Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #37

[iailwa]

OK i have 3 minutes before i leave - i wonder, cause someone was digging around in the dirt, around that time, would they actually consider the digger? JMO. I'm not sure who that person was... & i believe he was not living close by (but maybe he was - temporarily?). I hate to fathom... it is possibly pure coincidence & i wouldn't (IMO) reckon he is involved - but coincidence leads me to thinking always... or perhaps this is a total stranger (to us)? Rant over. i hope i'm not too outta line here... eek. I wouldn't believe it unless the inquest finds it to be true - in other words - i would find it improbable, would u (anyone reading this). And, rather, someone unknown, living nearby (who knows where the POIS have moved to), maybe of their concern?

OMG, that didn't make much sense - but not intended to. I confused myself!

 

[SouthAussie]

The most recent reporting was that there were 5 suspects being sent on to the coroner. 4 of those are high priority suspects, 1 is a high profile suspect who is also a POI and happens to have been at the house earlier in the week that WT disappeared to repair a washing machine.

I can see why this is confusing. My educated guess is that BS is the high profile suspect as he has been covered in the media a lot. Someone made the guess that he may also be described as a POI as he may not have been cautioned yet by police to be interviewed as a suspect. think this came out just after the Victorian result was made public, so police are keeping maximum pressure on him. The others sound like they have already been cautioned and interviewed as suspects but I have no clue who they are. IMO

Yes, I agree. Spedding is a high priorty POI/suspect. And who the other four are is not clear.

 

[SouthAussie]

It's odd imo that Jubelin won't discuss POI's and yet when a Police media spokesperson is asked a question about a POI, they apparently give an answer.

I don't think that is odd at all. In the long article I posted about police strategy and procedures, it was quite clear that the police media spokesperson is the one who is responsible for media info.

The police media person coordinates with the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and they decide what and when and how info is delivered via the media. It is all done for their own purposes and motivations, and has nothing to do with feeding the publicity machine.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM

Yes it does seem that way, which is why I find it odd there are statements like this one as one example;

'Investigators said this week Mr Spedding remained part of the inquiry but that he “had moved way down the priority list’’.'

the day of or after Jubelins Sept 2017 press conference where he refused to comment on persons of interest.

from this article
View attachment 147561

Things change and progress in an investigation. Most recently it has been established - via the link that frogwell provided above - that Spedding is a current high priority POI/suspect.

 

[Lemony]

BBM

Yes it does seem that way, which is why I find it odd there are statements like this one as one example;

'Investigators said this week Mr Spedding remained part of the inquiry but that he “had moved way down the priority list’’.'

the day of or after Jubelins Sept 2017 press conference where he refused to comment on persons of interest.

from this article
View attachment 147561

If relevant information has come to light since the 3 year anniversary then it’s possible he has moved back up the list.

This reminded me of a report by 7 News during the June search. I can only find the video clip on social media so have transcribed part of it.

"Detectives are re-examing information too. They’ve spoken to locals who returned to the scene to remind them about suspicious behaviour around the time William vanished. The information related to a person of interest who can’t be named for legal reasons”.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2159999267357528

The person of interest referred to in the clip may not be BS though

 

[bearbear]

just wondering, how is someone "made" to talk when questioned at an inquest, if they choose not to, there would be the threat of a prison sentence, but what if they chose that rather than talk?
i would just hate to never find out what happened to little william if someone chose not to talk for whatever reason

 

[SouthAussie]

just wondering, how is someone "made" to talk when questioned at an inquest, if they choose not to, there would be the threat of a prison sentence, but what if they chose that rather than talk?
i would just hate to never find out what happened to little william if someone chose not to talk for whatever reason

I don't know if this helps answer your question, bearbear.


" .... As we have already seen, anyone who refuses to answer questions properly put by a court of law will be in contempt of court.

Anyone committing contempt may be fined or jailed for a fixed period of time. In some cases, that person may be jailed for as long as the judge wishes, generally until they have "purged their contempt". This usually means, in practice, until they have complied with the court order or apologised sincerely to the court and have agreed in future to abide by the court's orders.

The powers which a coroner has are the same as those which a magistrate has at committal proceedings. If the coroner finds at the end of an inquest that the person has been unlawfully killed, and that the evidence suggests it was done by a particular person, the coroner can commit that person to a higher court for trial."

Contempt & court reporting in Australia

 

[Blues Clues]

If relevant information has come to light since the 3 year anniversary then it’s possible he has moved back up the list.

This reminded me of a report by 7 News during the June search. I can only find the video clip on social media so have transcribed part of it.

"Detectives are re-examing information too. They’ve spoken to locals who returned to the scene to remind them about suspicious behaviour around the time William vanished. The information related to a person of interest who can’t be named for legal reasons”.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2159999267357528

The person of interest referred to in the clip may not be BS though

Things change and progress in an investigation. Most recently it has been established - via the link that frogwell provided above - that Spedding is a current high priority POI/suspect.

I agree, things do change and progress, but that is not what my post was about.

I was only using that quote as an example of Jubelin saying one thing and investigators or police media saying another in reference to persons of interest, on the odd occasion. I made no comment about the content of the quote.

 

[SouthAussie]

I agree, things do change and progress, but that is not what my post was about.

I was only using that quote as an example of Jubelin saying one thing and investigators or police media saying another in reference to persons of interest, on the odd occasion. I made no comment about the content of the quote.

I understand.

I think what we are trying to say is that because something is said in September 2017, does not mean it holds true for the police position in September 2018.

 

[Karinna]

The video in this article from June this year from the latest search features Jubelin asking the public for any relevant information to anything suspicious they might have seen vehicles, etc. in this area at the time of WT's disappearance.
Police focus on 5 suspects for William Tyrrell inquest

 

[SouthAussie]

Colin said he had downloaded a copy of Mr Spedding's bank card statement, which showed a purchase at the cafe about 10am on September 12.

William Spedding says he had nothing to do with disappearance of toddler William Tyrell

A cafe owner said police spoke to him about the case.

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
Community desperate for answers as police continue hunt for William Tyrell

An owner and a manager may have a different recall.
imo

I know I have said it before, but I have always been a little afraid that the retiring OIC in William's investigation may have dropped the ball early on. By not searching Spedding's properties right away, by not pulling the cafe receipts immediately, by not doing anything else that was left undone until right as he was retiring.

I sometimes have visions of it being like Daniel Morcombe's case, where the OIC was stubbornly refusing to follow up correctly, despite the suspicions of less senior detectives.

 

[Blues Clues]

I understand.

I think what we are trying to say is that because something is said in September 2017, does not mean it holds true for the police position in September 2018.

SA I think 2 different convos have crossed over. I was talking about something completely different. Again I agree, as the investigation progresses, things change.

Might this comment of Karinna's be the one you meant to address?

'Thanks for posting that up. The BBM was the comment i remember reading some time ago.
So if that info. is correct has BS now moved up the list again per the recent article that mentions the high profile POI and four others? It's all very confusing IMO.'

 

[Thebottomline]

I don't know if this helps answer your question, bearbear.


" .... As we have already seen, anyone who refuses to answer questions properly put by a court of law will be in contempt of court.

Anyone committing contempt may be fined or jailed for a fixed period of time. In some cases, that person may be jailed for as long as the judge wishes, generally until they have "purged their contempt". This usually means, in practice, until they have complied with the court order or apologised sincerely to the court and have agreed in future to abide by the court's orders.

The powers which a coroner has are the same as those which a magistrate has at committal proceedings. If the coroner finds at the end of an inquest that the person has been unlawfully killed, and that the evidence suggests it was done by a particular person, the coroner can commit that person to a higher court for trial."

Contempt & court reporting in Australia

Thankyou SouthAussie for posting this. I have trouble trying to understand the coronial inquest procedure .

 

[SouthAussie]

SA I think 2 different convos have crossed over. I was talking about something completely different. Again I agree, as the investigation progresses, things change.

Might this comment of Karinna's be the one you meant to address?

'Thanks for posting that up. The BBM was the comment i remember reading some time ago.
So if that info. is correct has BS now moved up the list again per the recent article that mentions the high profile POI and four others? It's all very confusing IMO.'

No, I was referring to the confusion that you stated about different things police were saying, and you put up a quote from 2017. How some police say this, and some say (or don't say) that. And I was trying to say that different things are said at different times/years/dates/days, depending on where the investigation is at that time.

Don't worry about it. We are not understanding each other at this point in time.

 

[Karinna]

I know I have said it before, but I have always been a little afraid that the retiring OIC in William's investigation may have dropped the ball early on. By not searching Spedding's properties right away, by not pulling the cafe receipts immediately, by not doing anything else that was left undone until right as he was retiring.

I sometimes have visions of it being like Daniel Morcombe's case, where the OIC was stubbornly refusing to follow up correctly, despite the suspicions of less senior detectives.

I also think it's a shame the whole area there at FGM's house wasn't cordoned off as a potential crime scene very early in the case.
IMO potential evidence might have been lost/trampled as searchers were all over the place looking for a little boy they thought was lost out in the bush.

 

[Lemony]

SA I think 2 different convos have crossed over. I was talking about something completely different. Again I agree, as the investigation progresses, things change.

Might this comment of Karinna's be the one you meant to address?

'Thanks for posting that up. The BBM was the comment i remember reading some time ago.
So if that info. is correct has BS now moved up the list again per the recent article that mentions the high profile POI and four others? It's all very confusing IMO.'

Oops, yes I quoted the wrong person

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

The only mention of the police suggesting a known individual was a poi that I recall.

Mr Spedding has denied an involvement in William’s disappearance and has the full support of two of his children.

‘‘We fully support him. We know that he has had nothing to do with this,’’ his daughter-in-law told Fairfax Media.

Police have stressed Mr Spedding is not a suspect, but a person of interest in the case.

‘‘At the very highest he is a person of interest but he is not the only person of interest,’’ Superintendent Willing said.

William Tyrrell: Search for evidence continues
William Tyrrell: Seach for evidence continues

But that was a while after BS had declared himself a poi.

BBM:

Police have stressed Mr Spedding is not a suspect, but a person of interest in the case.

‘‘At the very highest he is a person of interest but he is not the only person of interest,’’ Superintendent Willing said.

It appears by the above that the Police do not think suspect and poi are the same thing. They have two different meanings. BS is not a suspect (not suspected of committing a crime) he is a person of interest (because he had been to the FGH to do business prior to William going missing).

I think perhaps this is why there are people out there who defend BS. He is only a person of interest not a suspect. The neighbours/people who heard and/or saw the children playing would be classed as a person of interest too.​

 

[Blues Clues]

No, I was referring to the confusion that you stated about different things police were saying, and you put up a quote from 2017. How some police say this, and some say (or don't say) that. And I was trying to say that different things are said at different times/years/dates/days, depending on where the investigation is at that time.

Don't worry about it. We are not understanding each other at this point in time.

Yep all good

In what I was referring to, what I think might happen;

When Jubelin is finished speaking on camera, media then turn to the media spokesperson present or a member of the Task Force also present and ask further questions. It is in the answers to those questions we see quotes in the media the following day which extend beyond what Jubelin has been prepared to reveal in front of the cameras.

 

[Thebottomline]

I also think it's a shame the whole area there at FGM's house wasn't cordoned off as a potential crime scene very early in the case.
IMO potential evidence might have been lost/trampled as searchers were all over the place looking for a little boy they thought was lost out in the bush.

Yes it’s a shame but at the time I think all involved acted as they should have on a missing little boy.Also there may well be evidence they have from that days searches . As you say - WE just don’t know

 

[Thebottomline]

BBM:

Police have stressed Mr Spedding is not a suspect, but a person of interest in the case.

‘‘At the very highest he is a person of interest but he is not the only person of interest,’’ Superintendent Willing said.

It appears by the above that the Police do not think suspect and poi are the same thing. They have two different meanings. BS is not a suspect (not suspected of committing a crime) he is a person of interest (because he had been to the FGH to do business prior to William going missing).

I think perhaps this is why there are people out there who defend BS. He is only a person of interest not a suspect. The neighbours/people who heard and/or saw the children playing would be classed as a person of interest too.​

Suspect , poi are they one and the same here . I ask this legitimately as I don’t know
I recall from a news report on Allison Baden Clay that Gerard was not a suspect . when in actual fact we now know he was from day one . Police Strategy ? I know this case was solved a lot earlier than this one. Just a comparison to what police divulge .i never followed Alison’s case here on websleuths but I did through the media