Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #21

[gregjrichards]

Quite a few of the McDonalds here in the States are like that, with the big glass windows around the play area. Of course they are built to lure in customers after the kids see the big play area from the road and beg mom and dad to go play. Unfortunately it has the potential to lure in more than innocent children. And so many here are built right next to a freeway entrance.

Slightly O/T....I was at McDonald's the other day with my 2 kids, in the play area. I was amazed at how many parents left their small children there unsupervised while they went back to the counter to get more food. The play area cannot be seen from the counter and regular eating area and there us an exit door close to that area. So of course I sat there making sure their kids were safe. Just infuriates me.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

It infuriates me too. I hate young kids being left to go to the toilet on their own in shopping centres or being allowed to go to the toy section of the supermarket unsupervised it's like the parents are totally blind to danger.

 

[krig101]

Could it just be libel laws? Her theory, even if stated vaguely, may lead everybody to the same conclusion/the same person.

I don't know anything about Australian libel laws though.

I would LOVE to know what her theory is!!!

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Karo]

It is not illegal to photograph children in Australia in public spaces but in shopping centres and privately owned premises, the management can restrict photography.
It's what they do with the photographs that is questionable,however, I see no issue with fully clothed children being watched or photographed, parental or caregiver supervision is the key to safety.
.

Definitely, guys. I suspect there would be some 'faux photographers' (among others) *shudders* directly opposite that particular Maccas. If I was the local coppers I would be doing regular drive-bys looking for 'loiterers'.

In NSW, it think it's illegal to photograph children without their parent's permission, yet I have noticed people with long lenses on their cameras taking closeup photos of kids at the childrens' play area (including water play) at Darling Harbour.

At a local Westfield, during a childrens' centrecourt show a few years ago, I noticed a guy filming the kids (including my granddaughter) from above. I told the Centre's security guard but he didn't seem to be too concerned. Granted, he did go up and speak to the guy but took his word for it he was a parent (he may well have been) and didn't ask him to stop.

Later, when I was visiting Victoria, I wanted to take a photograph of a childrens' play area to send to my grandkids via MMS to show them how cool it was. There were kids playing there at the time so I asked their parents' permission before I took it. So what's good for the goose...

Remember DI Jubelin said he wears his 'paedophile hat'. If something rings your alarm bells; I'd be taking note of it; if not immediate action by bringing it to Maccas and local LE's attention.
__________

As for supervision of children, there's no need for 'helicopter parenting' but a little more vigilance and a lot less tapping on mobile/portable wifi devices may be wise (and not only when they're out in public). My 2 cents.

 

[purpleandgreen]

I definitely wouldn't want strangers taking photos of my grandchildren at all. If I saw someone doing it I would call the police immediately.

It is not illegal to photograph children in Australia in public spaces but in shopping centres and privately owned premises, the management can restrict photography.
It's what they do with the photographs that is questionable,however, I see no issue with fully clothed children being watched or photographed, parental or caregiver supervision is the key to safety.
.

 

[Karo]

I definitely wouldn't want strangers taking photos of my grandchildren at all. If I saw someone doing it I would call the police immediately.

The police will tell you they are doing nothing wrong, as it is not illegal.
I am at the hairdresser so can't do it now but this information is readily available on a google search.\

http://www.playbytherules.net.au/legal-stuff/child-protection/images-of-children

 

[purpleandgreen]

Then I would say that I suspect they are being used for illegal purposes, which indeed would be my suspicion and I would ask police to check them out. I would also insist that particulars be taken.

Someone has to stick up for our kids, and I'm prepared to do that.

The police will tell you they are doing nothing wrong, as it is not illegal.
I am at the hairdresser so can't do it now but this information is readily available on a google search.\

http://www.playbytherules.net.au/legal-stuff/child-protection/images-of-children

 

[frogwell]

I have two thoughts on that...possibly her opinion was too upsetting to be published....or more than likely it involved naming names who cannot be named....or a combination of the two. And I think her interview was not part of the plan and more than likely some damage control was required. It is possible she has been trying to get her opinion out for a while but has been stifled possibly by the police harnessing the media.

I think her opinion was published deliberately. She is the 1st person in this case that the suppression orders were lifted from to publish her opinion. The journalist breaking the story has been publishing the police line all along. They knew they wouldn't be publishing anything specific but got her message out that she doesn't think he's alive and whatever her opinion is, it is counter to the police investigation. They demonstrated that by printing that another unnamed family member's opinion is that it has all gone down the way the police are saying. If the journalist had broken the suppression orders I don't think he would be reporting on the case anymore and yet 2 weeks later he is writing the exclusive article that 2 of the POI's could have met on the day WT went missing and one of the POI's family think he is capable of such a crime and the relationship between AJ and PB is stronger than has been acknowledged so far. Would the police continue to work with Taylor Auerbach if he was disrupting their tactics? MOO

 

[Bohemian]

It is not illegal to photograph children in Australia in public spaces but in shopping centres and privately owned premises, the management can restrict photography.

It's what they do with the photographs that is questionable, however, I see no issue with fully clothed children being watched or photographed, parental or caregiver supervision is the key to safety.

The police will tell you they are doing nothing wrong, as it is not illegal.
I am at the hairdresser so can't do it now but this information is readily available on a google search.

http://www.playbytherules.net.au/legal-stuff/child-protection/images-of-children

First of all, how would parents ascertain that someone observing, photographing or filming their children wasn't a registered sex offender?

http://www.news.com.au/national/all...-balmoral-beach/story-e6frfkp9-1227415060325I

If their actions are that obvious you notice them then you have every right to challenge them. A reasonable person will understand your need to enquire.

Also, even I wouldn't feel very secure in my right to perform the above in public if I was bought before a court, civil or criminal:

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ildren and Young People/taking-photographs-an

http://www.psq.org.au/Legalities.pdf

http://www.lawstuff.org.au/nsw_law/topics/article10

Lastly, I also think you only have to research the strict conditions of bail and release of child sex offenders to see why the above would be of concern. [After all, no responsible shepherd would let a wolf stalk his/her lambs during the day and not expect them to be hunted left unprotected. Child sex offenders are predators and children are their prey].
__________

Sidebar:

As an adult I'd find it creepy if someone did this to me and I'm a grown woman with mad self-defense skills. Never doubt your gut and never give those who ring your alarm bells the benefit of the doubt. It's power to the people; not power to the sheeple!

 

[Bohemian]

First of all, how would parents ascertain that someone observing, photographing or filming their children wasn't a registered sex offender?

http://www.news.com.au/national/all...-balmoral-beach/story-e6frfkp9-1227415060325I

If their actions are that obvious you notice them then you have every right to challenge them. A reasonable person will understand your need to enquire.

Also, even I wouldn't feel very secure in my right to perform the above in public if I was bought before a court, civil or criminal:

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ildren and Young People/taking-photographs-an

http://www.psq.org.au/Legalities.pdf

http://www.lawstuff.org.au/nsw_law/topics/article10

Lastly, I also think you only have to research the strict conditions of bail and release of child sex offenders to see why the above would be of concern. [After all, no responsible shepherd would let a wolf stalk his/her lambs during the day and not expect them to be hunted left unprotected. Child sex offenders are predators and children are their prey].
__________

Sidebar:

As an adult I'd find it creepy if someone did this to me and I'm a grown woman with mad self-defense skills. Never doubt your gut and never give those who ring your alarm bells the benefit of the doubt. It's power to the people; not power to the sheeple!

Sorry, first link 404'd out. Here's another:

http://newslocal.newspaperdirect.co...e-b86930c426e1&previewmode=2&noredirect=false

 

[Karinna]

I really don't see why anyone that didn't know a child and their parents would want to take some random photo or photos of someone else's child/children in the first place unless they had some fixation on kids? Maybe professional photographers in training that take random pics, but i don't know if they do that as part of a course in photography because they snap many photos of different scenes, and there are always people around the city with their children or in other public places as well, so most people probably wouldn't even be aware they had their or their child's picture taken.
And these days with phone cameras it is very easy just to take random photos even of unsuspecting adults if the person taking photos chooses to do so. I guess it's just a fact of life these days and nobody thinks too much about it.

 

[Bohemian]

Something has been bothering me about the biological grandmother's interview. Her answer to what she thought had happened to William could not be published for legal reasons. What opinion could she have, that could not be published? She was interviewed by the media scoop on this case. When the police were asked in the 60 minutes interview what strategies they would be employing to find WT, a part of the reply was harnessing the media coverage. After Nathalie Collins interview, the Where's William campaign made a quick response to keep looking and that the police think he is alive. The police then published a piece saying they have no evidence that he is dead so they are assuming he is alive (they have not published any evidence to that assumption) and will continue their investigation in that fashion. They have a huge amount of documentation to get through and have analysts and detectives working around the clock on the case. If Nathalie Collins statement could not be published, why did they even refer to her opinion unless they wanted to see a reaction somewhere. I am not necessarily pointing to the Where's William campaign reaction as what the police may well have been monitoring, it was just a very notable reaction that the public could see shortly after NC's interview. MOO

It was interesting to see such a quick response to the interview and to quickly see William's parents in MSM making statements. Why couldn't her thoughts on what happened to William be published????? I just don't understand it either.

And it's been too quiet lately. Is the investigation at a standstill? Nothing in media lately requesting the public's help, keeping William's face fresh in people's minds.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

AFAIK William's (paternal?) GM also said something along the lines of "They (note the plurality) did a good job.", referring to whomever she believes abducted and/or murdered William IMO. (I'll have to go backaways in the threads to find the paraphrased article as I don't have a sub to the Tele.) That phrase really piqued my interest. Maybe she can't name names because she risks being sued for defamation?

As for the motivation of the journo and strike force - could be that they were 'electronically' monitoring a POI(s) and wanted to see if there would be any 'chatter' or, at that time there was no suppression order preventing her from 'commenting' or revealing her identity in the media. Maybe she was simply 'bait' to allow a perpetrator to seek her out so investigators could gather more intel - who knows? Our Detective Jubelin is no Constable Plod - I suspect that a keenly intelligent mind lurks behind his (IMO) aesthetically pleasing features.

The huge 'amount of data/collation yada yada' and the seeming 'lull in proceedings' are probably for very good reasons. Ever heard of a cat-and-mouse game? If a cat suspects there is a mouse concealed nearby, he/she doesn't continue to move, thus giving their own position away. They freeze, often in mid-stride and with a paw (or even two) in the air, their senses on high alert and with muscles tensed. That is, until the mouse gives away its hiding place, makes a wrong move or just a desperate break for 'cover'. That's when the cat pounces and with lightning speed. There is usually no escape for the mouse. There will be no escape for the 'rat' who took William either. DI Jubelin is, I suspect, a very patient and focussed man and justice will be served*.
__________

*As it will for the Bowraville children. Vale Colleen Walker (16); her cousin, Evelyn Greenup (4) and Clinton Speedy-Duroux (16).

 

[Bohemian]

I have two thoughts on that...possibly her opinion was too upsetting to be published....or more than likely it involved naming names who cannot be named....or a combination of the two. And I think her interview was not part of the plan and more than likely some damage control was required. It is possible she has been trying to get her opinion out for a while but has been stifled possibly by the police harnessing the media.

I think that DI Jubelin would make an excellent poker player, Inspector

 

[louisepiglet]

I think that an abduction like the Sixty Minutes one in Lebanon could quite possibly be what happened to William. It happened so quickly. Someone was carrying out surveillance and snatched him quickly and quietly. This was not a "colliding of worlds" or even a planned pedo abduction. This was professional. IMO. Who or for what reason remains to be seen. And as was in the case of the Lebanon attempted abduction it would cost someone a large amount of money.

 

[Eloise]

How though? They weren't at their home, and who would have known they were leaving? The preschool the kids went to, I guess. There's one weak link. The dad's workplace too. I don't think anyone else would have known.

Unless they were planning on carrying out an abduction, had been watching their house in Sydney, then tailed them all the way to the mid North Coast when they saw them leave. That would be quite extreme. Not impossible.

WT's bio family don't really seem that determined to have him back though, nor do they seem like that would be their MO. So someone else?

 

[Wexford]

I think her opinion was published deliberately. She is the 1st person in this case that the suppression orders were lifted from to publish her opinion. The journalist breaking the story has been publishing the police line all along. They knew they wouldn't be publishing anything specific but got her message out that she doesn't think he's alive and whatever her opinion is, it is counter to the police investigation. They demonstrated that by printing that another unnamed family member's opinion is that it has all gone down the way the police are saying. If the journalist had broken the suppression orders I don't think he would be reporting on the case anymore and yet 2 weeks later he is writing the exclusive article that 2 of the POI's could have met on the day WT went missing and one of the POI's family think he is capable of such a crime and the relationship between AJ and PB is stronger than has been acknowledged so far. Would the police continue to work with Taylor Auerbach if he was disrupting their tactics? MOO

I don't think he broke suppression orders...just found a way around them. Whatever sells the paper is probably what he is told to write on and if a good opportunity for a story comes his way he is going to write it because that's what he gets paid for. As a good journalist he is supposed to report from all sides and I bet he has been trying for a while to get a comment from a bio family member that he can use. He probably has modified the story to work in with the police and not to fully burn bridges though, and I daresay they need him as much as he needs a story.
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." George Orwell

 

[purpleandgreen]

I thought Spedding knew - hadn't FG told him that's why she needed her washing machine fixed? There may also have been other locals that she told, who knows? Well I guess that's the question isn't it? 'Who knew'? I'll bet Jubelin knows who knew, IMO.

How though? They weren't at their home, and who would have known they were leaving? The preschool the kids went to, I guess. There's one weak link. The dad's workplace too. I don't think anyone else would have known.

Unless they were planning on carrying out an abduction, had been watching their house in Sydney, then tailed them all the way to the mid North Coast when they saw them leave. That would be quite extreme. Not impossible.

WT's bio family don't really seem that determined to have him back though, nor do they seem like that would be their MO. So someone else?

 

[Eloise]

I thought Spedding knew - hadn't FG told him that's why she needed her washing machine fixed? There may also have been other locals that she told, who knows? Well I guess that's the question isn't it? 'Who knew'? I'll bet Jubelin knows who knew, IMO.

Right, but louisepiglet said she didn't think it was a case of 'worlds colliding' or opportunism (which are terms used in the media in the past in reference to the idea that BS was the abductor).

I can't see BS and co being the masterminds of a professional level pre-planned kidnapping on the scale of the 60 Minutes Lebanon fiasco. They just don't seem the type. They're a bunch of slimeballs, sure, but so far they've all 'just' abused (or allegedly abused, I guess I should say) children already in their care. It's a whole other level to jump to a planned abduction of a stranger's child.

I guess I agree with her in a way, I just don't see anyone else with vested interests in the Tyrrell children (I'm not convinced William was the real or only target).

ETA I'm sure LE have a lot more info than what is put into the media, for the talked about privacy/legal reasons but also for strategic reasons present in all cases. There are still POIs that haven't been named in the media, and it could be one of them and there is some reason why they're not named yet. But at the same time it really truly wouldn't surprise me if one day a farmer comes across remains that turn out to be WT and he really did just wander off, maybe earlier and much quicker than what anyone has given him credit for, and he's succumbed to injury or dehydration or exposure in an area they didn't search for whatever reason. I still think that's possible.

 

[JLZ]

I guess I agree with her in a way, I just don't see anyone else with vested interests in the Tyrrell children (I'm not convinced William was the real or only target).

That's something I hadn't considered. It probably wouldn't be the first time a hired abductor got the wrong house and the wrong child. I wonder if another child in the area, or connected with the grandmother or her house, could be considered a more plausible target.

 

[Eloise]

I was just thinking his sister, tbh. But for whatever reason it was only WT they could grab and figured he was good enough. However mistaken identity could be a factor. There are apparently plenty of other kids on the street.

 

[louisepiglet]

I think six degrees of separation plays a big part in this case.