Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #23

[Makara]

This seems like a simple question/answer, however imo it is an unfair one, since a negative 'answer' does not prove that BS was NOT in attendance. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the whole 'BS' thing came about in January, which was some 4 months after the fact.

How many people can think back to know which other parents they noticed exactly at a school event 4 months in the past? Unless someone perhaps spoke specifically to him, or specifically recalls having seen him, BS is SOL, but it doesn't prove he was lying about having attended. Conversely, if someone DOES recall seeing him there, how can they even be sure that it was at *that* particular school event, as opposed to perhaps a different one on a different date? Teachers and school officials would have seen many many parents,and students at that function; other parents would be focused on their own prodigies, and perhaps friends of their own kids, and perhaps parents of friends of their own kids, etc. Unless BS made some kind of spectacle of himself at the school that day, I can't see how it could be relied upon if he didn't happen to be remembered by anyone. moo.

Mr Spedding said he then went to Cafe Buzz, 50m from his office in Bold St, Laurieton, where he had a coffee with his wife. The friend said Mr Spedding said he had paid for the coffees via EFTPOS and had obtained a bank *statement with the transaction recorded.

Mr Spedding has told police he then walked with his wife across the road to Laurieton Public School to attend a school assembly in which one of his grandchildren got an award.

It is understood Mr Spedding has asked a woman who was taking photographs at the assembly for a copy of the pictures.

Read full article here.

BBM:

 

[deugirtni]

Mr Spedding said he then went to Cafe Buzz, 50m from his office in Bold St, Laurieton, where he had a coffee with his wife. The friend said Mr Spedding said he had paid for the coffees via EFTPOS and had obtained a bank *statement with the transaction recorded.

Mr Spedding has told police he then walked with his wife across the road to Laurieton Public School to attend a school assembly in which one of his grandchildren got an award.

It is understood Mr Spedding has asked a woman who was taking photographs at the assembly for a copy of the pictures.

Read full article here.

BBM:

It is understood Mr Spedding has asked a woman who was taking photographs at the assembly for a copy of the pictures.

If that is even accurate information, it is possible that the woman who was taking photos at the assembly did not happen to take any which show BS in them, so if he happens to be in any of them, he is in luck and can prove something, but if he happens to NOT be in any of them, it doesn't prove that he wasn't there, does it?

 

[gregjrichards]

To me, a POI is simply a 'person of interest', a person who may have something to shed light on a case, and is not a 'suspect'. There are many POIs, and I don't believe that many of them can be 'cleared' until such time as this case is 'solved' and details are known. Up until then, unless each POI has an ironclad alibi, how could any of them really have been 'cleared'? And as such, I'm not certain how police were able to so quickly clear WT's entire family/extended family, since LE simply doesn't yet know to this day what happened to poor little WT. LE has forensically examined at least 3 of BS's vehicles, his home, his property, his septic tank, his place of business, items removed from his place of business, and surely if they had found evidence of WT having been physically present at any of those places, BS would have been charged by now. But yet he hasn't been. Unfortunately BS (and all of the rest, named and unnamed) will be POIs until we know what really did happen. I am assuming that is why LE doesn't freely name all of the POIs in any given case. moo.

Thanks for this post. There was a person of interest in the Jacob Wetterling case for years that many were convinced had done it and it became apparent he was wrongly accused. I'm not saying B.S is innocent of any involvement in what has happened to William I'm just saying I need more evidence to entirely convict him. The crimes he is currently being prosecuted for not related to William are horrific.

 

[Makara]

Thank you Makara; so basically alllllll of these suspect vehicles were made no mention of until one year after the fact? And then they all were disclosed in one news article/police press conference? But aside from the two that FM says she saw, even though at the time of her 000 call, she said she *didn't* see any vehicles, where did the info come from from those other vehicles? It's a secret? If police knew about all of these potentially suspect vehicles at the time, then wouldn't it have made so much sense for them to have reported these vehicles so that the public could jog their memories closer to the time when they could have actually seen them? Totally doesn't make sense, imho.

BBM: That's correct. When asked about the new information re the cars, Gary Jubelin stated that it was strategic on the part of the investigators to release that information 12 months on. So what would be the strategy to release that information after 12 months? The only thing I can think of is that the police may have thought they had an ace up their sleeve and didn't want to reveal anything about the vehicles to MSM so that they were not ditched, scrapped etc. After 12 months of no headway the information about the cars has now been thrown to the public in the hope that more information will be forthcoming.

 

[Makara]

[/B]If that is even accurate information, it is possible that the woman who was taking photos at the assembly did not happen to take any which show BS in them, so if he happens to be in any of them, he is in luck and can prove something, but if he happens to NOT be in any of them, it doesn't prove that he wasn't there, does it?

Absolutely but I'm sure that the police have questioned the grandchildren, teachers etc. in regard to BS's attendance at the school that day. Nothing at all has been mentioned by police or in MSM, or on SM for that matter, that BS was or wasn't there.

 

[Makara]

William Tyrrell’s family speak about their unbearable grief at losing their little boy
SEPTEMBER 7, 2015 4:02PM

He went missing midmorning, about 10:30am.

“We were in nan’s backyard, waiting for dad,” the mother said.
“I was holding him up, saying, ‘do you want to a climb a tree’, and he was like, ‘no, mummy, that’s too high’.

“He was chasing me and I’m chasing him and he’s giggling his head off, and then we were playing ‘Mummy monsters’, and I was doing the whole ‘rargh’ thing, and so he’s chasing me he’s giggling his head off. And, you know, I’m chasing him,” mum recalled, inhaling sharply.

She then took that infamous photo, where little William, dressed in his favourite Spiderman costume, was on all-fours, opened mouth and “roaring”.

“He was caught mid roar,” mum recalled, a hint of a smile in her voice.
But it was shortly after that disaster struck.

“He was playing on the grass, just around to the right,” William’s mum said.
“And then what he did was he went ‘Rargh!’. He was roaring. I could still hear him. And then … nothing. He just vanished.”

She raced around the garden for about 15 minutes, then turned to her mother — William’s grandmother — and said: “He’s not there. And she said, what do you mean he’s not there? And I said, ‘he’s disappeared; he’s not there’”.

And then came the realisation that something was very, very wrong.

Read full article here.

 

[Makara]

TWO cars, one a white station wagon and the other an older, greyish sedan, were parked between two driveways — acre lots — near William Tyrrell’s house on the morning of Friday, September 12, 2014.
They were unknown in the small suburb of Kendall, NSW, where the road is a dead end and the locals are friends.
They were parked strangely, and they have never been seen since the time little William vanished in the blink of an eye: a three-year-old little boy, playing in the back yard of his grandmother’s home, one minute there, the next, gone.

Read full article here.

BBM:

 

[ParaK]

If police have worked out who the vehicles belong to, have waited for these people to come forward and they havent, then that would make them POI if not suspects. That could be the reason to not release the info because they already knew the info. Not coming forward to say "yeah thats my car" makes them pretty suspect I would have thought. The cars seem important due to police using strategy to not release details until much later. FM stating cars were there before he went missing but when they were searching they weren't there. Even if she only remembered that night she specifically states they were there before William vanished and not there during the search or since......

 

[frogwell]

The announcement about all 4 cars, I think 1st came up in the 60 minutes special on the case in September 2015. There FM said she saw the 2 cars parked across the road when she opened the curtains 1st thing in the morning and noticed them still in the same spot at about 9.30 still in the same spot when she was encouraging WT to climb trees in the backyard. A car was noticed, I assume by the parents doing a U-turn at the dead end of the street at 9, while the kids were playing on their bikes on the driveway. The FM said she only remembered the cars parked across the road, the 1st evening that WT had disappeared. She had returned from the air-port after picking up her sister and saw a police car parked where those cars had been and it jogged her memory. The police had set up like a command centre down near the road in the FGM's backyard. She raced down there and told them what she remembered.

I've always been interested in the air-port pick up. I would love to know who went, and where the air port was. I always assumed Port Macquarie as it's probably the closest, bigger town centre around that area if I'm not mistaken. A spider-man suit was found in a bin the next day in a park at Port Macquarie but was quickly ascertained it was not WT's. This is when Fehon was running the case and a good number of people and things were cleared very quickly.

 

[JLZ]

No Froggy, I don't think that was the case. I'm just working on times that have already been mentioned in MSM.

• Children riding their bikes on the driveway at about 9:00am.
• Two cars seen in Benaroon Drive at about 9:30am.
• Car driving up Benaroon Drive and doing at U-turn about about 9:30am.
• Photo taken of William between 9:30am - 10:30am. (Exact time has never been given).
• William's father leaves for Lakewood shortly after 9:30am.
• Judy Wilson leaves her home at 9:30am.

It's just my opinion that William's mother was confused about the time she last saw William and it was not as late as 10:25am as has been reported.

If William was just getting into his Spiderman suit as his father was leaving at 9:30, were the children wearing pyjamas when they were playing on their bikes? Possible, but a little odd, and chilly.

 

[The Dark Shadow]

Sorry if these replies are a bit disjointed and don't address everything - I am trying to get my little ones to bed .

That was a great post Dark Shadow, your points make a lot of sense to me. I guess my real problem is the status of the term, person of interest. As I have read in other articles, it is really a term that is ambiguous and yet it can be abused and carry as much weight as the word suspect without having to have provided any evidence. I can't stand to see the justice system and civil rights abused with the backing of some media and certain sections of the public, because they really think they have the right person. I can certainly understand that behaviour being a human being myself, but it denies natural justice. If he is found guilty, then would it have really hurt the police to respect his rights for 2-3 years knowing he will be going away for the rest of his life? If he isn't found guilty, the way this has been treated, many will not treat him as an innocent man for the rest of his life. I don't think any amount of compensation could make up for that. Often mistakes aren't made, but they do happen. I thought our rights and laws protected us from the rare mistake. MOO

Thanks Froggie . I agree that the way things work isn't really fair for POIs who are innocent. I honestly believe it's the media - not the police - who have jammed BS into the spotlight; however, I feel the fact that the police have allowed it speaks volumes about what they think too.

I have heard of people having their lives ruined due to false abuse allegations. It's horrible and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but I have also seen the community rally around these same people when the truth comes out and their innocence becomes clear. It's a tough one because there's no doubt that somebody abused those poor girls and it looks like JH may have been detained at the time, so it's so much more difficult for the public to think impartially as there's quite a lot to be suspicious about. That's just the way the cookie crumbles, unfortunately.

To me, a POI is simply a 'person of interest', a person who may have something to shed light on a case, and is not a 'suspect'. There are many POIs, and I don't believe that many of them can be 'cleared' until such time as this case is 'solved' and details are known. Up until then, unless each POI has an ironclad alibi, how could any of them really have been 'cleared'? And as such, I'm not certain how police were able to so quickly clear WT's entire family/extended family, since LE simply doesn't yet know to this day what happened to poor little WT. LE has forensically examined at least 3 of BS's vehicles, his home, his property, his septic tank, his place of business, items removed from his place of business, and surely if they had found evidence of WT having been physically present at any of those places, BS would have been charged by now. But yet he hasn't been. Unfortunately BS (and all of the rest, named and unnamed) will be POIs until we know what really did happen. I am assuming that is why LE doesn't freely name all of the POIs in any given case. moo.

Thanks deugirtni and you're 100% correct. A POI refers to a person who has been linked to a crime - perhaps because they were in the area at the time the crime was committed, or had some connection to the people involved in the crime or linked in some other way - and who has not yet been cleared. You're also right that it's very difficult to completely clear a person of a crime before it's completely solved, but you need to remember too that (right or wrong) police will often use their instincts and common sense to dismiss or concentrate their attention somewhere.

So for instance, if there's a bag snatch and the victim doesn't know who the perp was, but they know it was somebody in the same room at the time the crime was committed and the bag was snatched with a lot of force. If there are three POIs in the room and one of those is a frail, arthritic 90-year-old grandma in a wheelchair, the police would probably be less likely to concentrate their efforts on this particular POI. Of course, perhaps this little old granny is a bag snatcher, but the chances of that are reduced due to research showing that people in their 90s are much less likely to commit a bag snatch than their younger counterparts.

The same applies to other crimes. There may be a large number of POIs, but many are all but excluded based on common sense (backed by research), experience and good old fashioned gut instinct.

In regards to what you said about the extent that BS has been investigated - if they've gone to that length and still haven't been able to clear him, then they should probably keep looking ;-).



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Warshawski]

Frogwells house :dance:

Ha ha ha Crabby and I do believe, for sanity's sake, it is important to try to maintain a sense of humour no matter the trials we face..thank you.

 

[kiwi50]

This seems like a simple question/answer, however imo it is an unfair one, since a negative 'answer' does not prove that BS was NOT in attendance. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the whole 'BS' thing came about in January, which was some 4 months after the fact.

How many people can think back to know which other parents they noticed exactly at a school event 4 months in the past? Unless someone perhaps spoke specifically to him, or specifically recalls having seen him, BS is SOL, but it doesn't prove he was lying about having attended. Conversely, if someone DOES recall seeing him there, how can they even be sure that it was at *that* particular school event, as opposed to perhaps a different one on a different date? Teachers and school officials would have seen many many parents,and students at that function; other parents would be focused on their own prodigies, and perhaps friends of their own kids, and perhaps parents of friends of their own kids, etc. Unless BS made some kind of spectacle of himself at the school that day, I can't see how it could be relied upon if he didn't happen to be remembered by anyone. moo.

I don't think it's a difficult thing to prove at all, it was such a significant day I'm sure for everyone who lived in the towns, recall exactly where they were and what they were doing when William went missing.
I'm sure everyone thought long and hard about who sat next to them that day, and tried their best to recall if they saw bs.
The police are sure to have an entire floor plan of who sat next to whom.
Sure if it was just an ordinary nondescript day where nothing unusual whatsoever happened, it may be harder, but this day was huge in most parents lives who lived in the town.
If BS remembers the lady taking photos, he must remember who he sat next to, and talked to.
If all that fails surely one of his grandchildren remembers

 

[koios]

Snipped from a post by lampshade1 on a previous thread
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...12-Sept-2014-7/page32&p=11639912#post11639912

I'm not familiar with Kendall although drainage is generally fairly standard. Minimum pipe size in NSW in a road is typically 375mm diameter concrete pipe.
Given the grandmothers property looks to be at/near the end of the street then the pipe would only be 375mm diamater. My guess is that it (stormwater pipe) continues along Benaroon Drive and is likely still only 375mm diameter in front of the nice manicured lawn, at maximum it would be 450mm diameter. Impossible to say where it goes after that from Google streeview/aerial imagery alone.
The piped stormwater drainage system ends at the intersection of Ellendale Crescent and Benaroon Drive. The pipes will not continue down Benaroon Drive after that. Almost certainly the pipe will then run perpendicular to the road and through the property at the intersection of Ellendale Crescent/Benaroon Drive and discharge (via a headwall - i.e water flows out) to the creek/low lying land beyond.
The only real question with the Benaroon stormwater system is whether the pipe outside the grandmothers house continues down to the Ellendale Crescent intersection and the headwall likely near there. They may be two separate pipe systems (e.g. there may be another headwall just after the 90 degree bend in Benaroon Drive)...

Thankyou lampshade1 for a very good post. I agree that, from the section of Benaroon between the bend and Ellendale, the stormwater pipe(s) do not continue east along Benaroon, but instead go south (under one or more gardens on the south side of Benaroon Dr) emerging at one or more headwalls located to the south of the developed land, to become surface water. I think I have located two of these headwalls on aerial photos and can give you the locations if you are interested. Anything entering the stormwater pipes is presumably likely to be washed through the pipes during heavy precipitation periods, and is presumably likely to accumulate in the wooded land just below the headwalls?

 

[richieswan]

Ha ha ha Crabby and I do believe, for sanity's sake, it is important to try to maintain a sense of humour no matter the trials we face..thank you.

Crabby wasn't joking. We've been there. It's Froggy's house.

 

[frogwell]

Crabby wasn't joking. We've been there. It's Froggy's house.

What? Don't all your houses look like mine?

 

[koios]

Just in case anyone is interested in looking at the case in GA, I won't clog up the thread with details and photos, because you can easily read them in news reports for example
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137886/Boy-saved-tiny-fighter-falling-storm-drain.html
Reportedly the child was sitting on the top slab, put a foot in the opening, stood up, slipped in, fell about 20ft down to the storm drain.
To see the size of the gully as it was before the incident happened, I did some streetview sleuthing, to get this image

 

[Warshawski]

Video link to The Channel 7 report.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/32568769/two-year-anniversary-since-william-tyrrell-abduction/

thanks Makara. I think perhaps Ch 7 dug deep to create a 'viewing draw-card' and capitalised on the impending anniversary. Sadly IMO because this was a nothing in terms of William.
However, this morning they did have Hetty Johnson on (Brave Hearts founder) and she advised that Poloce will be holding a Press Conference on Monday.
She hedged (IMO) and was very careful not to give any direct answers .. To the effect of ... didn't know anything about what the Police might know ...we'll hear from them on Monday.

From my previous knowledge of Hetty, she doesn't pull punches. She has been a massive advocate for Wiilam & his family.
IMO, The fact that she is being very measured in her comments speaks volumes ... Of what, who knows when we will know, but rest assured, the axe will fall.

And doubts about that, just look at where Brett Cowan is now, in all his previous arrogance ..... More hot water than he ever imagined, and I guess it won't stop there.

 

[crabstick]

Richies house

What? Don't all your houses look like mine?

 

[Warshawski]

Hi Makara . Unfortunately, I probably don't have a lot to add that hasn't already been discussed.

My first thought is it's an extremely unique situation and I'm sure anyone who has been a member of WS for a while will recognise this and agree. I personally feel as though a similar situation as happened to Jaycee Lee Dugard (her initial abduction, not her prolonged captivity) has occurred, with William being spotted, then immediately scooped up and driven away, but by a solo male with malevolent intentions. Unlike Jaycee though, nobody spotted William's abduction.

I also don't feel as though anyone 'lured' him - it was just a split-second decision and was a huge risk. Definitely someone who was in the street for legitimate reasons or heard the kids from wherever they were, then saw little William and thought "I'll take that!". If something like this did happen, it would be tragic as it's likely William wouldn't have survived long after his abduction. I hope I am wrong and somebody who knows William has kidnapped him, but I strongly feel that the case would be solved by now if this were the case.

Whoever has done this, I believe he has probably not told a soul and likely never will voluntarily. I think this is the reason there has been no arrest yet, but I think this person will be caught because they will likely think they are smarter than they are and will eventually make a mistake, but I believe it will take a while. I definitely believe the abductor has committed previous crimes against children and may or may not have been caught/convicted before.

It's always extremely difficult (as a criminologist) to follow a case with no inside info, as one of the first things we learn is that the MSM is completely untrustworthy (sorry to those who work in this field) and they have their own agenda. Because of this limited and bias info that we are fed, I do have to say that I could be completely wrong (and as I said, I hope I am) and so this is still MOO .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I just simply had to reply Shadow, as the 'Thanks' button only allows one acknowledgement, and I wanted to wholly embrace your comments . Thank you many times over.

i note your comment of 'voluntarily' in relation to admittance by those responsible / knowledge of ... And whilst I agree, I do not believe there should be any complacency or comfortableness by the perpretator / s. Their day will come ...