Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #25

[sosocurious]

it seems there was an almost immediate lockdown of information released, so was it immediately declared a crime scene, obviously not just a little boy lost in the bush? there were specialist police and crew there within a day or two, while all the searches were being done

It does seem there was an immediate lock down of information. I understand the foster care aspect but the cars across the road.
Then there was that first photo released of William. So many beautiful photos of him and the first was one of him with a bruised eye and cheek. odd

Port News 12 Sept 2014
Fri, 1.50pm: POLICE have established a mobile command outside the Kendall home of a missing three-year-old boy as the search for the toddler intensifies.
Police are grateful for offers of volunteer manpower but have asked the public to remain clear of the area so the search team can conduct a thorough sweep of the area.

Port News 13 sept 2014
Police have said that, while it is possible William Tyrell was abducted, they are treating the investigation as a search for a lost little boy.
Inspector Kerrie Brill said in this kind of investigation "anything is a possibility, we don't rule anything out."

http://www.portnews.com.au/story/2557201/missing-child-search-for-william-tyrell-continues/
http://www.portnews.com.au/story/2555404/child-missing-at-kendall/

 

[Eloise]

So many beautiful photos of him and the first was one of him with a bruised eye and cheek. odd

IIRC that was just the very first one they had at hand, and the bruising was from a preschool incident. Something not worthy of anyone from William's families of lying about, given the preschool would have kept incident reports for such an injury, my children had incident reports about injuries received that never left a mark. Child care workers take their reporting responsibilities seriously and I'd imagine even more so with a child who was a ward of the state.

 

[Eloise]

Does anyone here regularly delete their phone records? Why?
1) I have no reason
2) I've got nothing to hide.

"Police seized his telephone records and those of William’s grandmother as they have checked his statement that he had a missed call from the grandmother that morning and tried to call back but could not get through.

A friend of Mr Spedding’s said yesterday that police had questioned Mr Spedding about “why the phone calls were no longer in the call log on his mobile phone.”

A friend? Would that be Ol' Bucketmouth Col?

Originally Posted by Angeline
02/10/2015
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rrell-3-Kendall-NSW-12-Sept-2014-5&p=11478231

It's always Col

Apart from the dubious morals of it, a lot of people would delete their logs to hide infidelity or behaviour that might look to a spouse to be sus, and infidelity isn't illegal. Still not something someone would want to splash around nonetheless. ???

If you were planning some kind of surprise for someone, you might delete for that reason too. I think you can even set your phone to just not keep logs at all. If you wipe your phone to factory settings it would get rid of it then too, and I would say most phone wipes are done for innocent reasons, like your phone not running well.


Of course if you were doing it to hide illegal activities, it's pretty pointless given police can just get records from telcos directly, and you'd have to be a right doofus to not realise that, wouldn't you? :thinking::waitasec:

 

[sosocurious]

IIRC that was just the very first one they had at hand, and the bruising was from a preschool incident. Something not worthy of anyone from William's families of lying about, given the preschool would have kept incident reports for such an injury, my children had incident reports about injuries received that never left a mark. Child care workers take their reporting responsibilities seriously and I'd imagine even more so with a child who was a ward of the state.

BBM
I was not suggesting any lies from family and I agree with all you said.
I just thought it odd that would be the first one they were able to lay their hands on.
jmo

 

[Wexford]

Maybe frog.
Just thinking outside the square for a bit.

Among those statements was the one from Mr Spedding. Detectives allegedly found some inconsistencies in what he told them, which led them to the surprise raids on the tradesman’s former first-floor pawnbroking office in Laurieton and his Bonny Hills home last week.
“What he said did not add up because people he named did not remember seeing him,” a source alleged..............

Police seized his telephone records and those of William’s grandmother as they have checked his statement that he had a missed call from the grandmother that morning and tried to call back but could not get through.
A friend of Mr Spedding’s said yesterday that police had questioned Mr Spedding about “why the phone calls were no longer in the call log on his mobile phone.”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...l/news-story/a92dc8eaef8d7a48f25e7673fd7f2cf1


What if BS said he made the calls in his statement.
They were not in the phone log during the interview soon after William disappeared. His friend said he was question as to why the calls were no longer in his log. Maybe they never were.

Records checked ..... hmmm :liar: No phone calls to nana in records and the people he named did not remember seeing him.

Maybe the phone records flushed enough out to warrant a search of his offices home and cars.

I just keep thinking those cars were kept very secret for a long time. That strategy was developed at pace it would seem.
imo

The mystery cars info one year later has never sat well with me...especially after hearing the triple 0 call where the FM is specifically asked if there were any suspicious vehicles. I get that the police said that info was not released until a year later for 'tactical reasons'....but I don't get why it was not even mentioned when asked in the triple 0 call. Did she forget? Possibly under the circumstances....but not for a whole year. I am not sure what is at play here with these cars but something is definitely awry in my book.

 

[bearbear]

The mystery cars info one year later has never sat well with me...especially after hearing the triple 0 call where the FM is specifically asked if there were any suspicious vehicles. I get that the police said that info was not released until a year later for 'tactical reasons'....but I don't get why it was not even mentioned when asked in the triple 0 call. Did she forget? Possibly under the circumstances....but not for a whole year. I am not sure what is at play here with these cars but something is definitely awry in my book.

maybe the triple 0 call was reworked for public release? for strategy, like everything else?

 

[purpleandgreen]

Maybe it was to cover up a call that was NEVER made.

It's always Col

Apart from the dubious morals of it, a lot of people would delete their logs to hide infidelity or behaviour that might look to a spouse to be sus, and infidelity isn't illegal. Still not something someone would want to splash around nonetheless. ???

If you were planning some kind of surprise for someone, you might delete for that reason too. I think you can even set your phone to just not keep logs at all. If you wipe your phone to factory settings it would get rid of it then too, and I would say most phone wipes are done for innocent reasons, like your phone not running well.


Of course if you were doing it to hide illegal activities, it's pretty pointless given police can just get records from telcos directly, and you'd have to be a right doofus to not realise that, wouldn't you? :thinking::waitasec:

 

[sosocurious]

https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....ts#/detail/20150011963915491461Trial/spedding
https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....ts#/detail/20150011963915491492Trial/spedding

BS - trial 17th and 24 Feb

 

[sosocurious]

https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....0001631415490233MentionDCAppeal/derek nichols

DN - Port - 6 March

 

[sosocurious]

I received an e-mail this morning from Sarah Crawford from the Daily Telegraph. She wrote,"The Judge has suppressed this entire case during the pre-trial hearing The media has had lawyers trying to fight the suppression. The judge said she will revisit the suppression order on February 20 when the trial proper is expected to start. Our lawyers will be there again for that." Kind of her to reply and give us the heads up.

How long does a pre-trial last. No court on the 20 Feb it seems. Maybe something on the 24th.
Though, PB is in court at Port Mac on the 20th

It is so frustrating all these court cases happening and nothing...zip in the media.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It's always Col

Apart from the dubious morals of it, a lot of people would delete their logs to hide infidelity or behaviour that might look to a spouse to be sus, and infidelity isn't illegal. Still not something someone would want to splash around nonetheless. ???

If you were planning some kind of surprise for someone, you might delete for that reason too. I think you can even set your phone to just not keep logs at all. If you wipe your phone to factory settings it would get rid of it then too, and I would say most phone wipes are done for innocent reasons, like your phone not running well.


Of course if you were doing it to hide illegal activities, it's pretty pointless given police can just get records from telcos directly, and you'd have to be a right doofus to not realise that, wouldn't you? :thinking::waitasec:

Maybe lovely Margaret shouldn't see because BS said/planned "surprised" to say: Oh, I b-e-l-i-e-v-e (ha!) I had been at this house in Benaroon Dr. (or similar wording).
A washing machine repair man has to know his customers and doesn't have "to believe" and 2. he hasn't to delete a part of his normal business operation (IF it has been such). IMO

 

[they'll get you]

https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....ts#/detail/20150011963915491461Trial/spedding
https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....ts#/detail/20150011963915491492Trial/spedding

BS - trial 17th and 24 Feb

Imagine what MS is learning about 'dear old hubby' during this trial.

If she already knew his past how could she have foster kids stay under the same roof?

If she didn't know, jeez she's getting some sinister education about him now!

It SHOULD be interesting conversation in the motel room each night or would she dare further quiz him.

She MUST be in denial otherwise how could she!

 

[sosocurious]

Imagine what MS is learning about 'dear old hubby' during this trial.

If she already knew his past how could she have foster kids stay under the same roof?

If she didn't know, jeez she's getting some sinister education about him now!

It SHOULD be interesting conversation in the motel room each night or would she dare further quiz him.

She MUST be in denial otherwise how could she!

Imagine!!
They allege his wife Margaret contacted one of the alleged victims by text shortly after he was arrested and said: “It really saddens me you’re involved in this.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/6af1e4e9dfe5cc917e88dfe3d6f66702

 

[bearbear]

ms has probably always known what her husbands 'hobbies' are and turned a blind eye, otherwise shes been fed a lot of bs and chosen to believe it,
she felt the need a ask a psychic if bs was guilty

 

[Eloise]

BBM
I was not suggesting any lies from family and I agree with all you said.
I just thought it odd that would be the first one they were able to lay their hands on.
jmo

It certainly made chins wag on Facebook at the time and was seen as sus.
I wonder if it took them a couple days to get the Spiderman outfit photo we all know so well out to the public because police were assessing its validity and authenticity.

 

[ozazure]

I think the call log not confirming his statements, nor matching the phone records, would have been the inconsistency. Rather than those call having taken place and him wiping the phone, the calls never existed but he thought he could lie about unanswered calls in both directions.

He knew he was expected and he needed to distance himself from going there, so made up a lie about why he didn't go, even though he went there and kidnapped William in all likelihood.

 

[bearbear]

and more bs distancing by casually mentioning 'he may have been at that house' when it was on the news on tv, if you have nothing to hide surely your reaction would be to acknowledge your being there?

 

[Wexford]

It occurs to me that there are probably other things on some people's phones that they would wipe apart from call logs if they thought they were to be investigated.

 

[sosocurious]

and more bs distancing by casually mentioning 'he may have been at that house' when it was on the news on tv, if you have nothing to hide surely your reaction would be to acknowledge your being there?

As you say bear. It seems a more normal reply if you had nothing to hide. Would be "shute" I was there the other day looking at the washer and I had a message from them today about when I was returning to fix it.

I wish we knew what time that message was left on BS phone.

 

[sosocurious]

It occurs to me that there are probably other things on some people's phones that they would wipe apart from call logs if they thought they were to be investigated.

Yes indeed Wexford.
Links and contacts come to mind.