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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wexford said:
I agree it is odd. Is it just that the earlier day was the surprise and that they were always going, just not that early?

Also...and I could be confused here...I thought they were the bio parents, not the foster parents...assume also that the Nan is the bio Nan? So wouldnt that mean they have to pick the kids up from the FF to take them for the weekend? I dunno I think Im missing something here....
Click to expand...

William Tyrell has been missing since September 12 last year, when he vanished from his foster grandmother's house

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ted-toddler-William-Tyrell.html#ixzz3dwofGXq7
 
Yes, it was foster parents / foster grandma.
And the surprise was only that they got there one day earlier than planned.
 
sosocurious said:
I agree Manny

There were a few things in that article that had me wondering.
William and his sister play chase in the *garden, which slopes down steeply 70 metres or so, to the road. There’s no fence. At one point *William is seen hiding behind a celery wood tree, halfway down the garden.

I know I am playing on words a little, but garden vs yard.
The garden at the front of grandma's house does slope steeply to the road.
I wonder if there is a celery wood tree half way down that garden.
I have wondered whether William was running around to the carport area as opposed to the other side of the house. I know media have indicated that he did run down that balcony side.
But there has been some differring reports as to front or back yard.
The photo of Paul Fehon speaking to the media in the very early stages was looking down that front garden (I guess that has stuck with me)

Then considering Gary Jubelins scenario - “I can’t reconcile that I can jump out of the car, run up and grab the kid, run back down to the car, put him in the car, and speed off.”............
The way Jubelin sees it, you open the door and you put him in the car.

Was it also mentioned way back that there was only scent to the drive-way? I will have to have a look.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...sh-into-thin-air/story-e6frg6z6-1227308929078
Click to expand...


bbm: when I read those words this evening the first thing that pops into my head is that perhaps the vehicle that whisked him away was something quiet -- totally electric -- like a Prius or a golf cart.....no one would have heard a thing....((silly thought perhaps))
 
Pink-Flamingo mentioned how the surprise element of the visit, or the attention drawn to it, seems unusual. Totally agree! I would not appreciate this surprise because I would need the extra day to cram in last minute preparations. But I doubt everyone is as last minute as me.

A bit OT, but it is easy to tell the threads for Australian cases, just based on the posts (even if no location were mentioned). The posts have a different tone (overall they seem more "call 'em like you see 'em" to me) and I really enjoy the phrases and terminology used.

Some phrases in the last few pages:
Guilt bomb (I've only ever heard guilt trip)
Gaol (I thought this meant hell and was so confused)
Go hell for leather (no idea)
Sus or suss
On decent land (large piece of land or in a good neighborhood??)
Over the moon (may occasionally hear this in US, but rarely in the same context)

MOO.
 
Sutton said:
Pink-Flamingo mentioned how the surprise element of the visit, or the attention drawn to it, seems unusual. Totally agree! I would not appreciate this surprise because I would need the extra day to cram in last minute preparations. But I doubt everyone is as last minute as me.

A bit OT, but it is easy to tell the threads for Australian cases, just based on the posts (even if no location were mentioned). The posts have a different tone (overall they seem more "call 'em like you see 'em" to me) and I really enjoy the phrases and terminology used.

Some phrases in the last few pages:
Guilt bomb (I've only ever heard guilt trip)
Gaol (I thought this meant hell and was so confused)
Go hell for leather (no idea)
Sus or suss
On decent land (large piece of land or in a good neighborhood??)
Over the moon (may occasionally hear this in US, but rarely in the same context)

MOO.
Click to expand...

Hahaha that's ironic, I generally hate conversing with Australians (I'm Australian) because I feel way too abrasive for them and I converse a lot more comfortably with Americans (New York mates of mine for example ) because I feel Americans don't mess around lol
 
Regarding the family arriving at grandma's house a day early ..... we discovered, way back in the threads somewhere, that grandma had been ill. This may have spurred the desire for them to get there sooner rather than later - seeing that grandma was now on her own, having fairly recently lost her husband.
 
SouthAussie said:
Regarding the family arriving at grandma's house a day early ..... we discovered, way back in the threads somewhere, that grandma had been ill. This may have spurred the desire for them to get there sooner rather than later - seeing that grandma was now on her own, having fairly recently lost her husband.
Click to expand...

Yeah, wasn't she in hospital that year? Or was that ms?
 
Anyone know how many hospitals are in that area? Didn't bs and ms move to the town because of MS health? Wondering if they may have met in hospital and got chatting about grandkids etc
 
A lot in the Hunter region between Newcastle, Port Macquarie, Singleton
Manny83 said:
Anyone know how many hospitals are in that area? Didn't bs and ms move to the town because of MS health?
Click to expand...
 
Wexford said:
Yes but the jury most likely will be aware of it. It has been pretty high profile.
Click to expand...

He will probably elect to be tried by judge alone for that exact reason. in NSW a defendant can be tried by judge alone if prosecution consent or "good reason exists". The hugh amount of media attention BS has received would be very good reason to not have the trial heard by a jury.
 
Ksks said:
He will probably elect to be tried by judge alone for that exact reason. in NSW a defendant can be tried by judge alone if prosecution consent or "good reason exists". The hugh amount of media attention BS has received would be very good reason to not have the trial heard by a jury.
Click to expand...

Yes he can, It worked well for Gittany :jail:
 
I think the surprise visit has clouded the issue, what was probably used early for "colour" in the story has seemed to take on a significance that is perhaps not warranted. Once his parents spoke about the nature of the surprise visit, that it was really a surprise early arrival, I don't find anything suspect about that at all. From the look out of outside the property they/she are/is houseproud and I know my parents are of a similar age and you could not embarrass them by turning up early because everything is always soon back in place. Like if they haven't cleaned up from lunch yet it is because they are still eating it. If Nana is unwell, they were probably expecting to do their own prep for staying once they got there. Maybe part of the reason of getting their early is to prevent Nana doing too much for them in prep. Who knows. I know I found the parents interview "as expected" for innocent parents and I am not adverse to thinking parents are responsible in these cases (they most likely are).

I do think subsequent details in the media have been a lot more deliberate, for example that early piece about the washing machine van being in the street, and (I think) Jubelin's comments about how a perpetrator who isn't planning a crime is not thinking criminally, scouting for witnesses, covering his tracks prior to the crime. He may well have not been planning any harm to William, but upon seeing the child there, he had the benefit of knowing who the child was, and his name because of their conversations.

It was alleged well before there was any talk of pedophile rings or historic sexual abuse charges that inconsistencies in his statements led to the initial searches on his home and business. If he is responsible, there is a high chance of phone tower pings contradicting his given alibi. I mean, he may not have had calls and hopefully that data was still there by the time they began focusing more on BS.
 
Sutton said:
Pink-Flamingo mentioned how the surprise element of the visit, or the attention drawn to it, seems unusual. Totally agree! I would not appreciate this surprise because I would need the extra day to cram in last minute preparations. But I doubt everyone is as last minute as me.

A bit OT, but it is easy to tell the threads for Australian cases, just based on the posts (even if no location were mentioned). The posts have a different tone (overall they seem more "call 'em like you see 'em" to me) and I really enjoy the phrases and terminology used.

Some phrases in the last few pages:
Guilt bomb (I've only ever heard guilt trip)
Gaol (I thought this meant hell and was so confused)
Go hell for leather (no idea)
Sus or suss
On decent land (large piece of land or in a good neighborhood??)
Over the moon (may occasionally hear this in US, but rarely in the same context)

MOO.
Click to expand...

Some phrases in the last few pages:
Guilt bomb (I've only ever heard guilt trip) :shame:
Gaol (I thought this meant hell and was so confused) :jail:
Go hell for leather (no idea):whip:
Sus or suss :thinking:
On decent land (large piece of land or in a good neighborhood??) :australia:
Over the moon (may occasionally hear this in US, but rarely in the same context) :cow:


Ol' BUCKETMOUTH :turkey:

MOO.
 
ozazure said:
It was alleged well before there was any talk of pedophile rings or historic sexual abuse charges that inconsistencies in his statements led to the initial searches on his home and business.
Click to expand...

I dont think police would have gotten a search warrant for the house and business just on inconsistent statements alone. There has to be "reasonable suspicion" for a search warrant. Inconsistent statements is not, in my view, reasonable suspicion. There must have been something more. A child's t-shirt in the plumbing is getting closer. Something that looked like an item of clothing That WT was last seen in, coupled with inconsistent statements sould be getting even closer. But that still wouldn't be grounds for searching the business premises. There must have been something else.
 
Ksks said:
I dont think police would have gotten a search warrant for the house and business just on inconsistent statements alone. There has to be "reasonable suspicion" for a search warrant. Inconsistent statements is not, in my view, reasonable suspicion. There must have been something more. A child's t-shirt in the plumbing is getting closer. Something that looked like an item of clothing That WT was last seen in, coupled with inconsistent statements sould be getting even closer. But that still wouldn't be grounds for searching the business premises. There must have been something else.
Click to expand...

Just to expand on that - they raided the office first and the home property the next day. I would assume that the original warrant was only for the office, and from there they found something to allow them to search the home.

I assume this because if they had warrants for both premises they would carry out the searches on the same day - element of surprise.

Does anyone think the same?
 
Ksks said:
I dont think police would have gotten a search warrant for the house and business just on inconsistent statements alone. There has to be "reasonable suspicion" for a search warrant. Inconsistent statements is not, in my view, reasonable suspicion. There must have been something more. A child's t-shirt in the plumbing is getting closer. Something that looked like an item of clothing That WT was last seen in, coupled with inconsistent statements sould be getting even closer. But that still wouldn't be grounds for searching the business premises. There must have been something else.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking CCTV footage, because police spoke about it a lot in the early days back when they weren't giving ANYTHING away.

They haven't come out and said anything about what they've seen on the CCTV footage, but they did keep asking people who were in Kendall at that time to come forward, and to identify their cars from the footage from the Kendall Tennis Club.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...r-william-tyrell/story-fni0cx12-1227124180019
 
sleepinoz said:
Just to expand on that - they raided the office first and the home property the next day. I would assume that the original warrant was only for the office, and from there they found something to allow them to search the home.

I assume this because if they had warrants for both premises they would carry out the searches on the same day - element of surprise.

Does anyone think the same?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 3,531 (members: 82, guests: 3,449)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
3,449
Total visitors
3,531
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,564
Messages
18,173,460
Members
232,677
Latest member
Amakur
Back
Top