Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #31

Status
Not open for further replies.
All I can say without catching up on 62 pages of thread is that *someone* must have known something in a close knit community. If it was a newcomer, it would have been known. Then there is the window of time for an opportunist that seems unlikely but not impossible to know a child is there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
First time he said Laurieton

Why don't you give references, time points, and links if you wish to make a point?

Just returned from town, NEAR Laurieton ... I provided the reference and link earlier.

No point going on and on about it unless you provide the relevant data for others to listen to, and provide the time point in which you think that is said.

.
 
First time he said Laurieton

18th April 2015... first I remember.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...sh-into-thin-air/story-e6frg6z6-1227308929078
How could toddler William Tyrrell simply vanish into thin air?

But on the 23 January 2015.
This was mentioned. Any ideas?

When the nearby North Haven Bowling Club was asked for information, they abruptly refused to comment.
'We can't say anything about it. We won't say anything about what's going on,' a manager said.

: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...down-thanks-family-support.html#ixzz593GIiM3A
 
Why don't you give references, time points, and links if you wish to make a point?

Just returned from town, NEAR Laurietown ... I provided the reference and link earlier.

No point going on and on about it unless you provide the relevant data for others to listen to, and provide the time point in which you think that is said.

And transcript of the exact words Papertrail thinks she/he heard.
 
So why do you think he was lying?

You don't think technology would have verified his whereabouts?

Telstra and Optus maps also say that we get high coverage here, but in fact that's not the case.

That's an assumption as I am considering all angles of this case. The part I doubt is that this was planned in a short time period because it was successfully concealed. To achieve a successful operation of abduction of a child that age, it appears they would need more than one day of careful planning to succeed. In order to plan, the FF had to be complicit somehow. But perhaps unknown that they were engaged to carry out this task. Again, there is lots to look at before drawing conclusions so I shall read through the entire thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In podcast foster father in his own words stated he went to Laurieton at the beginning of the cast. He also said he went to pickup a script. I take that as meaning he visited a pharmacy. There is a pharmacy in Laurieton on Bold st and one in Camden Haven. There is no pharmacy in Lakewood or Kendall as far as I can see.

Therefore it would appear to me that he being the foster father would have been in Laurieton about the same time poi Spedding was according to what has been reported in numerous msm articles re Speddings alibi.

And we now have new information re where foster father actually traveled to Laurieton is the furtherest point from Kendall. You drive through Lakewood to get to Laurieton.

I personally would not describe Laurieton to be 'near' Lakewood as there is another town named West Haven between Lakewood and Laurieton with Laurieton being the futherest point from Kendall.
 
In podcast foster father in his own words stated he went to Laurieton at the beginning of the cast. He also said he went to pickup a script. I take that as meaning he visited a pharmacy. There is a pharmacy in Laurieton on Bold st and one in Camden Haven. There is no pharmacy in Lakewood or Kendall as far as I can see.

Therefore it would appear to me that he being the foster father would have been in Laurieton about the same time poi Spedding was according to what has been reported in numerous msm articles re Speddings alibi.

And we now have new information re where foster father actually traveled to Laurieton is the furtherest point from Kendall. You drive through Lakewood to get to Laurieton.

1. BBM Link and timepoint please.


2. Take your pick, two different sources showing you the pharmacy/chemist in Lakewood

2w23ofq.jpg

https://www.localsearch.com.au/find/chemists-pharmacies/nsw/hastings-macleay-valley-region/laurieton

21diep.jpg

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...04!4f13.1;tbs:lrf:!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:4
 
In podcast foster father in his own words stated he went to Laurieton at the beginning of the cast. He also said he went to pickup a script. I take that as meaning he visited a pharmacy. There is a pharmacy in Laurieton on Bold st and one in Camden Haven. There is no pharmacy in Lakewood or Kendall as far as I can see.

Therefore it would appear to me that he being the foster father would have been in Laurieton about the same time poi Spedding was according to what has been reported in numerous msm articles re Speddings alibi.

And we now have new information re where foster father actually traveled to Laurieton is the furtherest point from Kendall. You drive through Lakewood to get to Laurieton.

I personally would not describe Laurieton to be 'near' Lakewood as there is another town named West Haven between Lakewood and Laurieton with Laurieton being the futherest point from Kendall.
Foster parents have been cleared, you’re flogging a dead horse here. If you think this hasn’t been checked with investigators then maybe you should call crime stoppers and report all of your misgivings because you are just clogging up this thread
 
For the final time FOSTER PARENTS CLEARED, photo verified .

Is it possible then to examine this without concluding that the finger is directly pointed at the foster family but rather consider the observations put across?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Is it possible then to examine this without concluding that the finger is directly pointed at the foster family but rather consider the observations put across?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You will have to ask a Mod, as most of us consider it against TOS.
 
Is it possible then to examine this without concluding that the finger is directly pointed at the foster family but rather consider the observations put across?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No. Because there needs to be a reason for your 'observations'. It needs to relate to the case. If there is no reason other than to dispute the foster mum's words, then that is finger pointing at a cleared person.

Have you read the TOS yet?
 
Foster parents have been cleared, you’re flogging a dead horse here. If you think this hasn’t been checked with investigators then maybe you should call crime stoppers and report all of your misgivings because you are just clogging up this thread

Obviously the foster parents are cleared of directly abducting William Tyrrell, but these other aspects should be considered equally among others in respect that we are not exclusively privy to the fine details of the case that is not public. These other aspects may lead to completely different directions, but considering William has not been found in over 3 years, it's crucial that every detail is explored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Obviously the foster parents are cleared of directly abducting William Tyrrell, but these other aspects should be considered equally among others in respect that we are not exclusively privy to the fine details of the case that is not public. These other aspects may lead to completely different directions, but considering William has not been found in over 3 years, it's crucial that every detail is explored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please read the TOS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
4,160
Total visitors
4,345

Forum statistics

Threads
593,833
Messages
17,993,654
Members
229,257
Latest member
CriminalPineapple
Back
Top