Each was sexually assaulted and murdered in separate, unrelated incidents in Melbourne over the past decade, sparking nationwide headlines, tributes and advocacy.
Yet under proposed changes to Victorian law, it could soon be illegal to tell their stories.
Watch: Eurydice Dixon's father on how he wants people to remember his daughter.
The state's parliament will this week debate reforms that aim to make it an offence to publicly identify a deceased sexual assault victim.
The move would not only impact journalists and publishers, but anyone who posts on social media — including the victim's relatives and loved ones.
So why the sudden push for silence?
Here's what you need to know.
What does the current law say?
The current law — specifically, Section 4 (1A) of Victoria's Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 — restricts the publication of any information that could lead to a sexual assault victim being identified.
If such details are published without the permission of the court and the survivor, the offending party can face a penalty of $3304.40 or a maximum of four months’ imprisonment.
The provision was introduced in 1991 with the aim of encouraging sexual assault survivors to come forward under the protection of anonymity.
However, it doesn't explicitly mention how the law applies to sexual assault victims who have died.
This has widely been interpreted as a green light to publish their stories — hence why Australians know the names of women like Jill Meagher.
Indeed, according to The Australian, no one has been prosecuted in Victoria for naming a sexual homicide victim. Well, not yet.
So what's being changed exactly, and why?
The proposed Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020 aims to fix heavily criticised changes to the law that were introduced by Premier Daniel Andrews' Labor government in February.
That legislation had inadvertently gagged sexual assault survivors whose attackers had been found guilty. It meant that they were prohibited from publicly talking about their own experiences without first obtaining permission via a court order — a process that can be costly and potentially re-traumatising.
After significant backlash from victims' rights advocates, the government vowed to rectify its mistake. But in the process, it seems they could end up gagging other important groups.