Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #38

[Bohemian]

I'm thinking of Bret Cowan who murdered Daniel Morcome, he kept his mouth shut for all those years and it was the elaborate 'Mr Big' who eventually cracked him.
If it meant life in prison even the most idiotic volatile imbesile could keep his mouth shut.
Isn't it a pedophile's form to tell the child not to tell anyone and keep it own own secret?

That’s the type of predator I have been thinking about wrt William’s abduction.

 

[SouthAussie]

Is this what you’re talking about SA?

'Every home has been searched. The Sex Crimes Squad has verified the whereabouts of known offenders in the street or town.'

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

The link to the MSM article in the post is dead though.

Thanks for finding that for me, Bo. Yes. That bit of info always disturbed me.

 

[Thebottomline]

Thanks for finding that for me, Bo. Yes. That bit of info always disturbed me.

Yes that’s the article I just tried to find to It’s tricky to decipher , was it we’ve looked at sex offenders in the street as in there are some or is it we’ve looked to see if there are any ?

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes that’s the article I just tried to find to It’s tricky to decipher , was it we’ve looked at sex offenders in the street as in there are some or is it we’ve looked to see if there are any ?

It is "has verified the whereabouts of known offenders in the street ...."

 

[they'll get you]

It was the coroner's court which discovered it was Cowen who murdered Daniel and it was after the coroner's court 'Mr Big' was set in motion to catch the pond slime.

And the stark, heartbreaking reality was this: When a shaken Brett Cowan walked out of the coroner’s court on April Fool’s Day 2010, despite having been torn apart at the inquest and Peter Johns, Bruce Morcombe and almost everyone connected to the case being now certain he was Daniel’s killer, all he had to do was stay silent. And he was home free.
Category: | The Courier Mail

Boil the kettle boys.

 

[Violet77]

I agree, whoever took William, acted alone & has just kept their mouth shut like Cowan did.
I think the motivation was sexual, maybe they never intended to kill him, maybe they panicked & killed him, or William panicked & had a fatal asthma attack - the person on the street theory could make more sense with their thinking they could easily remove William momentarily & then return him to the street.
They would have had to remove the body before the searches started, I wonder how many people living on Benaroon Drive that would usually be home during that time were out somewhere else.

 

[SouthAussie]

Unfortunately, without a public sex offender register - like is currently being proposed - we cannot even determine if there is any specific sex offender living within the Kendall postcode, let alone on that street.

But, I also wonder if foster mum's 'vision' of William being picked up by the shoulders is a broad hint to us all of something they know/believe was seen by someone. Perhaps someone who is so young that their recall cannot be firm enough to make a credible witness.

 

[they'll get you]

I agree, whoever took William, acted alone & has just kept their mouth shut like Cowan did.
I think the motivation was sexual, maybe they never intended to kill him, maybe they panicked & killed him, or William panicked & had a fatal asthma attack - the person on the street theory could make more sense with their thinking they could easily remove William momentarily & then return him to the street.
They would have had to remove the body before the searches started, I wonder how many people living on Benaroon Drive that would usually be home during that time were out somewhere else.

William’s abductor might have done similar before and also progressed to murder?

Daniel wasn’t Cowen’s first - he progressed.
Cowan assaulted a child in a toilet block at a school he was working at.
Cowan abducted a little boy and bashed him so severely that when the little 6 year old staggered out of the bush it was thought he’d been run over by a truck. Cowan left him for dead.
Daniel was an older child who panicked and fought so Cowan panicked and then strangled Daniel because he knew Daniel could identify him.

 

[SouthAussie]

I have always thought that William was disposed of because the widespread searches happened so quickly .. there was never the opportunity for the perpetrator to return him to anywhere even close to the street.

I also think William may have been placed in one place initially, then moved a bit later on.

 

[they'll get you]

Unfortunately, without a public sex offender register - like is currently being proposed - we cannot even determine if there is any specific sex offender living within the Kendall postcode, let alone on that street.

But, I also wonder if foster mum's 'vision' of William being picked up by the shoulders is a broad hint to us all of something they know/believe was seen by someone. Perhaps someone who is so young that their recall cannot be firm enough to make a credible witness.

That someone who was so young is 4 years older now and might have a good memory of what happened.
If she wasn’t inside the house then now, being older, might be a credible witness.

 

[Bohemian]

William’s abductor might have done similar before and also progressed to murder?

Daniel wasn’t Cowen’s first - he progressed.
Cowan assaulted a child in a toilet block at a school he was working at.
Cowan abducted a little boy and bashed him so severely that when the little 6 year old staggered out of the bush it was thought he’d been run over by a truck. Cowan left him for dead.
Daniel was an older child who panicked and fought so Cowan panicked and then strangled Daniel because he knew Daniel could identify him.

That’s what bothers me, tgy, now that they’ve progressed to an abduction, that it’s only a matter of time before something similar happens to another child. Hopefully, police know who that person is and have put strategies into place to neutralise them so they’re no longer a serious risk.

 

[Thebottomline]

It is "has verified the whereabouts of known offenders in the street ...."

That’s chilling SA, I hadn’t read that before , thankyou. Puts another spin on things .

 

[SouthAussie]

That’s what bothers me, tgy, now that they’ve progressed to an abduction, that it’s only a matter of time before something similar happens to another child. Hopefully, police know who that person is and have put strategies into place to neutralise them so they’re no longer a serious risk.

Is that neutralise, or neuter?

 

[Thebottomline]

That someone who was so young is 4 years older now and might have a good memory of what happened.
If she wasn’t inside the house then now, being older, might be a credible witness.

That’s right and I don’t want to sound airy fairy but hypnosis can be very useful i these situations from my own experience . Of course only if family and little girl were willing to go there .

 

[they'll get you]

That’s chilling SA, I hadn’t read that before , thankyou. Puts another spin on things .

It’s chilling to think there’s more pedophiles than street corners.

 

[they'll get you]

That’s right and I don’t want to sound airy fairy but hypnosis can be very useful i these situations from my own experience . Of course only if family and little girl were willing to go there .

101 reasons to find who took William and I’m thinking the foster family would search the world for William.

 

[WhiteLion^^]

I just don’t know, there must be the other 4 poi’s / suspects to come into it but yes maybe they have been ruled out ?

May I ask if we know for sure via a police conference or direct quote that there were/are 5 POIs? I remember it being in MSM but I couldn't remember if it was reported as a journalistic 'scoop' or how that number of POIs detail came up. Can anyone remember if it was direct? I ask because I have tried to be selective about what information I take in - if in MSM, that's interesting but not necessarily 'direct fact'. If from police statement, I take it in more fully. Strategies are of course an element to consider, but that's the baseline I try to come back to.

My other question is, if disappearance by human intervention is what was deemed most likely as the result of the Kendall searches, does an inquest start by looking at things completely afresh, ie start with 'Who was the last to see William?' and work through things like a timeline from the day before (at kindy I think) onwards? To clarify the process of clearing the families, etc (although that might occur in closed session due to legal restraints) so any questions that have arose around that side have an opportunity to be ratified by the inquest process? I would assume yes. I do not believe the FP or BP are involved (they have been cleared by Jubelin and investigators). I am simply curious about whether an inquest is like a 'fresh look on everything'. IMO, to determine whether there's a chance William is alive, after four years wouldn't it be wise to do it that way? Or am I thinking too holistically and inquests target key issue areas and inconsistencies, based on the data handed to them by investigators? Then if required, anything that comes up needing further investigation is handed back to investigators to continue digging for more detail.

Any insights from posters would be great. I do use the ignore button, so if I don't respond, I apologise in advance.

 

[they'll get you]

I’m using Cowan as an example of progression IYKWIM.

Who else do we know that has injured a child severely.

Like Cowan who left the child for dead, could William’s abductor left William for dead....somewhere deeper in the bush that he wasn’t heard, found or died of his injuries?

 

[WhiteLion^^]

That’s what bothers me, tgy, now that they’ve progressed to an abduction, that it’s only a matter of time before something similar happens to another child. Hopefully, police know who that person is and have put strategies into place to neutralise them so they’re no longer a serious risk.

IMO 'human intervention' is the term used by police rather than 'abduction' - at least most recently. If this is for a reason, maybe William was 'moved' by someone that morning for reasons other than sexual or violent. It's incredibly challenging to describe what I mean and keep to WS rules, which I respect. But what I'm saying is that I'm keeping an open mind about what may have occurred (which I hope means William is being cared for somewhere). It's a slim chance. But one which is there. The tone of this thread has changed over the past month. There seems to be less posters posting broader theories or questions. We are hanging onto what's been presented most recently, that's true, but I hope there's still room here for the fringe ideas. Respectful, clear, non-conspiracy related ideas! Please note I am not defending BS - he's a POI and been summoned - there's a reason for that. I could be completely wrong!

 

[SouthAussie]

May I ask if we know for sure via a police conference or direct quote that there were/are 5 POIs? I remember it being in MSM but I couldn't remember if it was reported as a journalistic 'scoop' or how that number of POIs detail came up. Can anyone remember if it was direct? I ask because I have tried to be selective about what information I take in - if in MSM, that's interesting but not necessarily 'direct fact'. If from police statement, I take it in more fully. Strategies are of course an element to consider, but that's the baseline I try to come back to.

My other question is, if disappearance by human intervention is what was deemed most likely as the result of the Kendall searches, does an inquest start by looking at things completely afresh, ie start with 'Who was the last to see William?' and work through things like a timeline from the day before (at kindy I think) onwards? To clarify the process of clearing the families, etc (although that might occur in closed session due to legal restraints) so any questions that have arose around that side have an opportunity to be ratified by the inquest process? I would assume yes. I do not believe the FP or BP are involved (they have been cleared by Jubelin and investigators). I am simply curious about whether an inquest is like a 'fresh look on everything'. IMO, to determine whether there's a chance William is alive, after four years wouldn't it be wise to do it that way? Or am I thinking too holistically and inquests target key issue areas and inconsistencies, based on the data handed to them by investigators? Then if required, anything that comes up needing further investigation is handed back to investigators to continue digging for more detail.

Any insights from posters would be great. I do use the ignore button, so if I don't respond, I apologise in advance.

I don't know for sure but it seems to me from the inquest reports that I have read, that the Coroner states the facts as they find them (from the police report) and then the questions begin.

I think the 'five suspects' thing likely comes from a police source. (The fact that The Australian reported this affects my opinion in a positive manner.)

Four 'high priority' suspects and one 'person of interest' are being closely examined as part of the police investigation, The Australian reported.
William Tyrrell search: Detectives 'have identified five suspects' | Daily Mail Online