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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
they'll get you said:
I’m feeling strangely positive about William.

Are we being prepared for something?
Oh I hope so.

If my wishes come true there will be one hellova nudie run !!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I’ll join you tgy. In training for it now.
 
k-mac said:
nobody can because it hasn't been stated by the police.
that's my problem with the knife throwing around here with spedding.
there is nothing solid that has been released on him.
I can not take what gets printed by journalists as fact.
most of the time they are wrong and barking up the wrong tree.
for example today I have seen reports by channels seven and nine conflicting stories about the little girl killed by the dog.
one reckons she was bitten by the family dog another reckons she was out in the pram walking with her mum attacked by a loose dog.????
huge discrepancy within "reputable" sources.
the early reports about spedding I think including the original alibi can be taken with a grain of salt.
jmho

added later. I know how much everyone wants it to be him.
but you can throw mud..... doesn't make it stick .
there has to be much more on him that we don't know or the case is in big big trouble.
Click to expand...

Knife throwing? Because we have opinions over a major POI who was stated, by the police, as being due there that morning? Who has not been cleared? Who has had every part of his properties ripped apart? Who then was still not cleared? Because you do not take MSM reports as any kind of facts?

It is not that I want it to be him. It is that, to me, he is the most probable, most likely, perpetrator in this picture. I am entitled to that opinion, as you are entitled to yours. But I try to refrain from adding personal put-downs to my comments.
 
Bohemian said:
I’ll join you tgy. In training for it now.
Click to expand...

What? Are you really in training for a nudie run? Where are you training, I gotta see that!

Can you really imagine them finding William safe and well?
O.M.G!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
SouthAussie said:
Knife throwing? Because we have opinions over a major POI who was stated, by the police, as being due there that morning? Who has not been cleared? Who has had every part of his properties ripped apart? Who then was still not cleared? Because you do not take MSM reports as any kind of facts?

It is not that I want it to be him. It is that, to me, he is the most probable, most likely, perpetrator in this picture. I am entitled to that opinion, as you are entitled to yours. But I try to refrain from adding personal put-downs to my comments.
Click to expand...


I agree, don’t attack our best!!

How many times do we see the person last to see the victim ALIVE is the culprit. It’s the way coppers work, so IF Spedding did turn up to fix that machine and he saw William....if quacks like a duck....

Articles written by MSM usually have to get the item passed by the editor and the legal department. Newspapers don’t want to get sued.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Credulious said:
I see a very big difference between a girl and a dog, and the defamatory comment of a POI in an alleged pedophile charge.

One is an early reporting error or guess, the other proscribed potential slander and defamation of an innocent man.

Surely a journo runs the sub-justice slander of an innocent man past the lawyers before publishing in a pedophile case?
Click to expand...

Of course they do. An important fact which some people here do not apply to their MSM reading. An error is one thing, mud-slinging is another.

For example, Sydney Morning Herald were cleared of breaching any privacy infringements in the reporting of this case. MSM lawyers are very in tune as to what can be published and what cannot be published, and maintaining some kind of balance.



"After receiving a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether such prominent treatment focusing on a single "person of interest" had breached the Standards of Practice relating to privacy and fairness, as Mr Spedding had not been arrested or charged and police said at the time it was "not a major breakthrough", "no person had been charged" and "a number of persons had been spoken to as part of this phase of the investigation".

Council is of the view that more prominence could have been given to police comments that Mr Spedding was only a "person of interest". However, the inclusion of comments in support of Mr Spedding contributed to the articles' overall fairness and balance.
Accordingly, Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached."

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/press-council-adjudication-20150805-gis5br.html
 
SouthAussie said:
Of course they do. An important fact which some people here do not apply to their MSM reading. An error is one thing, mud-slinging is another.

For example, Sydney Morning Herald were cleared of breaching any privacy infringements in the reporting of this case. MSM lawyers are very in tune as to what can be published and what cannot be published, and maintaining some kind of balance.



"After receiving a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether such prominent treatment focusing on a single "person of interest" had breached the Standards of Practice relating to privacy and fairness, as Mr Spedding had not been arrested or charged and police said at the time it was "not a major breakthrough", "no person had been charged" and "a number of persons had been spoken to as part of this phase of the investigation".

Council is of the view that more prominence could have been given to police comments that Mr Spedding was only a "person of interest". However, the inclusion of comments in support of Mr Spedding contributed to the articles' overall fairness and balance.
Accordingly, Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached."

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/press-council-adjudication-20150805-gis5br.html
Click to expand...

great minds...
 
Ahh of course! For a moment there I got my hopes up.

Yes, she didn't make that comment for no reason, did she? If only we knew the back story.

SouthAussie said:
I think Credulious is referring to a comment attributed to foster mum at one early point.
Click to expand...
 
forgive me..... knife throwing was harsh!
was abit abrasive trying to be clear in my point. so forgive me for poor choice of words.
he just gets way too much credit for my liking. it concerns me.
I value all opinions and effort put in here.
usually its bounced around alternative thinking positively .
we are all here for William after all.


lets leave my point as not everything reported is always objective and true.
and that's my opinion.
 
i do have a question pertaining to tonights interview with biomother.
she is putting herself out there as a public figure so...if she incriminates herself ....family......foster family etc are we still not allowed to discuss any of them??

because tos states they have all been cleared and we are not allowed to discuss them?
 
k-mac said:
i do have a question pertaining to tonights interview with biomother.
she is putting herself out there as a public figure so...if she incriminates herself ....family......foster family etc are we still not allowed to discuss any of them??

because tos states they have all been cleared and we are not allowed to discuss them?
Click to expand...

Anything that is reported in msn - I think.
 
k-mac said:
i do have a question pertaining to tonights interview with biomother.
she is putting herself out there as a public figure so...if she incriminates herself ....family......foster family etc are we still not allowed to discuss any of them??

because tos states they have all been cleared and we are not allowed to discuss them?
Click to expand...

Oh forgot about that tonight. Thanks for reminder !
 
I don’t think tonight’s interview is going to shed any light on this case in anyway. Maybe it will humanise Karlie as a real person not one we only read about and maybe that’s the agenda. I don’t hold out any hope for any light bulb moments though.
 
From the clip it would seem that she's going to apportion blame somewhere, but we know that editing for previews really means nothing. I just hope she's not gunning for the FP, who loved and nurtured her children for her. It will depend on what sort of leading questions are asked. And good old editing, of course.

And I agree with likely no light bulb moments, probably food for just the same discussions. BUT, what it is does do is keep William in the spotlight, and that's very important. Let's hope it triggers someone's conscience.


Hbayne said:
I don’t think tonight’s interview is going to shed any light on this case in anyway. Maybe it will humanise Karlie as a real person not one we only read about and maybe that’s the agenda. I don’t hold out any hope for any light bulb moments though.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone have a link to watch tonights show online?
 
I wonder if they will ask her if she was acquainted with Margaret Speddings grandson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 653 (members: 209, guests: 444)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
444
Total visitors
653
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,062
Messages
18,233,945
Members
234,277
Latest member
tomdavona
Back
Top