Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - # 9

[BoysTown]

In the recent interview with William's parents, his mother said she wanted William to wear a singlet under his Spiderman suit but he didn't want to. So they compromised and he put on a Spiderman t shirt instead.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4218287.htm

I know this was discussed a while back but I'm catching up....IMO this is why the plumber called in the shirt blocking the pipe. Maybe it wasn't a generic t-shirt? Maybe it was a Spider-Man shirt?

I've taken a much needed break from the thread. I couldn't handle reading the 'allegations'. Just catching up now. Thank you to everyone for their posts

So great to get a locals insight apollosong!! Welcome. After everything you have posted I'm not one bit surprised BS was on police radar from the beginning.

 

[spiritualdreaming]

BBM: Totally agree Soso. In the early days of the investigation the police would have been keeping everything close to their chest. They weren't about to alert MSM that they had a POI in BS. BS became a POI due to police investigating him further, probably within days of William's disappearance, not four months hence. It was only when the news broke that the Spedding's properties were searched and that BS was in fact a POI that the information about the coffee, etc. became public.

If BS was strongly on the radar in the early days of WT going missing why wasn't properties searched sooner, why 4mths after??
We know one of BS's victim's rung in the early days of WT going missing, so LE had this info and it should of been more than enough for LE to look more intensely at him and raided much earlier.
IMO it seems that LE have bungled the case from the early days

 

[apollosong]

They didnt ask the picture theatre for footage until after they raided the places. The footage only stays in the system for three months so when they come four months later it was gone.this come from owner of picture theatre

Thank you for this post! Good to know that there was a camera there.
Could it be possible that the footage was looked at soon after William's disappearance (before it was deleted) since BS was questioned early on? Especially since one of the female victims spoke up right away?

 

[Makara]

If BS was strongly on the radar in the early days of WT going missing why wasn't properties searched sooner, why 4mths after??
We know one of BS's victim's rung in the early days of WT going missing, so LE had this info and it should of been more than enough for LE to look more intensely at him and raided much earlier.
IMO it seems that LE have bungled the case from the early days

Because the police needed a warrant to search Spedding's properties. As I've explained before the police need enough evidence before a warrant is issued. They just don't rock up to someone's place and tell them they're going to search it.

 

[krig101]

They didnt ask the picture theatre for footage until after they raided the places. The footage only stays in the system for three months so when they come four months later it was gone.this come from owner of picture theatre

That is a huge bummer! Could have been a great piece of information for LE to have.

 

[ThaiBali]

If BS was strongly on the radar in the early days of WT going missing why wasn't properties searched sooner, why 4mths after??
We know one of BS's victim's rung in the early days of WT going missing, so LE had this info and it should of been more than enough for LE to look more intensely at him and raided much earlier.
IMO it seems that LE have bungled the case from the early days

Doesn't look good does it. When did Jubelin take charge.

 

[spiritualdreaming]

Because the police needed a warrant to search Spedding's properties. As I've explained before the police need enough evidence before a warrant is issued. They just don't rock up to someone's place and tell them they're going to search it.

I understand about the warrant. But if there were inconsistencies with his alibi, was at grandma's prior and the call from the victim within day's of WT going missing then LE should of focused more on him in the early day's. First statement was in September and then another in December so what were LE doing the mth of October and November

 

[spiritualdreaming]

Doesn't look good does it. When did Jubelin take charge.

No it doesn't, he took over in February

 

[SouthAussie]

Doesn't look good does it. When did Jubelin take charge.

It is not clear when Jubelin actually first became involved in the case. But he took over the lead role right after the searches apparently.
Gary has been attached to the Homicide Squad for a long time, so he could have become involved at any time. The Homicide Squad (with or without Gary??) was involved from early in the piece.


Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin, has taken over the lead role in the investigation just days after police searched two properties belonging to a local handyman.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2850333/top-investigator-appointed-in-search-for-william-tyrrell/

 

[Angeline]

If BS was strongly on the radar in the early days of WT going missing why wasn't properties searched sooner, why 4mths after??
We know one of BS's victim's rung in the early days of WT going missing, so LE had this info and it should of been more than enough for LE to look more intensely at him and raided much earlier.
IMO it seems that LE have bungled the case from the early days

Apparently the raid came after the tip off from the plumber. I remember the police went straight for the septic tank first thing in the morning. Really curious about that.

According to the article below there was another call to Crimestoppers that triggered the raid, and then the blocked pipe "further raised suspicions":

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-william-tyrrell/story-fni0cx12-1227314208802

It is understood a call to Crime Stoppers about Mr Spedding originally led police to consider him a possible person of interest in the case and to search his property.

The Daily Telegraph understands a plumber called to Mr Spedding’s house for a repair found a child’s shirt causing a blockage in a pipe, which further raised suspicions.

 

[BreakingNews]

In this day and age with cell phone cameras I highly doubt any school can keep people from taking photos of their children, policy or not I know that I would not adhere to it, ever. They don't have the right to prevent photos and there are no schools here in my state that have a policy like that...sheesh.

There is absolutely NO way to prevent someone from photographing you or your children, in school, on the street or at the mall....

Certainly schools in Queensland prohibit it. I was once involved with a kids dance studio and we stopped performing at public venues as we couldn't prevent the public from taking photos of the kids. So the dance crew now only perform in hired venues where anyone taking a photo would need a flash and immediately be dealt with. Not at all over the top, I don't think. I don't want my tiny tots being photographed by others without my permission.

 

[they'll get you]

Rubbish, where and what schools in Australia don't allow taking photo's of your Children at an Award Ceremony.

I feel that's an unnecessary way of commenting-
PARENTS may be banned from taking photographs of their children at school events to curb use of images on social media.

A Brisbane Catholic Education spokesman said the body had no plans to ban parents from taking photographs of their own children, but bans were already in place at some schools across Australia.
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/parents-may-not-get-the-picture/2430293/

I have no intention of stating which schools as it may identify me and the schools I have reason to be in. Many schools restrict parents from using a camera now and instead provide a nominated person to take photographs and parents can then get copies from the school.
School sports days are another venue where some schools don't allow cameras. Taking photos of your child invariably involves other children in the frame, so that is a good reason why.
If yours does, I would not call it rubbish, I would call it an individual policy.

I have no school aged children but I've heard of this ban on photos and understand how the camera can be used for unpleasant purposes say at school swimming carnivals....like pedophilia I think that's what this page is mainly about.

 

[SouthAussie]

It looks as though there are anti-voyeurism laws about taking 'street' photos for horrible purposes.

And contrary to my previous post about the law (in Vic) with regard to this particular subject - photos on private property - there is also this (in NSW at least, that I can find) ...


"Every time you enter private land, you do so with the common law understanding that you consent to any requirements the property's owner may impose upon you. Should a property's owner (or their agent) tell you to cease taking photographs, for whatever reason, then there is nothing you can do about it. Even if the area is freely accessible to the public, a property's owner has full power of veto over what happens on their land. Reattach that lens-cap and put thy camera away."

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

 

[BreakingNews]

Speak to any criminal lawyer and ask them whether you should ever freely agree to be interviewed by police or answer any questions. Take it from me, any lawyer worth their salt will advice you against it. What do you think the reason for that is?

Even if you are innocent, there is nothing to be gained by speaking to police. All you can do is inadvertently implicate yourself in a crime you may not have committed. Many people are very nervous when speaking to police. Under that duress, it is very easy to make honest mistakes that can then be used to argue that you are lying to police.

Sorry to disagree LUO. I think you are making gross generalisations. Criminal lawyers are there for their clients - it's nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
You seem to be taking the view of a criminal and not a general member of the public. Don't you like the guilty going to Jail?

I strongly believe in Crime Stoppers. Even small snippets of information can assist them to finish a puzzle. And Crime Stoppers reporters can be anonymous, although I don't see the need for that personally. The police are generally great.

 

[they'll get you]

Certainly schools in Queensland prohibit it. I was once involved with a kids dance studio and we stopped performing at public venues as we couldn't prevent the public from taking photos of the kids. So the dance crew now only perform in hired venues where anyone taking a photo would need a flash and immediately be dealt with. Not at all over the top, I don't think. I don't want my tiny tots being photographed by others without my permission.

I totally agree Breaking my views of happy snaps have changed only since social media. Swimming carnivals and dance eisteddfods etc. where the children are scantily dressed get a huge NO! from me only since Websleuths has educated me to the sick filth that slither.

 

[they'll get you]

Sorry to disagree LUO. I think you are making gross generalisations. Criminal lawyers are there for their clients - it's nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
You seem to be taking the view of a criminal and not a general member of the public. Don't you like the guilty going to Jail?

I strongly believe in Crime Stoppers. Even small snippets of information can assist them to finish a puzzle. And Crime Stoppers reporters can be anonymous, although I don't see the need for that personally. The police are generally great.

I've had the best conversations and a good belly laugh with the police while breath testing me. Wonderful people just doing their job.

They wouldn't be laughing IF I WAS A DRUNK DRIVER!

I've often feared the police looking into my trusty iPad and seeing my research on murderous pedophiles, rapists, and women being thrown from balconies. But I know many of you would speak up for me....

well I'm hoping you might....

Why do I hear crickets!

 

[they'll get you]

The Law Australian Govt sports commission.

In Australia, generally speaking, there is no law restricting photography of people (including children) in public spaces as long as the images are not considered as:

*indecent (such as “up skirt” or “downblouse” photographs taken covertly in change rooms, toilets or other invasions of privacy)
*being used for voyeurism or made for the purpose of observing and visually recording the other person’s genital or anal region
*protected by a court order (eg. child custody or witness protection)
*defamatory
*being for commercial purposes (person’s likeness is used to entice people to buy or it appears they are endorsing a product). This may require a Model Release/Consent Form to be signed
Consensual photos of a child (including your own child) also contravene Criminal Codes and censorship laws if the child is photographed in a provocative or sexual manner.

Where a sporting event is held on a club’s private property, privately owned land, a school or council owned facilities, the owners of private property or venues are able to restrict or ban photography (e.g. some council owned facilities will not allow mobile phones or cameras in change rooms or toilets).

http://www.ausport.gov.au/supportin...elines_use_children_images/images_of_children

 

[Newme2]

Why do I hear crickets!

Because we are all busy clearing our own histories. :winko:

 

[they'll get you]

Because we are all busy clearing our own histories. :winko:

:silly:

 

[sosocurious]

If BS was strongly on the radar in the early days of WT going missing why wasn't properties searched sooner, why 4mths after??
We know one of BS's victim's rung in the early days of WT going missing, so LE had this info and it should of been more than enough for LE to look more intensely at him and raided much earlier.
IMO it seems that LE have bungled the case from the early days

4 months seems far too long but as things have come to light - there seems to have been a lot of I's to be dotted and T's to be crossed.
Reading some of the older articles this one from 1 November 2014.

I think the from the police side of things the suspicion was there straight away she said.
"Just little things like looking at our CCTV. We were told not to delete anything and that was the next day.

It is out of town and out of the way. Who would be driving there on that day at that time - Sup Fehon said. YES WHO?

Police have looked up known sex offenders within a massive radius of Kendall with nothing to grab at.

What about persons that been accused of historical sex offences?
Crimestoppers were contacted early re BS historical charges.
Facs investigation commenced early December.
IMO


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/missing-william-tyrell-casts-dark-shadow-over-town-20141031-11fbdi.html