the clothing was found. There is no evidence on the clothing of dragging or catching nor the presence of saliva. It was argued that the absence of saliva was not remarkable as a witness gave evidence of heavy rain in the area. The clothing was not subjected to heavy rain as there is evidence that such heavy rain would have adversely affected the bloodstaining on the clothing and this is not the case. This lack of presence of saliva and dragging is inconsistent with a dingo carrying the body a distance of some four kilometres. The jumpsuit was completely done up by studs to the neck which remained closed while the child was bleeding. After the blood had dried the two top studs were undone prior to the clothing being buried whilst containing the body of the child. There is evidence provided by fluorescent examination to suggest the presence of a palm print of a small adult right hand and some evidence of the presence of a left hand caused by a person holding the child when that person's hands were contaminated with wet blood. Single holes or indentations which appear in the clothing could be consistent with teeth marks of an animal but the absence of tissue stains in conjunction with those holes make it inconsistent with an animal holding the body of the child. The evidence clearly establishes that the clothing has been cut and in places torn by a person or persons and in particular the cut on the collar was made after the bloodstaining had occurred, It was argued that one area of damage in the general area of the elbow may be consistent with an animal tearing, but the evidence is very strong that such a tearing by an animal would be inconsistent because of the lack of evidence of the presence of tissue staining which would inevitably be involved if an animal had caused the damage to the clothing. Vegetation contamination on the clothing is inconsistent with vegetation found at the scene and inconsistent with the likely contamination which would have occurred if the clothing with a body in it had been carried by an animal. This supports the view that the vegetation contamination was caused by human intervention. The clothes as found were not strewn around the area and this is inconsistent with an animal being responsible for their placement. The clothing was