Why could only 1 be correct, and not the other?
The 2 of then couldn't have gone to Moora together in McConnels ute on the day?
Some facts...
1. Wark when questioned in the Qld coroners inquiry into Kathleen O'Sheah - about whether he abducted Hayley Dodd and put her in McConnels ute - answered under sworn oath - words to the effect "She wasn't in that ute when I was driving it".
This "COULD" be interpreted to mean - he was a passenger not the driver... he didn't lie - he just didn't tell the whole truth maybe!.
2. Smiler - while being claimed publicly in media by WAPOL isn't a suspect... actually WAS their (WAPOLS) prime suspect in back in 1999 & was interviewed 3 separate occasions by them.
Source for this?
When I interviewed Smiler in 2011 when i searched his property with the cadaver dog the Dodd family brought out from Qld told me so himself!.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/9692901/death-dog-hunts-for-missing-hayley/
Why was he interviewed 3 separate times as their prime suspect by WAPOL in Mid August 1999?
Because (he claimed), he left the country for 6 weeks shearing in Europe on 30 July 1999 - the day AFTER Hayley disappeared and the day she was reported missing by her parents after the farmer rang them and reported that she hadn't arrived as her message on the answering machine said she would after lunch - made from Badgingarra the morning she arrived from Dongara with the Scania truck driver around ~10a.m.
So riddle me this then.
If you fly OUT of the country on 30 July 1999 and Hayley went missing on 29.7.1999... just how do you get OUT of the country on a plane without:-
Air Line Tickets?
Visa?
Passport?
Travelers checks / foreign currency?
Where do you get those in Badgingarra, a one horse town with a post office and tavern and servo?
Answer = you don't BUT you Do from the bank in Moora and the lady at the Ford Dealership office in Moora at the time, also ran a travel agency on the side.
We know Wark went to Moora in McConnels ute
We KNOW an item belonging to Hayley was recovered in a search of that ute!.
We know that Smiler bought the house from Wark in Dec 1999 - 6 months after Hyalye vanished without it going on the market - thus they were "mates" and it was a private treaty sale (I have a copy of the land title transfer).
We know Smiler needed to go to his bank and travel agent in Moora that morning to be able to fly out early hours the next morning from Perth Air Port.
We Know Wark says under oath he wasn't driving?
So...
Who was?
Wouldn't it seem "wise" for WAPOL detectives in Moora to check both the banking records for these 2 guys and the visa / air line tickets supplier for records of when they were paid for collected etc?
Might not Both men reasonably be considered to both be suspects in this death?
Just coz only one has a criminal record for such a crime (that we know of - did Smiler leave Kiwi land & never go back to see his family there coz he had a record there, that he was hiding from?
Has anyone checked?
Why can't both matrixe's be correct?
Why is there an assumption it has to only be 1 matrix result and not 2 that can be correct?
In 2013 - A lady from Moora ( I won't name her here) filed a report with Moora detectives that 6 weeks after Hayley vanished - she attended a party at Warks house where Smiler was in attendance and her drink was spiked and smiler attempted to rape her. (fact The lady who filed the report told me of it and she had a witness with her who attended and she confirmed such a report was made).
So facts are so much more fun.
No reason at all, that one matrix has to conflict with / disprove another! It's just that I set the search parameters to confirm Warks alleged involvement and knew enough facts about Smiler as my 2nd suspect (of 3 in total) to also set "search parameters" for Smiler to confirm his involvement as well as!
The question i am wondering is were there 3 of them?
I have a 3rd viable suspect.......
It's called web sleuthing, I believe.