Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #32

[Innerchild]

Whi
le this is in talking about a sexual assault, I am assuming it would be the same no matter what the crime or suspected crime. NSW
When someone is suspected of committing a sexual assault, they may be asked to attend an interview, or may be arrested and taken to a police station. They are then called a "person of interest". The person of interest may then be questioned and, if there is enough evidence, they will be charged..............After a person has been charged, ............. they are now called the 'accused', http://www.victimsservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/sexualassault/Pages/sexual_assault_investigation.aspx

I'm not sure if that information is relevant and clearly defines the difference between a suspect and person of interest. This might be better,

A suspect is someone whom police believe may actually have committed a crime being investigated.

A person of interest is someone police want to talk to for information about the case. Sometimes a person of interest ends up becoming a suspect, but that is not always the case. A person of interest is not always suspected of having committed a crime.
[FONT=&quot]The difference between the two terms is so stark that, if reporters confuse them in a story, they may be setting themselves up for a lawsuit. This may also be damaging to a case if a person of interest becomes hesitant about talking to the police for fear of being labeled publicly as a suspect.

https://legaldictionary.net/person-of-interest/

[/FONT]

 

[Innerchild]

A professional photograph with a camera instead of a phone is a different situation. The head of the person taking the photo is behind the camera.

Yesss that's my point. Often the professional photos do not have the child looking down the lens of the camera, they have them distracted by someone to the side where the young person looks.

FM said she was crouching down to take the photo and William wasn't looking at her holding the camera. FGM was sitting on her chair to the side and he wasn't looking at her either.

 

[sosocurious]

I'm not sure if that information is relevant and clearly defines the difference between a suspect and person of interest. This might be better,

A suspect is someone whom police believe may actually have committed a crime being investigated.

A person of interest is someone police want to talk to for information about the case. Sometimes a person of interest ends up becoming a suspect, but that is not always the case. A person of interest is not always suspected of having committed a crime.
[FONT="]The difference between the two terms is so stark that, if reporters confuse them in a story, they may be setting themselves up for a lawsuit. This may also be damaging to a case if a person of interest becomes hesitant about talking to the police for fear of being labeled publicly as a suspect.

https://legaldictionary.net/person-of-interest/

[/FONT]

OK, so person of interest it is ... BS did say in his one and only interview he was a person of interest, as I recall.
He never mentioned not being a person of interest - in his self made u tube video.

Though, your link is American. I think.

 

[purpleandgreen]

And who do you think he was looking at?

And why do you want someone else to be there?

And what are you implying?

The foster mother said she crouched down to take the photo, not was standing up and holding the camera down near her feet. I've had a lot to do with taking and analysing photos and high speed film, frame by frame.

Any child not quite 3 and a quarter getting a professional photo for example is distracted by another person, or someone holding something, to make them smile, put on a face or to look at them. Otherwise they look directly at the camera unless they are caught unaware. There is not doubt in my opinion and from my experience that there was another person that William was impressing with his roar, in that photo. I also believe it was taken around 9,15 after reading through richie's analysis.

Yesss that's my point. Often the professional photos do not have the child looking down the lens of the camera, they have them distracted by someone to the side where the young person looks.

FM said she was crouching down to take the photo and William wasn't looking at her holding the camera. FGM was sitting on her chair to the side and he wasn't looking at her either.

 

[Violet77]

Yesss that's my point. Often the professional photos do not have the child looking down the lens of the camera, they have them distracted by someone to the side where the young person looks.

FM said she was crouching down to take the photo and William wasn't looking at her holding the camera. FGM was sitting on her chair to the side and he wasn't looking at her either.

You still haven't addressed the fact that he may have been distracted by something being help up to catch his attention?

So what do you believe then, that the FM has not told the truth about who was present on the day, or that the police have not been truthful in reporting on who was present on the day?
If either is the case, then we are back at square one with every piece of information released then, as nothing can be deemed verified if they can lie or mislead about one detail.

 

[JLZ]

Yesss that's my point. Often the professional photos do not have the child looking down the lens of the camera, they have them distracted by someone to the side where the young person looks.

FM said she was crouching down to take the photo and William wasn't looking at her holding the camera. FGM was sitting on her chair to the side and he wasn't looking at her either.

What FM said was that William was looking up at her and also that she crouched down.

Though, actually, looking back at the transcript, she didn't say both those were happening at the same time. "He was actually looking up at me and I sort of crouched down in a really weird position to take a photo. . . ." That could mean he was looking up at her and so then she crouched down to take the photo.

You still haven't said what follows from this opinion of yours.

 

[sleepinoz]

I'm not sure if that information is relevant and clearly defines the difference between a suspect and person of interest. This might be better,

A suspect is someone whom police believe may actually have committed a crime being investigated.

A person of interest is someone police want to talk to for information about the case. Sometimes a person of interest ends up becoming a suspect, but that is not always the case. A person of interest is not always suspected of having committed a crime.
[FONT=&amp]The difference between the two terms is so stark that, if reporters confuse them in a story, they may be setting themselves up for a lawsuit. This may also be damaging to a case if a person of interest becomes hesitant about talking to the police for fear of being labeled publicly as a suspect.

https://legaldictionary.net/person-of-interest/

[/FONT]

That's a US definition, which is different to our legal system.

Here is an Australian definition that relates to sexual abuse, which could possibly be the case here.

Definition of a Person of Interest (POI)
A Person of Interest (POI) is someone believed, on reasonable grounds, to either (a) have a Court conviction for an offence against a child of a sexual, pornographic, or violent nature; (b) or to be undergoing a Police investigation for the above; or (c) to have a positive finding for misconduct of a sexual nature involving a minor, as determined by a duly authorised Commission (such as a Health Complaints Commission), Professional-member Registration Body or Association (such as a Teacher Registration Board), or Tribunal.

https://sps.org.au/allegations/report-a-person-of-interest

 

[purpleandgreen]

Hi,

Just wondering if you could give me the links?

I'm really very interested in reading about this as I haven't seen any information regarding it. Sorry to be a nuisance, but you seem so sure I'm just presuming that you have the links close to hand. TIA.

They don't need me to discover anything about the photo that they don't already know. "Human intervention" was involved.

Sorry to be dim, but could you please explain what you mean with links to substantiate? Ta.

And They don't need me to discover anything about the photo that they don't already know.

Just wondering what it is that they know. Again, links would be greatly appreciated, Ta.

 

[Hbayne]

No he would be looking at the person's face or head. Don't know what you are talking about with the elephant, but in every other photo of William (except in one or two, when he didn't know the photo was being taken) he looks directly into the lens.

Have a look at professional photos being taken of children under 3 and a quarter. When they look away from the camera, it is towards a person distracting them IMO.

Apsolute speculation. You cannot possibly say what he would or would not be looking at.

 

[Innerchild]

That's a US definition, which is different to our legal system.

Here is an Australian definition that relates to sexual abuse, which could possibly be the case here.

Definition of a Person of Interest (POI)
A Person of Interest (POI) is someone believed, on reasonable grounds, to either (a) have a Court conviction for an offence against a child of a sexual, pornographic, or violent nature; (b) or to be undergoing a Police investigation for the above; or (c) to have a positive finding for misconduct of a sexual nature involving a minor, as determined by a duly authorised Commission (such as a Health Complaints Commission), Professional-member Registration Body or Association (such as a Teacher Registration Board), or Tribunal.

https://sps.org.au/allegations/report-a-person-of-interest

I realised it was a legal dictionary that gave US examples but it does closely explain the difference here and I did say look at the Rayney case. Again you've completely missed the point and being all toready to attack me (I can read so you do not need to bold text!), I believe your posts are vectatious.

Your link for reporting a poi to the 7th Day Adventist church for a sexual case doesn't address what the difference is at all IMO. Written reports of a Person of Interest can be posted to: SDA Church (AUC) Ltd
Safe Place Services Investigation Coordinator PO Box 650 Wahroonga NSW 2076 Australia

 

[purpleandgreen]

With all due respect, inner, we all bold text to draw attention to the part of the post to which we're referring. No-one is being vexatious IMO, everyone is trying to sort out the difference between a POI and a suspect just to make sure we're all on the same page re Spedding's situation.

I appreciate the time everyone puts into sleuthing and researching to clarify points for us all.

I realised it was a legal dictionary that gave US examples but it does closely explain the difference here and I did say look at the Rayney case. Again you've completely missed the point and being all toready to attack me (I can read so you do not need to bold text!), I believe your posts are vectatious.

Your link for reporting a poi to the 7th Day Adventist church for a sexual case doesn't address what the difference is at all IMO. Written reports of a Person of Interest can be posted to: SDA Church (AUC) Ltd
Safe Place Services Investigation Coordinator PO Box 650 Wahroonga NSW 2076 Australia

 

[Hbayne]

I clearly remember a news report on TV of police saying Gerard Baden Clay was not a suspect in his wife’s disappearance. They knew from the minute they laid eyes on him he was suspect number 1. They are not obliged to tell us the general public this information

 

[Innerchild]

Regarding the photo--I was thinking of that too. I sometimes play at roaring with children. When you roar, the head moves up and also the eyes as the mouth opens; there's an arching of the back or at least the neck.

William has had a large number of photos taken of him and confirms what a happy eager to please child he looks in the photos. Source google images:

Bottom left and second from bottom right photos (in blue) are also taken sitting down and looking up at the photographer.

Bottom fight with the fireman hat on and seat belt he is looking at someone else, not the photographer.

Middle spiderman shows him clearly looking up with the photographer crouching infront of him. You can see his pupils looking to a height that I would estimate of someone standing behind the photographer. All other photos he looks directly at the camera and is looking to please or give a smile. I was trained in analysing photos with angles and forces as would a forensic biomechanist would be aware.

 

[purpleandgreen]

And who do you think he was looking at?

And why do you want someone else to be there?

And what are you implying?

William has had a large number of photos taken of him and confirms what a happy eager to please child he looks in the photos. Source google images:

Bottom left and second from bottom right photos (in blue) are also taken sitting down and looking up at the photographer.

Bottom fight with the fireman hat on and seat belt he is looking at someone else, not the photographer.

Middle spiderman shows him clearly looking up with the photographer crouching infront of him. You can see his pupils looking to a height that I would estimate of someone standing behind the photographer. All other photos he looks directly at the camera and is looking to please or give a smile. I was trained in analysing photos with angles and forces as would a forensic biomechanist would be aware.

 

[Karinna]

I realised it was a legal dictionary that gave US examples but it does closely explain the difference here and I did say look at the Rayney case. Again you've completely missed the point and being all toready to attack me (I can read so you do not need to bold text!), I believe your posts are vectatious.

Your link for reporting a poi to the 7th Day Adventist church for a sexual case doesn't address what the difference is at all IMO. Written reports of a Person of Interest can be posted to: SDA Church (AUC) Ltd
Safe Place Services Investigation Coordinator PO Box 650 Wahroonga NSW 2076 Australia

Hi Innerchild, I have tried to find online info. in Australia regarding the legal definition of POI before, and really couldn't find anything that explains it properly.
I think we can understand the definition exactly how it is worded, a Person of Interest, meaning exactly what it says. A person police are or have been interested in talking with.
I did find an MSM article i posted up a while back that did state Spedding was a POI because of his dealings with FGM at the time just before WT's disappearance.
So from that i think it's pretty self explanatory, IMO.

 

[sleepinoz]

I realised it was a legal dictionary that gave US examples but it does closely explain the difference here and I did say look at the Rayney case. Again you've completely missed the point and being all toready to attack me (I can read so you do not need to bold text!), I believe your posts are vectatious.

Your link for reporting a poi to the 7th Day Adventist church for a sexual case doesn't address what the difference is at all IMO. Written reports of a Person of Interest can be posted to: SDA Church (AUC) Ltd
Safe Place Services Investigation Coordinator PO Box 650 Wahroonga NSW 2076 Australia

I had to look up vectatious as I didn't understand what you were saying. I think you meant vexatious.

I am not missing your point, you have repeated it many many times, even though you change the angle of your attack each time you post so it doesn't seem incorrect.

You have stated that BS was not a suspect - guess what - we all know that because he's a POI. Never has been a suspect but you have been clearing him based on your interpretation and won't accept that later reports state that he still is a POI. He doesn't have a 'receipt', there are no reported witnesses/photos of him at the assembly.

I am not attacking you, your posts have been way off the mark and I have been correcting you.

As we are always reminded by the Mods - attack the post not the poster - which is what I have been doing.

As for my link - it's Australian - it's a legal definition - what more do you want.

If you think I am attacking you or being VEXATIOUS - alert the Mods as I have with your post.

 

[Karinna]

In that photo of WT in his spiderman costume, to me he doesn't look well, very thin and dark circles under his eyes, almost a hollow look to his face IMO. Poor little boy,

 

[Innerchild]

And who do you think he was looking at?

And why do you want someone else to be there?

And what are you implying?

I don't want anyone else to be there at all. I can only assume you are baiting me by saying that.

I am only evaluating evidence that has been released with the experience I have with images.

I am clearly implying that there was someone else there when the photo was taken beside the foster mother and the foster GM and sister. That is my opinion based on my experience in analysing photos.

Maybe the photo was taken earlier than 10.30 am and Richieswan analysis suggests that is exactly the case.

 

[Hbayne]

William has had a large number of photos taken of him and confirms what a happy eager to please child he looks in the photos. Source google images:

Bottom left and second from bottom right photos (in blue) are also taken sitting down and looking up at the photographer.

Bottom fight with the fireman hat on and seat belt he is looking at someone else, not the photographer.

Middle spiderman shows him clearly looking up with the photographer crouching infront of him. You can see his pupils looking to a height that I would estimate of someone standing behind the photographer. All other photos he looks directly at the camera and is looking to please or give a smile. I was trained in analysing photos with angles and forces as would a forensic biomechanist would be aware.

Still means nothing, as I said you could not possibly know what he is or isn’t looking at .

 

[sosocurious]

I realised it was a legal dictionary that gave US examples but it does closely explain the difference here and I did say look at the Rayney case. Again you've completely missed the point and being all toready to attack me (I can read so you do not need to bold text!), I believe your posts are vectatious.

Your link for reporting a poi to the 7th Day Adventist church for a sexual case doesn't address what the difference is at all IMO. Written reports of a Person of Interest can be posted to: SDA Church (AUC) Ltd
Safe Place Services Investigation Coordinator PO Box 650 Wahroonga NSW 2076 Australia

He said one of the reasons was because Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan had, in a radio interview earlier in the day, described Mr Rayney as a "person of interest", when his status was actually "an arrested suspect".

"In my view that was a breach of the Criminal Investigation Act (CIA). That was not Mr Rayney's legal status, and to protect any evidence we obtained it needed to be rectified publicly because that's how the commissioner's statement was made, publicly," he said.

"My belief was Mr Rayney at some stage, would use any breach of the CIA to have any evidence we'd obtained, ruled inadmissible."

Inspector Lee also said he thought it was important to "correct the record and ensure the public were not misled about his status".

"It is essential to tell the truth to the public to preserve police credibility and keep public confidence in the investigation," he said in his written statement.

He said by the time of the media conference he was "firmly of the belief that all other significant persons of interest [in the case] besides Mr Rayney ... had been eliminated from the inquiry".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-...oyd-rayney-as-suspect-starts-evidence/8417974

So what was the issue, really?
That he was named a poi or suspect? Or that he was named as the only suspect?

I never followed the Rayney case