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

[Goosewhisperer]

The question can also be directed at those who are sure BS is guilty. If he is found to be innocent will you agree or think he got away with it.

I think there will be some who will never believe anything except what they have already decided, others might feel it doesn't matter, that BS was collateral damage, human nature being what it is.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think there will be some who will never believe anything except what they have already decided .....

I certainly agree with this part of your comment, and not in regards to Spedding.

There is some mighty vicious and unwarranted stuff out there, based on no proof at all, nor on MSM articles, based simply on nothing.

I actually can't think of one person on this WS thread who would not accept if someone else (besides Spedding) is found to be responsible for the disappearance of William.

 

[sleepinoz]

I think there will be some who will never believe anything except what they have already decided, others might feel it doesn't matter, that BS was collateral damage, human nature being what it is.

As my signature says - ""People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."

Collateral damage? I think William's parents and family, both bio and foster are the ones that are collateral damage here.

Again I will say that I don't believe BS is involved, but he is not the victim here William and his family are - and this is Williams thread not BS's.

Yes there are adverse things being said about BS, because he is a POI and any collateral damage is due to him being a POI and being named in MSM.

If he wasn't a POI he wouldn't be summoned to appear at the CI, if his alibi was true and he wasn't anywhere near the scene he wouldn't be a POI.

I don't know what the reason is but there is obviously a reason he is still in the frame as a POI.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

Weren't the children playing chasey? I think that is a bit different from hide and seek, where a person counts to 10 while the other person hides.
Chasey is just chasing each other around until one person tags the other and says "you're it", I believe.

I thought it was chasing but I think with 3 year olds, the games are not necessarily so defined, however, I think if he did get in a car boot, how likely would it be that the person wouldn't return him.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

As my signature says - ""People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."

Collateral damage? I think William's parents and family, both bio and foster are the ones that are collateral damage here.

.

I am not sure that can be applied to the families, as they obviously were the intended targets, along with William but my comment was not intended to be about whether BS is guilty, innocent or why, just a reply to a prior comment.

 

[SouthAussie]

I am not sure that can be applied to the families, as they obviously were the intended targets, along with William but my comment was not intended to be about whether BS is guilty, innocent or why, just a reply to a prior comment.

Not so obviously. I dont think any part of the family was considered at all. Just the perpetrator's own wants were considered.

I think the target/victim was William, I don't think it was thought about too much at all, I think it was a quick thought, quick action, very sad consequence.

imo

 

[sleepinoz]

I am not sure that can be applied to the families, as they obviously were the intended targets, along with William but my comment was not intended to be about whether BS is guilty, innocent or why, just a reply to a prior comment.

I understand that you were replying to a comment, you also implied that BS was collateral damage which indicates to me, that you don't believe in his guilt.

Of course the families are collateral damage, by that I mean what is being said, what is being implied and what they are being accused of on SM.

Why would you say that 'they obviously were the intended targets'? IMO William was the intended target.

 

[SouthAussie]

I understand that you were replying to a comment, you also implied that BS was collateral damage which indicates to me, that you don't believe in his guilt.

Of course the families are collateral damage, by that I mean what is being said, what is being implied and what they are being accused of on SM.

Why would you say that 'they obviously were the intended targets'? IMO William was the intended target.

I think the collateral damage of the families also extends to the fact that they have lost a child. A child they love with all of their hearts. A child they shared many wonderful moments with. A child that was expected to live a now-happy and full life. A child that may have suffered or be suffering right now, at the hands of evil.

I cannot even begin to imagine their heartbreak.

There is no-one involved in this case who is experiencing the depths of what they are going through. imo

 

[kiwi50]

I thought it was chasing but I think with 3 year olds, the games are not necessarily so defined, however, I think if he did get in a car boot, how likely would it be that the person wouldn't return him.

I was thinking along the lines that the person had no idea he was in the car, until they found him dead.
Sure its far fetched but nothing seems simple about this case.
Ever since the case of the wee girl in NZ found dead in a drainpipe, i do try to consider everything.
People were sure she had been abducted by an Asian woman.

 

[Bohemian]

I am not sure that can be applied to the families, as they obviously were the intended targets, along with William but my comment was not intended to be about whether BS is guilty, innocent or why, just a reply to a prior comment.

BBM.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say William’s families ‘were the intended targets’. Could you elaborate please, Goose?

 

[purpleandgreen]

BBM.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say William’s families ‘were the intended targets’. Could you elaborate please, Goose?

I thought we already had this discussion a few pages back? Or am I confusing it with something else? Apologies if so.

 

[Lemony]

I was thinking along the lines that the person had no idea he was in the car, until they found him dead.
Sure its far fetched but nothing seems simple about this case.
Ever since the case of the wee girl in NZ found dead in a drainpipe, i do try to consider everything.
People were sure she had been abducted by an Asian woman.

It’s definitely not as far fetched as some of the other theories that have floated around, esp. on social media.

Someone with a criminal history may not want to come forward in that scenario, choosing to deal with the situation themselves rather than have contact with police.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the inquest regarding the cars.

 

[SouthAussie]

It’s definitely not as far fetched as some of the other theories that have floated around, esp. on social media.

Someone with a criminal history may not want to come forward in that scenario, choosing to deal with the situation themselves rather than have contact with police.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the inquest regarding the cars.

BBM

Scary thought ... what a strange kind of dilemma that would be. Not having done anything criminal themselves, in that regard, but not wanting to be accused of such a thing either.

 

[Bohemian]

BBM

Scary thought ... what a strange kind of dilemma that would be. Not having done anything criminal themselves, in that regard, but not wanting to be accused of such a thing either.

If accident such as this did occur, the longer the person who discovered and disposed of William’s remains leaves it to come forward; the worse it will be for them.

(Michael Atkins allegedly disposed of his partner’s,
Matty Leveson’s, remains after he died of a drug overdose at their home. He subsequently went to trial for murder as well as sitting through an inquest before he finally told police where he’d buried Matty’s remains. In the end, people are still unsure that Atkins didn’t have a hand in Matty’s death and the resulting damage to Atkin’s life has been immeasurable. Much better he had manned up in the beginning and told the truth, rather than lying for over a decade.)

 

[Thebottomline]

A three year old should surely not be capable of closing a boot on themselves either.

 

[interested64]

i wouldnt think so,according to his mum he was cautious.I have always wondered if he was hit by a car

 

[Thebottomline]

i wouldnt think so,according to his mum he was cautious.I have always wondered if he was hit by a car

My feeling is police would have tested and gone through every possible occurrence of an accident . It will always be a question that William met with an accident until CI is over but I think their conclusion to human intervention comes with all other scenarios being ruled out IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

i wouldnt think so,according to his mum he was cautious.I have always wondered if he was hit by a car

Jubes wondered that, too, at one point.
Then somehow they ended up with 5 suspects.
Perhaps his retelling of the below story was an attempt to get someone to come in and confess ... give them an 'out', so to speak.


And then, he says, on his third visit, he remembered something. Years ago, he was driving one night to the house where his kids were living — like many homicide detectives, he’s been through a divorce. “The neighbour had twins, who were toddlers, and one of them was on the road,” he says. “I nearly ran over the child. I jumped out and picked up the kid and was carrying him in when the neighbours ran out and said, ‘Thank God’.”

It got him thinking. What if William’s case was not a planned abduction? “You’ve got to have two worlds collide — the situation where a three-year-old is momentarily unsupervised, and comes in contact with someone who is motivated to abduct that child … it doesn’t necessarily have to be this monster dressed in black who runs up, grabs the child and speeds off.” What if the person who abducted William had a reason to be in the street that day and had no malicious intent when he turned up Benaroon Drive?

Australian Crime News
The Australian - 18 April 2015

 

[Goosewhisperer]

I understand that you were replying to a comment, you also implied that BS was collateral damage which indicates to me, that you don't believe in his guilt.

Of course the families are collateral damage, by that I mean what is being said, what is being implied and what they are being accused of on SM.

Why would you say that 'they obviously were the intended targets'? IMO William was the intended target.

No implication that I consider BS to be innocent at all, I was merely saying that he might be considered collateral damage by some who are putting him up as the only suspect, they may not care. William and his families cannot be considered collateral damage, imo, as they are the ones who are the victims in this crime.

 

[SouthAussie]

No implication that I consider BS to be innocent at all, I was merely saying that he might be considered collateral damage by some who are putting him up as the only suspect, they may not care. William and his families cannot be considered collateral damage, imo, as they are the ones who are the victims in this crime.

What an unusual thing to speculate about, Goosewhisperer. imo
A primary POI being collateral damage.
Are Jones, Bickford, and Nichols collateral damage, too?