that is missing the area surrounding where the sleeping bag was most likely would have been touched - how would you pick up a sleeping bag without touching any surrounding surfaces? There could have been other objects inside the tent that were touched or even had sweat or spittle land on them, it was a warm night... as for the amount of DNA needed we, again from the CSK case, know is infinitesimal in size...

 

[Kurve]

Suggest it wasn't intentionally tactical, more so the time taken to get to the site & secure the scene.
Personally, I'd prefer to leave prior to getting caught up in any official investigation regardless & especially if it was likely the entire site would be treated as a crime scene & movement limited. Pack up & get out before getting caught up in it is what I think I'd agree to if it was suggested to me. In reality, it probably wouldn't be me to think of that, but it would no doubt cross peoples minds & you couldn't begrudge them for doing so. Enquiries would rightly extend to anyone there at the time irrespective if they were still there or not, so trying to avoid being hindered by it is a plausible consideration that doesn't necessarily cast any additional suspicion.

It would get around pretty fast not just that a child had gone missing but was removed from a tent through the night, if I had kids there I'd want out as fast as possible. On my own I'd probably hang about for a bit to see if I could be of any help but then I'd be gone.

Whilst we generally assume any perp would want to be as far away as possible when the cops arrive, we know some do hang around whilst others return to the scene, even assisting in official search parties. Someone who randomly abducts a child is not all there full stop so predicting their next move is next to impossible. Hence, they look to clear everyone.

I'm not convinced of the screeching tyres, why sneak around a camp then risk waking people, especially the caretaker up? There's only one road in and out and they have to go straight past the caretakers site. Whoever's responsible, on the little info available, I think they were probably there all night and had composed themselves by the next morning.

 

[freodawg]

They had the killers DNA for years. But no one to match it too, hence they would test any suspect they could find like taxi drivers. The Claremont killer (Bradley Edwards) was not on the DNA database. They only caught the Claremont killer because his daughter got DNA tested after a traffic infringement. Drink driving i think it was. Then they got a lucky familial match with the killer and knew it wasnt the 20yr old daughter obv.

If for example I had touched that zipper on the tent and they get my DNA off it now, it would do them no good until I get DNA tested or one of my family members.

This account is so wrong I am not even going to bother explaining the factual series of steps which led to investigators matching Bradley Edwards DNA to that of the CSK. There are plenty of easily accessible articles clearly explaining how this happened. It has nothing to do with a 'daughter' or familial DNA. Edwards does not have any biological children, only a step daughter.

 

[freodawg]

Yeah I may be thinking of the initial suspicions the had about the Clarmont DNA link.
Irrelevant to this girl going missing anyway.

Totally irrelevant to this case specifically, but relevant as a reminder that many of the posts on here are full of misinformation and factual inaccuracies.

 

[BonzaRam]

They had the killers DNA for years. But no one to match it too, hence they would test any suspect they could find like taxi drivers. The Claremont killer (Bradley Edwards) was not on the DNA database. They only caught the Claremont killer because his daughter got DNA tested after a traffic infringement. Drink driving i think it was. Then they got a lucky familial match with the killer and knew it wasnt the 20yr old daughter obv.

If for example I had touched that zipper on the tent and they get my DNA off it now, it would do them no good until I get DNA tested or one of my family members.

It was DNA on the Kimono that re-opened the Huntingdale case that connected to the Karrakatta case which at that point they knew it was same person but didn't have a suspect. When the DNA from the Karrakatta case matched the DNA found under CGs fingernail they knew it was the same person for all 3 cases. Fingerprints from Huntingdale connected to the Hollywood Hospital Assault, now they had a suspect... along came a sprite bottle...

They tested us Taxis Drivers because taxi drivers were one of the first suspected because of the alleged Ross connection to the case and the fact that the last time SS was seen she was ringing for a taxi.

 

[one eyed spy]

I take your point about the word delicate but I think 'gentle' and 'sensitive' are both pretty commons descriptors for children and both probably apply to Cleo. 'Delicate' kind of fits for a child who is fragile, for example a child with a serious illness. Mum says Cleo was premature so maybe it's related to this but then she goes on to talk about how strong she knows Cleo is because she's been a fighter from the day she was born. Probably nothing at all, just an observation

Agree its not a term that would suit most children & had I not had a specific child in mind to equate it to, I'd probably not have commented at all. Fragile is another term I think describes her very aptly too, entirely removed from any reference to her health though.

 

[austcrime]

Without any of us really knowing anything, actually ... I have 2 thoughts on this unfolding tragedy...

If the parents were the perps, (and yes, publicly the police and no one else is suggesting that they are - then better to somehow dispose of the child BUT not touch the sleeping bag ...
(Maybe able to convince some that she wondered off and drowned etc)...

But with the sleeping bag gone - no way ... It's 3rd party adult (pedo) intervention, sadly ... or the parents got rid of the sleeping bag "somehow" to make look like a 3rd party was involved?

And for the record - I AM NOT trying to pick on the poor parents, ok... (Just keeping an open mind about matters) ...

CCTV from the nearby shack ... Was that shack occupied, and by whom? Was the CCTV used by a perp to have the family; kids; tent under obs? It seems a bit suspicious that some random beach shack in some random beach setting has cctv; and that cctv is focused on the victims' tent... I also read in one media release that the police have yet to examine the cctv evidence forensicly.... Forensicly? What the F does that mean?

The perp will be one of those people who were at the campground.... The pedo didn't hike in and out on foot in the middle of the night; with a child and sleeping bag strapped to his back; he didn't teleport in from space either..

Likely long left the area by now; as the police suspect; (because no sleeping bag and body (or shallow grave etc) has been discovered... Or an alternative hell is that the girl is in the sea; weighted down by a sand filled sleeping bag?...

2 more things ... I understand that her biological dad is estranged / away from the new hybrid family, yes? Is he a suspect? (abduction)... Does he have any violent criminal history? AVO against him, etc?

And a horrible thing to think about; but generally does anyone know any details/statistics of how long kiddy fiddlers like to play with/keep their victims alive? My point is that as this nasty thing has allegedly happened between approx 1 30am and 6am; and allowing for an hour or so to effect the tent surveillance and extraction; then leaning away from tbe loan opportunist sicko - is the point that it doesn't allow a lot of time for "play" grrrrrr before dawn; and before the perp has to go into clean up; recovery/disposal/concealment mode ...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[SquiffyRae]

If the parents were the perps, (and yes, publicly the police and no one else is suggesting that they are - then better to somehow dispose of the child BUT not touch the sleeping bag ...
(Maybe able to convince some that she wondered off and drowned etc)...

But with the sleeping bag gone - no way ... It's 3rd party adult (pedo) intervention, sadly ... or the parents got rid of the sleeping bag "somehow" to make look like a 3rd party was involved?

Not trying to imply I think the parents did it but getting rid of the sleeping bag sounds like exactly the sort of crime scene staging that would sound reasonable in someone's head in that scenario

 

[deanc]

Not trying to imply I think the parents did it but getting rid of the sleeping bag sounds like exactly the sort of crime scene staging that would sound reasonable in someone's head in that scenario

Really, gee I would of thought the sleeping bag remaining in the tent would raise far less suspicion of the couple's very unlikely implication - specifically as a sleeping bag can be used as a tool for disposal..? When you bury a pet in your back-yard it's nearly always inside a bag or a box.

We're getting into some uncomfortable, morbid areas now...

 

[one eyed spy]

It would get around pretty fast not just that a child had gone missing but was removed from a tent through the night, if I had kids there I'd want out as fast as possible. On my own I'd probably hang about for a bit to see if I could be of any help but then I'd be gone.



I'm not convinced of the screeching tyres, why sneak around a camp then risk waking people, especially the caretaker up? There's only one road in and out and they have to go straight past the caretakers site. Whoever's responsible, on the little info available, I think they were probably there all night and had composed themselves by the next morning.

I've literally only read the very first articles that came out so I'm not hooked on any of the specific details, mostly because the media is so bloody useless & the cops so secretive, you can't trust a word either of them say! The only TV news I've seen was the ABC tonight who were suggesting it was now believed to be an abduction, which I suspected all along.
As to who, how or why.... it takes a far sicker individual than me to presume to know the answer to those questions.
What I do know for certain is to be capable of such a crime that person is a highly opportunistic beast & remote, popular places are a magnet for them. Especially by the coast where the ocean, wind, sand, bushland, lack of lighting & space between campsites make it much easier to sneak around totally unnoticed & that anyone suggesting it couldn't happen has never been camping in those conditions.

To take a child so brazenly from inside a tent is hard to comprehend, but no moreso the fact there are people who'd dare to do that, these things absolutely do occur & it definitely appears to have happened now, at least to me!

We can only hope the first local cops to arrive didn't totally f**k up any chance forensics had to get a lead on whoever took her & if the evidence was there to begin with, it's been recovered & can be used to do exactly that. More urgently, that they're able to locate her ASAP & she's ok.

As to anything else, I don't know the answer & to speculate is just as unhelpful. Despite having travelled extensively through Australia with a similar setup & having stayed at many similar places, I haven't been to that campsite specifically so I'm not familiar with it to offer an informed opinion. I do know most of that coast line pretty well but all I can go off is my gut feel here & despite it being totally irrelevant.

I cant imagine anyone who was brazen enough to commit that crime wasn't familiar with the area. I'd suggest they probably didn't take any main roads/tracks & probably weren't captured via any kind of CCTV or camera setup regardless. I certainly can't fathom what someone would do with a child they just abducted that doesn't involve something hideous which I don't need or want to speculate about. I don't discount your suggestion that the person may well have still been there, or returned back there the next day. Whatever happened to her, if it only involved 1 person, I'd be leaning towards her still being somewhere relatively close to the area. If she's long been removed, I'd absolutely suggest more than one person knows what happened.

Aside from that, I have nothing to add. The only thing left is to just hope for the best possible outcome & to will it to come really soon. Short of her being located safe & well, I'm really not sure whether any known outcome just to know would be better than the hope you may still hold out if the outcome remains unknown.

At the end of the day it's just horrific & my heart aches for her family. I don't know what else there is to say.

 

[one eyed spy]

They had the killers DNA for years. But no one to match it too, hence they would test any suspect they could find like taxi drivers. The Claremont killer (Bradley Edwards) was not on the DNA database. They only caught the Claremont killer because his daughter got DNA tested after a traffic infringement. Drink driving i think it was. Then they got a lucky familial match with the killer and knew it wasnt the 20yr old daughter obv.

If for example I had touched that zipper on the tent and they get my DNA off it now, it would do them no good until I get DNA tested or one of my family members.

Dude, just no. Tons of threads in here you can inform yourself with. Start with the trial ones & you'll surely work it out.

 

[Longmembrey]

Sorry, if these have been raised, but a few queries I have are:

1) did any other campers actually see / hear Cleo alive at the camp ground? 4yo are pretty active & noisy

2) did the parents drive away from the campground before the police got there/ were called? If so, major red flag.

3) we can't assume ANYTHING, so I'd like proof that there was a sleeping bag there (ie could be in a photo, fibres from forensics, proof of purchase & it not still being in a cupboard at regular house, etc)

4) was Cleo sleeping with feet to door, head to door, or parallel?

5) how many days ago did they buy the tent? How long had they planned to go camping - a while ago or was it a sudden decision? Did they discuss it with others / invite friends, etc?

6) what did they plan to do on the trip and is that supported by the items they brought with them?

7) did they talk to / were seen by anyone before going to bed? That person could be a POI / or an eye witness to having seen Cleo alive

8) at the press conference, did they plead with whoever took Cleo to return her / not hurt her, etc?


Not pointing fingers, just trying to get a clearer picture.

 

[FrankGrimes]

Sorry, if these have been raised, but a few queries I have are:

1) did any other campers actually see / hear Cleo alive at the camp ground? 4yo are pretty active & noisy

2) did the parents drive away from the campground before the police got there/ were called? If so, major red flag.

3) we can't assume ANYTHING, so I'd like proof that there was a sleeping bag there (ie could be in a photo, fibres from forensics, proof of purchase & it not still being in a cupboard at regular house, etc)

4) was Cleo sleeping with feet to door, head to door, or parallel?

5) how many days ago did they buy the tent? How long had they planned to go camping - a while ago or was it a sudden decision? Did they discuss it with others / invite friends, etc?

6) what did they plan to do on the trip and is that supported by the items they brought with them?

7) did they talk to / were seen by anyone before going to bed? That person could be a POI / or an eye witness to having seen Cleo alive

8) at the press conference, did they plead with whoever took Cleo to return her / not hurt her, etc?


Not pointing fingers, just trying to get a clearer picture.

Your not pointing finger but every question you ask is pointing fingers at the parents..

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Your not pointing finger but every question you ask is pointing fingers at the parents..

They are still questions that you hope would have been asked.

 

[BomberManU]

States in one of the articles, linked a couple of pages back, that they had contact with other campers when they arrived. Specifically, they met 'Cleo and Ellie'. Also stated that other campers helped them search.

 

[MiguelM]

Sorry, if these have been raised, but a few queries I have are:

1) did any other campers actually see / hear Cleo alive at the camp ground? 4yo are pretty active & noisy

2) did the parents drive away from the campground before the police got there/ were called? If so, major red flag.

3) we can't assume ANYTHING, so I'd like proof that there was a sleeping bag there (ie could be in a photo, fibres from forensics, proof of purchase & it not still being in a cupboard at regular house, etc)

4) was Cleo sleeping with feet to door, head to door, or parallel?

5) how many days ago did they buy the tent? How long had they planned to go camping - a while ago or was it a sudden decision? Did they discuss it with others / invite friends, etc?

6) what did they plan to do on the trip and is that supported by the items they brought with them?

7) did they talk to / were seen by anyone before going to bed? That person could be a POI / or an eye witness to having seen Cleo alive

8) at the press conference, did they plead with whoever took Cleo to return her / not hurt her, etc?


Not pointing fingers, just trying to get a clearer picture.

You seriously don't think the investigators are not looking into all this and so much more? There is zero chance of anything on this forum being a lightbulb moment for police.

Why do the public need to know this detail yet?


The public's role is letting police know if anything they saw/heard might be of use or sightings.

 

[tenderwarrior]

This is the thing I am struggling with..

Why do WE need proof or a clearer picture or better understanding of some of these things?

Comments like "WE can't assume anything..", "I want PROOF" etc.. - Do you think this forum is somehow working in partnership with WAPOL on this case, that the actual real life investigators give a !@#$ whether or not the internet sleuths out there are convinced that there really was a sleeping bag?

The level of curiosity some have on cases like this I find !@#$ing weird and a little disturbing..

I mean, who gives a !@#$ what way the "alleged" sleeping bag was facing? Even if the police came out and said it was "feet facing the door" no doubt others here would argue that "this makes no sense" as they always set their kids up parallel to the door, so "something is fishy" and it is evidence that the "stepfather did it"..

Or maybe I am being harsh and that somebody somewhere, simply by knowing the sleeping bag formation, suddenly realises that they have information they previously thought was irrelevant to the case..