IMO, it'd have to be something direct, rather than her DNA being found in the wagon and a souvenir found secreted in the rafters or in his work locker. IMO it'd have to be located somewhere where no one else, except the accused could have access to, otherwise it could be argued that someone else could of caused it to be there. But then again there's always the possibility of witness testimony that could allege that the accused had given them an item, which the police might allege belonged to the missing girl which she was known to of had upon her at the time she went missing. However, not something which she could've dropped and was simply picked up by the accused off the footpath. That sort of thing. Because IMO even if SS's DNA was found in that car, it doesn't prove WHEN it got into the car, which means of course it could be argued that she got a lift in the car previously, or that the carpet was swapped between cars at Telstra at some point. So I think whatever it is has to be, must be tangible, belonged to SS, known to be upon her, and able to be shown to be in the personal possession of the accused. Was any of the other two bodies mutilated, missing body parts etc? I can only wonder just what it is too.