Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #16

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #461
police say bs was looked at as a poi because his alibi didnt stand up but surely they must have other evidence on him other than his alibi to publicly name him as a poi, i feel they have a lot of info on him but their priority is to find william or rescue him and they have a better chance if bs remains out of jail,
and if innocent why arent his aquaintances coming forward saying, yes he was at the awards ceremony or seen having a coffee or wherever else he was, why arent they backing him up and helping him clear his name? why is colin suddenly quiet and his family?

The family or friend like Col not being public doesn't mean much IMO as they have probably been given legal advice. And did the police release BS as a POI? Or did the media find out about it and they released a statement. I do not believe police specifically released his details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #462
True but my point was despite the fact the evidence was there, nothing was said by LE for a year to the public. For all we knew they found nothing. And it was probably very obvious from the evidence that poor little Kiesha was dead but again, nothing was said about the evidence at all. They still waited it out until they found the grave. The LE do seem convinced he is alive so I think it is a waiting game of a different kind here. I hope so.

I agree that the Keisha case is different as there would always be DNA as the murder took place in her own home. But it does show that even with such evidence it is hard to prove involvement. However I do think if there was Dna in BS house or cars they would be able to charge him very early on. But then that's where the Daniel Morcombe case comes to mind. Was there any DNA at all before the body was located? I'm not sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #463
And the guy got bail. Disgusting.
WHAT!???? @'&#!$% How is that even possible?! I just don't get it.....:(

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
  • #464
In response to a previous poster, I believe the reason that BS's alibi is so complicated is that this is all he has to plead his case. The things he has claimed to do that day are:
- Call William's GM in the am
- Have 'coffee'
- Go to the school function
- Fix another machine in the 'afternoon'
- Call William's GM in the pm

I believe he is borrowing the coffee story as someone has a receipt he is using to 'prove' he was there. He is also borrowing the story of attending the school function. Without either of these NON-VERIFIABLE events the only things that are actually supported by (I assume) verifiable information are:
- Call to the GM in the am
- Dunbogan machine repair in the pm
- Call to GM in the pm

Without those two other events his day is pretty focussed on William ...

Also - if either of those events were true then why were they not considered in his video? He could have easily said he couldn't possibly have been there because he was in both of those locations. He didn't say that. He said he wasn't 'due' at the house that day. If he had a real alibi he would have used it.

And if borrowing the coffee and attending school function story, there are obviously other(s) covering for him. They will have some serious explaining to do!



Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
  • #465
I imagine the police, detectives have so much evidence...forensic and the like and could make a circumstantial case for child abduction against a particular POI ...BUT without a body or other solid information... hold out hope that maybe William could be alive and was passed on...hence the follow up on potential connections to "Like Minded Individuals" that a POI was associated with .... we can't prove - too date....but obviously police have found a connection there somewhere...

It's all in the dates of the investigation...from start till now..and what we have been dripped fed from media...

William went missing on the 12th.... Sex crimes investigators were brought in on the 15th....16th known sex offenders were being interviewed...

Early January Fehon denies reports that they are treating the case as a targeted abduction.

Mid January Bill Speddings house is raided.

Jubelin (Homicide Detective) takes over case...

January 29th - Search of Bushland- Lake Cathie area undertaken (mere Km's from Bill's home) taken place

????? Case notes sent to coroner....why???

April - reports of possible paedophile ring involvement... GAPA members interviewed in this period of time..

June: Release of spiderman toy found in POI's van....timing???...... this toy would have been found in January...why release this info 6 months later??? Strategy?? Media manipulation...for the greater good...no doubt!!!

September: 60 minute interview....

Response: Bill Spedding You tube video

What it all means.... still not sure in my head...but feel that a reflection of the dates of the investigation would give a clearer picture of what the investigators are thinking....12 months..One Year!!!...we have everything here...from thread number 1 till now...to know what they are thinking....just a matter of linking it together.

And for any supporter of a POI reading here..... think hard!!!.... google search ""typical traits of paedophiles"....they seem the kindest of souls, interested in children,....even gravitate to activities involving children....don't be fooled.....any slightest doubt should be reported...... William was/is only a child....a baby...he has his whole life ahead of him......no misguided loyalty should stop an individual who cares about CHILDREN...BABIES...from sending in an anonymous report to crime stoppers of some one the feel uneasy about...
 
  • #466
I have a feeling the pay walls work in different ways. If you are referring from a website hyperlink, it appears a pay wall will appear. Where as a search engine is an entry page, not pay walled. The non-paywall must have something to do with Googles search algorithm not returning as high results in the search rankings? If a search goes straight a paywall, it wont be crawled.

this is part of an old article from the australian, hope its not paywalled! interesting to read and reassuring to know how hard jubelin and his team are working...
<modsnip>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/how-could-toddler-william-tyrrell-simply-vanish-into-thin-air/story-e6frg6z6-1227308929078


sorry, it wasnt paywalled when i read it,the heading to search is...william tyrrell how could he disappear

Grab a coffee docket out the bin?

And by borrowing the coffee story, another person has some serious explaining to do!
 
  • #467
this is part of an old article from the australian, hope its not paywalled! interesting to read and reassuring to know how hard jubelin and his team are working...
<modsnip>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/how-could-toddler-william-tyrrell-simply-vanish-into-thin-air/story-e6frg6z6-1227308929078


sorry, it wasnt paywalled when i read it,the heading to search is...william tyrrell how could he disappear

Sorry bearbear, I appreciate your hard work but this one is behind a paywall.
Here's a version not behind a paywall [emoji3]

From the Australian Crime News Site:

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=804822206268634&id=114990695251792&substory_index=0

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
  • #468
Initially, I was quite disheartened when I read the above but 'behind every cloud there's a silver lining', I suppose.

I forgot what I'd learned at Uni about the extraordinary powers of a coroner, ie;

The Coroner may summon witnesses, and people found to be lying are guilty of perjury.

Additional powers of the Coroner include:

the power of subpoena,

the power of arrest,

the power to administer oaths and,

the power to authorise a police officer or other person to enter any place and gather evidence, similar to a search warrant.

The Coroner may ask a person(s) to give evidence at court as a witness(es). If the Coroner wishes someone to appear, they will receive the summons in person, usually from a police officer acting on the Coroner’s behalf. If they don't turn up to court, the Coroner may issue a warrant(s) for their arrest(s).

Although, the Coroner cannot find someone guilty of a crime if, at any time during the course of an inquest or inquiry, the Coroner forms an opinion that a known person has committed an indictable offence in connection with a death, the Coroner is required to suspend the inquest or inquiry and refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. (Although, it's entirely a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether charges should be laid against the person, and a matter for the criminal courts to determine whether the person is guilty.)

Ref: http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/

Might be the only way to 'compel' someone to tell their 'secrets'?
Thank you for this Bohemian! I never realized a coroner was capable of so much. Very interesting. This gives me hope!

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
  • #469
I have a feeling the pay walls work in different ways. If you are referring from a website hyperlink, it appears a pay wall will appear. Where as a search engine is an entry page, not pay walled. The non-paywall must have something to do with Googles search algorithm not returning as high results in the search rankings? If a search goes straight a paywall, it wont be crawled.



Grab a coffee docket out the bin?
The only way that I can ever read them is if I clear out my cache and cookies.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
  • #470
Why Police and the FBI Should Be Wary to Use the "Person of Interest" Designation:
The Label Destroys Lives, Yet Provides Little Benefit

Publicly Identifying "Persons of Interest" Is As Destructive as Publicly Identifying "Suspects"

The Department of Justice has long maintained strong policies against identifying suspects in pending investigations. One major reason for this policy is lots of "suspects" turn out, as Mr. Lutner did, to be perfectly innocent - yet the stigma of the "suspect" label may linger after they are publicly exonerated. Or, worse, these "suspects" may never be publicly exonerated, even though internally, the investigators have come to believe they are innocent.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050526.html
 
  • #471
Not about William, but this story happened last Friday at a daycare centre in Brisbane. You would not believe something like this can happen
http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...ged-attempted-rape-at-brisbane-daycare-centre

When I read news like this, child carers sexually abusing children, I have been thinking if the perpetrator could be someone that WT met when he was in childcare or in the foster system, and this perpetrator is coming for WT by abducting him?
 
  • #472
In response to a previous poster, I believe the reason that BS's alibi is so complicated is that this is all he has to plead his case. The things he has claimed to do that day are:
- Call William's GM in the am
- Have 'coffee'
- Go to the school function
- Fix another machine in the 'afternoon'
- Call William's GM in the pm

I believe he is borrowing the coffee story as someone has a receipt he is using to 'prove' he was there. He is also borrowing the story of attending the school function. Without either of these NON-VERIFIABLE events the only things that are actually supported by (I assume) verifiable information are:
- Call to the GM in the am
- Dunbogan machine repair in the pm
- Call to GM in the pm

Without those two other events his day is pretty focussed on William ...

Also - if either of those events were true then why were they not considered in his video? He could have easily said he couldn't possibly have been there because he was in both of those locations. He didn't say that. He said he wasn't 'due' at the house that day. If he had a real alibi he would have used it.

A few thoughts :

Wouldn’t that be making it too obvious making contact with someone on the same day that you are committing a crime from?

Could it be a mind game? The more obvious might be the least suspected?

Having an award ceremony on the same day seems somewhat interesting, what a good coincidence.

I have always been inclined to believe that BS didn’t carried out the abduction himself. Sometimes I am feeling that BS is expressing something like, “You will find nothing on me. I wasn’t there.” But he knew who did it and he is part of that network?
 
  • #473
Here are a couple links to Australian websites which are useful IMO, if you're interested in finding information about the law; among other topics.

Foolkit:

http://www.foolkit.com.au/nsw/lawyers

Criminal Law Survival Kit:

http://www.criminallawsurvivalkit.com.au/

Also, for an insight into police media strategy, I found this using Google; 'Media Policy May 2013 NSW Police Force NSW Government' (downloadable .pdf file).

I hope the links above are appropriate to post.

Happy reading and goodnight!
 
  • #474
Hi all,

New here; Australian who has just been utterly baffled at the goings on in this case. It's almost as weird as Jaidyn Leskie!

In my head;
*Any physical evidence of BS at the property (if any) can be explained away in both instances (whether it was there or not), so means nothing.
*I feel dreadfully for the parents; having 2 kids, I can't even begin to imagine.
*I think BS is one of very few people who possibly knew WT was going to be at the house (am not sure if that has been confirmed, but I imagine a Granny telling the washing repair dude that her grandkids are coming and it's all a suprise for them and they are beautiful, here's a photo)
*BS has questionable alibi's for the date/time WT went missing
*BS has form
*I believe he is part of something bigger - I really believe that there is a rock-spider network floating. Maybe WT is 'worth' more, as he is a total random? After all, they have to somehow give all the others back (as they are related/being looked after etc); it really makes me want to look into the foster system to see what other 'loving elderly parents' have fosters. Obviously not saying all, but I almost bet my house there are more of BS floating around.
*I actually think BS went there for the girl, and not WT at all. But, hey, if a golden opportunity presents itself...

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's gotta be a duck right? Time will tell I think; just as I think 'they're onto something', it all goes quiet again!

Whilst waiting to post, I went back and had a big read of Sarah Cafferkey. Honestly, our system is a total joke. Even Daniel Morcombe; each and every one of these people had significant priors, but the parole board feels obligated? to give these people one more crack. Go back even further; Robert Lowe had a significant criminal history as long as my arm involving young children and sex.

It makes me so MAD!!!

ETA: I am thinking that LE have more than we know in circumstantial, but I believe they know he's alive, but not where; and that they are going to make world news when this all finishes up.
 
  • #475
I have always been inclined to believe that BS didn&#8217;t carried out the abduction himself. Sometimes I am feeling that BS is expressing something like, &#8220;You will find nothing on me. I wasn&#8217;t there.&#8221; But he knew who did it and he is part of that network?

I believe that this is the very least he is involved. At the very least I believe he knows where he went. Whether he knows where he is NOW, I'm not sure he'd be privvy to that now, but I really believe that he is somehow hugely involved in what happened that day.
 
  • #476
In my humble opinion Spedding is as guilty as sin.

Reason - when asked he says "I didn't do it - I wasn't even there that day" (pp)

Most folk would say "I didn't do it - I've never hurt anyone in my life"

If you are asked WHY you say you didn't abduct a child, the correct most natural answer for the innocent is "I've never hurt anyone" and reiterate your own nature and history as an innocent person unable to commit such a horrid crime or even think of it.

This guy says "i wasn't there" - so he actually does not use this natural opportunity to restate his good nature and reputation.

If you listen to interviews of those on say, Death Row, who claim to be innocent - they do the same thing.

I wasn't there, it wasn't me, how could I have, why didn't they check him instead of focusing on me = all reactions indicating some level of implication and guilty knowledge.

Also I love how that article just brushes over Spedding and Wife losing custody of "the children they have looked after" - no explanation for this is given but those kids would not have been removed without some sort of accusation or discovery of abuse.

Speddings my guy, given all the circumstances. Well done NSW Police.
 
  • #477
Why Police and the FBI Should Be Wary to Use the "Person of Interest" Designation:
The Label Destroys Lives, Yet Provides Little Benefit

Publicly Identifying "Persons of Interest" Is As Destructive as Publicly Identifying "Suspects"

The Department of Justice has long maintained strong policies against identifying suspects in pending investigations. One major reason for this policy is lots of "suspects" turn out, as Mr. Lutner did, to be perfectly innocent - yet the stigma of the "suspect" label may linger after they are publicly exonerated. Or, worse, these "suspects" may never be publicly exonerated, even though internally, the investigators have come to believe they are innocent.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050526.html

You are right, but I think most of us here trust (hope??) that LE did not slap that label on BS lightly, even if they haven't released what they know to the public.
 
  • #478
Here's another link which explains the role of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions. Of particular interest is the information under the (clickable) heading of 'Advice to Police'.

http://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidelines

OK, no more 'blinding you with science' for now. The point in posting these links (see my previous posts regarding the NSW Coroner and Criminal Law) is to help us realise just how many 'ducks' have to be 'in a row' before someone can be charged and brought to trial, particularly in a case is based on circumstantial evidence like William's because he has yet to be found.

IMO the investigation, inquest and trial of Brett Peter Cowan for the murder of Daniel Morcombe would be a particularly relevant case history. It seems to me that there are striking similarities between the circumstances.

My greatest hope is that, if the outcomes are tragically the same, William's family don't have to wait nearly 10 years for justice for their beloved little boy.
 
  • #479
Here's a version not behind a paywall [emoji3]

From the Australian Crime News Site:

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=804822206268634&id=114990695251792&substory_index=0

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

BBM

Here are a couple of comments by Colin I find very interesting;

Four days before William went missing, *Spedding had visited William’s grandmother in Benaroon Drive to repair her washing machine. He took away a part and was supposed to return the day that William disappeared, to fix the machine. But, he told his friend Colin *Youngberry, he never went to Kendall that day and was with his wife in Laurieton attending a school function instead. Youngberry says Bill and *Margaret Spedding had a coffee afterwards and that Bill’s bank records show he was in Laurieton at the time William disappeared

So if this has been reported correctly by CY, then BS only told him he wasn't there. Secondly, the bank records show he was in Laurieton. I have a joint account with my wife and we regularly share our credit / debit cards. This doesn't prove anything IMO.

Heres one from RS

He says his father was due to go to William’s grandmother’s house on the day William disappeared, to fix her washing machine, but “he went to an award ceremony at the school, where one of the boys was getting an award, so he ended up going there rather than going out on that day to William’s grandmother’s”. He says his father told him that he phoned the grandmother to say he would not be coming to fix the washing machine.


This states that RS was told by his father BS. If MS was with him, why didn't she verify that as well?

I really think they have the right person...
 
  • #480
Except at the media has it wrong, so what else did they get wrong?
BS had coffee with MS before the school event.
It is not legal to use anyone else's credit/debit card, even a partners, it's in the terms of use if you check. (I used my partner's log in details online to access our bank account and the bank guy went nuts at me and spent a good half hour telling me what I can and can't do and I could be prosecuted.)

BBM

Here are a couple of comments by Colin I find very interesting;

Four days before William went missing, *Spedding had visited William&#8217;s grandmother in Benaroon Drive to repair her washing machine. He took away a part and was supposed to return the day that William disappeared, to fix the machine. But, he told his friend Colin *Youngberry, he never went to Kendall that day and was with his wife in Laurieton attending a school function instead. Youngberry says Bill and *Margaret Spedding had a coffee afterwards and that Bill&#8217;s bank records show he was in Laurieton at the time William disappeared

So if this has been reported correctly by CY, then BS only told him he wasn't there. Secondly, the bank records show he was in Laurieton. I have a joint account with my wife and we regularly share our credit / debit cards. This doesn't prove anything IMO.

Heres one from RS

He says his father was due to go to William&#8217;s grandmother&#8217;s house on the day William disappeared, to fix her washing machine, but &#8220;he went to an award ceremony at the school, where one of the boys was getting an award, so he ended up going there rather than going out on that day to William&#8217;s grandmother&#8217;s&#8221;. He says his father told him that he phoned the grandmother to say he would not be coming to fix the washing machine.


This states that RS was told by his father BS. If MS was with him, why didn't she verify that as well?

I really think they have the right person...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
3,552
Total visitors
3,668

Forum statistics

Threads
632,667
Messages
18,630,038
Members
243,241
Latest member
Kieiru
Back
Top