Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #71

[KateM]

I'm sure they would have.

I wasn't at the inquest, so I don't know. But I sure as heck hope they saw both the transaction on the bank statement and the time dated receipt. To prove that it was a receipt from a transaction on the Speddings joint bank account

 

[Mauig’ma]

No need for an accomplice, just a receipt around the time of his alibi for 2 people.

Imo that would be difficult to do in that short amount of time. I personally would be scrambling around trying to find 2 people who had 2 coffees at the exact time we’re referring to. That alone would show a cover up imo. I think it would be very difficult to do. Moo

 

[JBowie]

That’s what I was getting at. Sorry if I confused you or anyone else. Yes it has to be BS receipt no doubt about it. Moo

No problem. In fact I was really responding to post #236.

 

[deugirtni]

So he just happened to have an accomplice, who went to the cafe and ordered 2 x coffees in order to provide him with an alibi that morning?

It was my understanding that there was also a bank transaction/statement/output received from the Speddings' bank account/cc account which matched the receipt date/time.

From memory, police did not bother to ask any potential witnesses as to whether they'd seen the Speddings that morning, until much much later.. when of course mundane daily activities would be long gone from the memories of most, such as the staff at a cafe being asked who was in attendance on a much earlier date and time. It's ridiculous. Apparently Spedding's own lawyer had to dig up the evidence/proof, rather than police doing their job to gather said evidence, which is what would've been needed if they had truly suspected Spedding. In my opinion, he became one big handy scapegoat. Not sure why he continues to be brought up as if he has not been damaged enough already?

I also would love to know what stories, reports, statements, etc., would have come out about sightings/activities of the fosters if people/public had been aware of their identities, appearances, vehicle, etc., from the beginning, as they are in virtually all other cases.

imo.

 

[SouthAussie]

From memory, police did not bother to ask any potential witnesses as to whether they'd seen the Speddings that morning, until much much later.. when of course mundane daily activities would be long gone from the memories of most, such as the staff at a cafe being asked who was in attendance on a much earlier date and time. It's ridiculous. Apparently Spedding's own lawyer had to dig up the evidence/proof, rather than police doing their job to gather said evidence ....

It was not up to the police to prove BS' alibi for him.

But when Jubes took over the case, that is one of the first things that he tried to do. Tried to speak with the people who may have seen BS that morning. Took BS on a walkthough. Took MS on a walkthrough.
These are likely some of the things that he thought should have already been done in the 5 months of the investigation. imo

 

[deugirtni]

I think it is possible that there are others who have never followed the details about all of the POIs. So they are not aware of the red flags and inconsistencies involving them. The things that have never been resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

The thing is, imho, all of these other people in the world who may have inconsistencies in regard to that day, are meaningless when the very people tasked with the care and control of William, tasked with keeping him safe, the very people who last saw him alive, the very people from whose property he vanished from, the person who had a hand injury from the same morning of his disappearance, the person who took a drive in someone else's vehicle at some point right around the time he first went missing, the day-to-day carer who was discovered to have a block of deleted texts only in regard to communications with the other carer, the people who were physically present with W for the approximately 16 hours (from the McD's photos) after anyone else on this earth physically saw him, have not been thoroughly investigated themselves, and their multitude of discrepancies examined, as the very first line of business, as happens in virtually every other crime case everywhere. imo.

 

[SouthAussie]

......... have not been thoroughly investigated themselves, and their multitude of discrepancies examined, as the very first line of business, as happens in virtually every other crime case everywhere. imo.

Maybe you missed where Hans Rupp - Lemony posted a link not too far back in the threads - said that the parents were the first people they investigated, as is done in virtually every crime case everywhere.

Now, if that investigation wasn't done to some people's satisfaction, that is another matter. But it seems to me that all the usual tick boxes were likely ticked. FD turned out to be where he said he was. CCTV verfified their travels the night before. So, evidently various devices and their movements were checked.

Jubes said that accident scenarios were investigated ... falling from the balcony, being run over by a car, hitting his head on a rock ... so evidently forensics were done.

 

[deugirtni]

It was not up to the police to prove BS' alibi for him.

But when Jubes took over the case, that is one of the first things that he did. Tried to speak with the people who may have seen BS that morning. Took BS on a walkthough. Took MS on a walkthrough.
These are likely some of the things that he thought should have already been done in the 5 months of the investigation. imo

But if a cop says, hey, where were you on September 12, 2014 at 9:30am, and you reply, I was at x cafe with x person.. wouldn't one expect it reasonable for the cops to immediately verify that, if in fact they suspected the person of involvement?

Why do you figure they waited so long before asking people (at the school, at the cafe, etc) if they'd seen Spedding, when by that time, there was a very good chance nobody would remember such a mundane thing? I know I sure couldn't tell you weeks or months after the fact, who I'd sat next to at any given school assembly I attended for my kids. I would think that most people, as it is for myself, are there for their kids, not to take note of the other guests. imo.

I think it IS very much up to police to, not prove someone's alibi, but to show cause for even having a viable suspicion in the first place, and that would have to include verifying their suspicions. Seeing as how these things were not done until GJ was on the case, I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that it was GJ who decided to even have suspicions about Spedding. And for me, I link that to his prior involvement with Spedding's ex-wife's brother, the horrible child rapist/killer, I think his name is JH. Although the search of Spedding's property was done just before GJ was officially put on the case, I believe I read just recently that he was fully aware of what police were about to publicly do to him, and according to GJ, he had recommended against the public display?

 

[deugirtni]

Maybe you missed where Hans Rupp - Lemony posted a link not too far back in the threads - said that the parents were the first people they investigated, as is done in virtually every crime case everywhere.

Now, if that investigation wasn't done to some people's satisfaction, that is another matter. But it seems to me that all the usual tick boxes were likely ticked. FD turned out to be where he said he was. CCTV verfified their travels the night before. So, evidently various devices and their movements were checked.

Jubes said that accident scenarios were investigated ... falling from the balcony, being run over by a car, hitting his head on a rock ... so evidently forensics were done.

Yes, keywords are 'wasn't done to some people's satisfaction', except I would hazard a guess that it wasn't done to many people's satisfaction in this case. imo.

 

[JBowie]

It was not up to the police to prove BS' alibi for him.

IMO, BS was a classic case of publicly guilty until proved innocent.

These are likely some of the things that he thought should have already been done in the 5 months of the investigation. imo

Yes, and IMO had BS been (say) a sophisticated city person with the wherewithal to hire a top lawyer from the outset, a lot of the misery foisted on him by police could have been avoided.

 

[SouthAussie]

IMO, BS was a classic case of publicly guilty until proved innocent.

As are the FP.

 

[JBowie]

As are the FP.

I haven't seen their names in headlines. Not yet anyway.

And I don't know if the charges they are facing relate to WT in any way, either.

 

[SouthAussie]

I haven't seen their names in headlines. Not yet anyway.

And I don't know if the charges they are facing relate to WT in any way, either.

I don't think we have to see their names in headlines to know that the FP are a classic case of guilty until proved innocent.

And, I agree, I don't know that the charges they face relate to William in any way. But it is obvious from comments that there are those who are tying them all together anyway.

 

[Sillybilly]

Semantics and a bit OT, but for those who may not know.

This is not intended to cast aspersions in any way at any case player who has been referred to in this case, but strictly for legal purposes as it relates to "proven innocent".

An acquittal / Not Guilty verdict is legally not the same thing as a Declaration of Innocence. While an NG can pretty much be considered as good as innocent, NG simply means the prosecution's heavy burden of proof did not meet the standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Note: While the degree of reasonable doubt has never been officially defined (yeah, go figure ), the generally held belief is that it is around the 90% mark in criminal cases.

While the accused themselves can certainly steadfastly and publicly declare their innocence, and a government may issue a public apology, a formal legal Declaration of Innocence by the Courts is a very rare occurrence in most countries.

 

[Mauig’ma]

Yes, keywords are 'wasn't done to some people's satisfaction', except I would hazard a guess that it wasn't done to many people's satisfaction in this case. imo.

Yes yes this I agree with totally. Many not some imo

 

[KateM]

The thing is, imho, all of these other people in the world who may have inconsistencies in regard to that day, are meaningless when the very people tasked with the care and control of William, tasked with keeping him safe, the very people who last saw him alive, the very people from whose property he vanished from, the person who had a hand injury from the same morning of his disappearance, the person who took a drive in someone else's vehicle at some point right around the time he first went missing, the day-to-day carer who was discovered to have a block of deleted texts only in regard to communications with the other carer, the people who were physically present with W for the approximately 16 hours (from the McD's photos) after anyone else on this earth physically saw him, have not been thoroughly investigated themselves, and their multitude of discrepancies examined, as the very first line of business, as happens in virtually every other crime case everywhere. imo.

Amen!

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes yes this I agree with totally. Many not some imo

Well, there is really no way to gauge that. But it is an interesting dynamic that those who feel the FP are involved, feel that the previous two investigations into them were lacking.

To me, if there is no indictable proof then there is no indictable proof to be found.

The Coroner seems to have done her last bit of checking on that (I think). Likely to allay others suspicions. imo

Is the third investigation into FM lacking also, if the police don't come up with an indictable offense with regard to William's disappearance?

 

[KateM]

I don't think we have to see their names in headlines to know that the FP are a classic case of guilty until proved innocent.

And, I agree, I don't know that the charges they face relate to William in any way. But it is obvious from comments that there are those who are tying them all together anyway.

It's obvious from the comments that some people don't even consider them as persons of interest...

 

[sleepinoz]

It's obvious from the comments that some people don't even consider them as persons of interest...

"Them" - only one of "them" has been named a POI not both. AFAIK

 

[LolaAngelina]

It was my understanding that there was also a bank transaction/statement/output received from the Speddings' bank account/cc account which matched the receipt date/time.

From memory, police did not bother to ask any potential witnesses as to whether they'd seen the Speddings that morning, until much much later.. when of course mundane daily activities would be long gone from the memories of most, such as the staff at a cafe being asked who was in attendance on a much earlier date and time. It's ridiculous. Apparently Spedding's own lawyer had to dig up the evidence/proof, rather than police doing their job to gather said evidence, which is what would've been needed if they had truly suspected Spedding. In my opinion, he became one big handy scapegoat. Not sure why he continues to be brought up as if he has not been damaged enough already?

I also would love to know what stories, reports, statements, etc., would have come out about sightings/activities of the fosters if people/public had been aware of their identities, appearances, vehicle, etc., from the beginning, as they are in virtually all other cases.

imo.

Well, there is really no way to gauge that. But it is an interesting dynamic that those who feel the FP are involved, feel that the previous two investigations into them were lacking.

To me, if there is no indictable proof then there is no indictable proof to be found.

The Coroner seems to have done her last bit of checking on that (I think). Likely to allay others suspicions. imo

Is the third investigation into FM lacking also, if the police don't come up with an indictable offense with regard to William's disappearance?

BBM Exactly. I highly doubt the taskforce are concerned with the opinion of random members of the public.