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

[Puggle]

I'm sure the police did speak to the alleged client but they're keeping that quiet for now.

I hope so....

 

[krig101]

BS has not been charged with anything to do with William's disappearance and therefore would not be subjected to a polygraph. Anything ascertained from a polygraph test is not admissible in a court of law. Waste of time really isn't it?

So in Australia do you have to be charged to have to take one then? Here they will/can administer them during an investigation before any charges laid. They can be refused of course. They are not admissible in court here either but I find polys quite fascinating during investigations.

Slightly off topic... My friends EX husband's car mysteriously caught on fire a few years ago in our work parking lot overnight. There were witnesses driving by that seen someone matching his description running from the vehicle as it was aflame. Police wanted him to take a poly and he refused. He was not charged with arson however the insurance company would not replace the car because he refused the poly. These days he is sitting in jail for stealing over $350000 in goods from people's homes. What a guy, right!

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Incomplete thoughts that have been silently clunking around in the recesses of my brain.

If BS is not involved:

A. Random Abduction. Statistically, the worst case scenario for William. Only possible clues are grey/grey-green sedans (same car seen in different light?) and white station wagon seen in Benaroon Drive by FM and white 4WD speeding through Kendall.

B. Targeted Abduction. May mean William is more likely to be alive. Also a possibility he wasn't taken by a 'paedophile ring'. Again, the cars are the only possible clues.

1. Someone knows William is at 48 Benaroon Drive and also knows his FD has left.
FD seems to be very fond of his little boy. Is there someone who doesn't like this emotional connection? Maybe someone from the usual residence/home town waiting for an opportunity, when FD/boy are not in town to disguise the relation? - Are there other enemies of FD (not on an emotional level)?
2. Grey/grey-green sedan casually drives past, scoping out location and possibly resulting also in positive identification of William. Parks between 31 and 35 Benaroon Drive.

3. White station wagon arrives containing someone whom William knows and parks behind sedan.

4. Occupants of both cars conceal themselves and surveill 48 Benaroon Drive.

5. William jumps from balcony (Why? Has he seen someone he knows?). He runs toward them continuing to play 'Daddy Tiger'. Known person picks William up and rapidly walks toward cemetery.
I think, William wasn't able to look in the direction of parking cars when he still was playing on the porch?
6. Cars pick William and known person up and drive through cemetery. William and known person transfer to white 4WD and leave for parts unknown.

*brain grinds to a halt*

Above open to constructive (and polite) criticism.

On your marks. Get set. Go!

My inserts in red ...

 

[krig101]

we don't hear much of polygraph being used here in Australia..... do we use it here at all???

I remember SouthAussie posted some info on them occasionally being used but that was months ago. I think we use them much more in the US, but not admissible in court.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Makara]

The Lie Detectors Act 1983

Concern in New South Wales about the use or misuse of lie detectors by employers, insurance investigators and others has led to the enactment of the Lie Detectors Act 1983 (NSW). ("the Act")
The Act prohibits requesting or requiring another person to undergo an examination based on the use of instruments or apparatus which monitor the physical reactions of the body or elements of stress, tone or variation or vibration in the voice for any prohibited purpose.

Prohibited purpose is defined in the Act to mean any purpose connected with:-
Matters relating to employment including application for or offer of employment, honesty and other means related to character terms of employment, promotion and other employment related benefits, transfer of employment, training in or continuation of employment.
Consideration of the acceptance of risk under a proposal for a contract or policy of insurance.
Consideration of a claim under an insurance policy or payment of compensation for loss or damage under an insurance policy or an application for any form of financial accommodation.
Establishing whether or not a person is guilty of an act or admission that is punishable by a fine or imprisonment.

Given the difficulties associated with lie detector tests, it would be appropriate for similar legislation to be enacted throughout Australia. Further, such legislation should include an additional category extending the prohibition on the use of lie detectors to the questioning suspects in criminal matters.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2000/6.html

BBM.

 

[SapphireSteel]

we don't hear much of polygraph being used here in Australia..... do we use it here at all???

Australian Police have their own form of polygraph.

Its called "staring into the suspects eyes while you present them with the facts"

Polygraph machines are NOT used in Australia. Even if there was one lurking in a basement somewhere, no ones trained to administer them so whoever posted on here claiming they were used, is incorrect.

They are pretty much untrustworthy therefore frowned upon by Australian Police who prefer to do their lie detecting the old fashioned way - counting nostril twitches and eyes sliding hither and yon as the liar struggles to keep up with their lies.

I suggest Spedding was hooked up to the Australian Version of the Lie Detector Machine >>> a Detective Chief Inspector<<<and failed wildly.

 

[thylacine7]

Australian Police have their own form of polygraph.

Its called "staring into the suspects eyes while you present them with the facts"

Polygraph machines are NOT used in Australia. Even if there was one lurking in a basement somewhere, no ones trained to administer them so whoever posted on here claiming they were used, is incorrect.

They are pretty much untrustworthy therefore frowned upon by Australian Police who prefer to do their lie detecting the old fashioned way - counting nostril twitches and eyes sliding hither and yon as the liar struggles to keep up with their lies.

I suggest Spedding was hooked up to the Australian Version of the Lie Detector Machine >>> a Detective Chief Inspector<<<and failed wildly.

... except that that method is completely subjective, and could no more be relied upon than the results of a lie detector.

Furthermore, police 'instinct' is a dangerous thing to rely on as it can lead to unconscious focus on a particular individual and blind the individual to evidence pointing in another direction (ie confirmation bias).

Of course if looking into their eyes whilst presenting the facts breaks them down and leads to a valid confession, then so be it, but that (depending on the particular case) may not be where it ends, the evidence all still has to fit (could be a false confession), or be ruled out, or found to be false etc.

I remember reading an article from an officer (if memory serves) in a recent issue of Australian Skeptic talking about how dangerous it is for police to rely on their 'gut' and I think it even mentioned that they're trying to integrate into training the need for critical thinking and open-mindedness when it comes to investigations, to avoid being unconsciously led off in a particular direction that may not be the right one.

Sure the gut can be a help, making the officer realise there's more to that individual/story/whatever that needs further investigation, but it needs to be recognised for what it is, complete subjective speculation (for lack of a better word) without evidence to back it up; were there sufficient evidence, they wouldn't need their 'gut', and trying to pursue the person because they 'know that's their guy' etc, could end up wasting time that should've been spent investigating other leads properly.

 

[Wexford]

I'd say the police were onto the Dunbogan story as soon as it was mentioned to them.

Later on that day, September 12, Mr Spedding had *driven to Dunbogan where he had *another appliance to repair. Detectives visited Dunbogan on Wednesday last week to talk to locals.

January 24, 2015 1:34pm

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...r-william-tyrell/story-fni0cx12-1227195546202

Did they know he was coming or did he just turn up on the spur of the moment? Maybe they weren't home because they didn't get his call? Probably hard to know if he has deleted his call log.

 

[krig101]

Oh little William, where are you sweet child???

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[SapphireSteel]

... except that that method is completely subjective, and could no more be relied upon than the results of a lie detector.

Furthermore, police 'instinct' is a dangerous thing to rely on as it can lead to unconscious focus on a particular individual and blind the individual to evidence pointing in another direction (ie confirmation bias).

Of course if looking into their eyes whilst presenting the facts breaks them down and leads to a valid confession, then so be it, but that (depending on the particular case) may not be where it ends, the evidence all still has to fit (could be a false confession), or be ruled out, or found to be false etc.

I remember reading an article from an officer (if memory serves) in a recent issue of Australian Skeptic talking about how dangerous it is for police to rely on their 'gut' and I think it even mentioned that they're trying to integrate into training the need for critical thinking and open-mindedness when it comes to investigations, to avoid being unconsciously led off in a particular direction that may not be the right one.

Sure the gut can be a help, making the officer realise there's more to that individual/story/whatever that needs further investigation, but it needs to be recognised for what it is, complete subjective speculation (for lack of a better word) without evidence to back it up; were there sufficient evidence, they wouldn't need their 'gut', and trying to pursue the person because they 'know that's their guy' etc, could end up wasting time that should've been spent investigating other leads properly.

Im sorry but a remembered unquoted article from someone who may/may not be Australian Police, printed in a magazine called Australian Skeptic (where do you buy this? ive never seen it in any newsagent) is hardly a reliable source imo!

Have you ever worked with Australian Police? I have and I can assure you they haven't focused on Spedding for no reason.

They are not given to flights of fancy or inaccurate methods which is why polygraphs are despised.

I suggest that somewhere during the interview Spedding mentioned SEEING little William in his spiderman suit. A polygraph would never pick this up as a lie because its not! But a human will pick it up as a Red Flag because Spedding was not supposed to be there that day.

There is also a little known investigation technique called Forensic Linguistics.

Its the reason Police try to get the suspect talking. Every thing they say can be analysed and certain statements are red flags to investigators. Most people don't have a clue what these are but if they are present they indicate guilt.

Again I reiterate - they aren't focused on Spedding, indeed NAMING him, for No Reason.

You will agree our criminals get the protection of privacy almost always. Spedding has had that protection intentionally removed by Police most probably as a pressurizing tactic.

They are pressuring him into making a mistake.

Also can you give me an example where NSW Police have "got it wrong"? Seriously? When was the last innocent man released from NSW jail because the police ID'd the wrong guy through "gut"?

NSW Police don't work like some small American PD with a Boss Hogg type Sheriff whos word is law. Our courts don't work like American courts either. There has to be solid evidence and quite a lot of it, Police themselves are leery of the courts here.

There are checks and counter checks and also the NSW Public Prosecutors Office which is designed to keep Police honest.

 

[Bohemian]

Could someone give me a quick tutorial on 'Posting Multi-quotes for Dummies' please?

 

[Kalamazoo]

Im sorry but a remembered unquoted article from someone who may/may not be Australian Police, printed in a magazine called Australian Skeptic (where do you buy this? ive never seen it in any newsagent) is hardly a reliable source imo!

Have you ever worked with Australian Police? I have and I can assure you they haven't focused on Spedding for no reason.

They are not given to flights of fancy or inaccurate methods which is why polygraphs are despised.

I suggest that somewhere during the interview Spedding mentioned SEEING little William in his spiderman suit. A polygraph would never pick this up as a lie because its not! But a human will pick it up as a Red Flag because Spedding was not supposed to be there that day.

There is also a little known investigation technique called Forensic Linguistics.

Its the reason Police try to get the suspect talking. Every thing they say can be analysed and certain statements are red flags to investigators. Most people don't have a clue what these are but if they are present they indicate guilt.

Again I reiterate - they aren't focused on Spedding, indeed NAMING him, for No Reason.

You will agree our criminals get the protection of privacy almost always. Spedding has had that protection intentionally removed by Police most probably as a pressurizing tactic.

They are pressuring him into making a mistake.

Also can you give me an example where NSW Police have "got it wrong"? Seriously? When was the last innocent man released from NSW jail because the police ID'd the wrong guy through "gut"?

NSW Police don't work like some small American PD with a Boss Hogg type Sheriff whos word is law. Our courts don't work like American courts either. There has to be solid evidence and quite a lot of it, Police themselves are leery of the courts here.

There are checks and counter checks and also the NSW Public Prosecutors Office which is designed to keep Police honest.

This is the most recent case of the NSW police "getting it wrong" because of gut instincts.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...urder-of-husband/story-fni0cx12-1227496121412

The police do a great job, but remember they are only human. Gut instincts, although mostly helpful in their job, CAN be a negative thing too. MOO

 

[Rayemonde]

:slapfight:

 

[crabstick]

Polygraphs were used in he Claremont serial killer investigation with mixed results.

we don't hear much of polygraph being used here in Australia..... do we use it here at all???

We have the Bishop machine, yes


theaimn.com

I was subject to the officer stare years ago. A white shirt police officer ripped me out the car and gave it to me. He said, you can go now but he was shaking like a leaf. I was like WTF. Then I realised a minute later we were on Stirling highway. I had been kerbside polygraphed.

I didnt look like Kung Fu Panda then. I was more Pierce Brosnan

Australian Police have their own form of polygraph.

Its called "staring into the suspects eyes while you present them with the facts"

Polygraph machines are NOT used in Australia. Even if there was one lurking in a basement somewhere, no ones trained to administer them so whoever posted on here claiming they were used, is incorrect.

They are pretty much untrustworthy therefore frowned upon by Australian Police who prefer to do their lie detecting the old fashioned way - counting nostril twitches and eyes sliding hither and yon as the liar struggles to keep up with their lies.

I suggest Spedding was hooked up to the Australian Version of the Lie Detector Machine >>> a Detective Chief Inspector<<<and failed wildly.

 

[Wozzie]

Lol that msm report always interested me.......they went to speak with "Locals".....???.... Why weren't they speaking with the individual client he saw??........strange.

I have been wondering if one of the reasons they are suspicious of BS could be that perhaps the client in Dunbogan has a connection to POI's or a "history" of their own? Just throwing some thoughts around.

 

[Wexford]

I have been wondering if one of the reasons they are suspicious of BS could be that perhaps the client in Dunbogan has a connection to POI's or a "history" of their own? Just throwing some thoughts around.

You got me thinking...this is of interest from 2006 (dont you just love $4k fine only?):
http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1001834/4000-fine-for-child-🤬🤬🤬🤬-charge/


But this one flagged my interest also..Jan 2014 and the location is very very nearby.
http://www.portnews.com.au/story/20...r-alleged-possession-of-child-abuse-material/

 

[stormyseas]

What time is BS's court hearing today?

 

[Karo]

Already over

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...nditions-relaxed/story-fnihsfrf-1227540243814

 

[sosocurious]

I have been wondering if one of the reasons they are suspicious of BS could be that perhaps the client in Dunbogan has a connection to POI's or a "history" of their own? Just throwing some thoughts around.

Yes I have been thinking the same thing.
I am not convinced that BS has not said in the interview soon after William disappeared that he was at Dunbogan in the morning.
Colin was a bit confused about that in the earlier interviews with the media.
Maybe he filled his day with Dunbogan, school awards that I am thinking MS did attend with a friend and very possibly purchased coffee on the card.

I guess he could have said he went to Dunbogan in the morning and had to head back to the office to get a part to finish the repair in the arvo.

Last Monday began like any other for Mr Spedding. He was sitting on the back porch planning his work schedule.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t-william-tyrell/story-fni0cx12-1227195778466

As Wexford said up thread had he made that appointment or just turned up unannounced?
Did he even repair a fridge in Dunbogan at anytime during that day as he has claimed?
Or was their some kind mate providing an alibi?
And yes why are the police talking to the Dunbogan locals, if that all checked out ?
imo

 

[thylacine7]

Im sorry but a remembered unquoted article from someone who may/may not be Australian Police, printed in a magazine called Australian Skeptic (where do you buy this? ive never seen it in any newsagent) is hardly a reliable source imo!

Have you ever worked with Australian Police? I have and I can assure you they haven't focused on Spedding for no reason.

They are not given to flights of fancy or inaccurate methods which is why polygraphs are despised.

I suggest that somewhere during the interview Spedding mentioned SEEING little William in his spiderman suit. A polygraph would never pick this up as a lie because its not! But a human will pick it up as a Red Flag because Spedding was not supposed to be there that day.

There is also a little known investigation technique called Forensic Linguistics.

Its the reason Police try to get the suspect talking. Every thing they say can be analysed and certain statements are red flags to investigators. Most people don't have a clue what these are but if they are present they indicate guilt.

Again I reiterate - they aren't focused on Spedding, indeed NAMING him, for No Reason.

You will agree our criminals get the protection of privacy almost always. Spedding has had that protection intentionally removed by Police most probably as a pressurizing tactic.

They are pressuring him into making a mistake.

Also can you give me an example where NSW Police have "got it wrong"? Seriously? When was the last innocent man released from NSW jail because the police ID'd the wrong guy through "gut"?

NSW Police don't work like some small American PD with a Boss Hogg type Sheriff whos word is law. Our courts don't work like American courts either. There has to be solid evidence and quite a lot of it, Police themselves are leery of the courts here.

There are checks and counter checks and also the NSW Public Prosecutors Office which is designed to keep Police honest.

Whoa whoa whoa you've put a lot of words in my mouth there. I never said gut instinct is WRONG, only that it shouldn't be relied upon to the detriment of evidence and other investigation.

I don't remotely believe they 'got it wrong' with Spedding, nor did I even refer to any other case where I believe they did.

I don't disagree with you, just felt it worth mentioning that 'gut instinct' is no more reliable (and every bit as subjective, if not moreso when you think about it) than polygraphs.

That doesn't mean it's not very useful in helping an officer when something 'feels off'; they just need to be aware of the possibility of being tempted down a dead end to pursue their gut when what evidence they do have is pointing elsewhere. That doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, just not to the exclusion of all else.

The magazine can be found here - http://www.skeptics.com.au/the-magazine/ - and I've never seen it in a newsagent anyway (since when does that designate authority??), but considering the kind of rubbish I do see in newsagents, it doesn't bother me all that much.

I wasn't aware I had to quote anything being mentioned solely in conversation, however I discovered it is actually available online (I get them via email as a paid subscriber), at http://www.skeptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/magazine/The Skeptic Volume 34 (2014) No 1.pdf starting on page 38. As I said in my post, "if memory serves", but as is too often the case with my rubbish memory ha, it's not written by a cop, rather a journalist, but that doesn't negate the point being made; police are every bit as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone else. The article also references studies done by cognitive scientists featuring real police, showing their instinct yields results no better than expected by chance.

Since it's freely available in full on the site, here's a quote.

"Every wrongful conviction has started with a bad decision by a police officer who believed the suspect guilty when he was not.

Thousands of experiments by cognitive scientists over the past 30 years tell us why we reach such poor decisions, and why our legal system sustains them.

Over-confidence is the place to start looking. The confidence illusion, also called cognitive conceit, says that we think we know more than we do. A fear of cognitive conceit is familiar to any sleepless parent whose teenager has just passed his driving test.

Just like the misplaced confidence of the teen, a police officer whose gut instinct has proved to be right many times begins to trust it. This particular brand of cognitive conceit is approvingly labelled &#8220;coppers&#8217; instinct&#8221;, an entrenched belief that, with long practice, experienced police become expert at detecting crooks by observing and listening to them.

Civilians also hold a highly-refined but flawed belief in copper&#8217;s instinct, stemming from Charles Dickens&#8217; era when the public were told that detectives possessed almost supernatural powers to detect liars and truth-tellers, just by reading their subjects&#8217; faces. An army of novelists, crime reporters and screen-writers right up to the present day have reinforced this notion in the public mind.

But experiments by cognitive scientists using real police, lawyers and judges as subjects proved that their success rate in detecting liars is a mere 50-50, the same as chance.

Mistakes by arresting officers are compounded when the legal system, which we assume to be almost bulletproof, turns out to be subject to another peril that afflicts hasty police: confirmation bias.

Once an officer&#8217;s mind is made up that he or she has the right culprit, the temptation can be to emphasise evidence that supports the charge and discard that which does not.

Our system allows much evidence to be collected after the accused person is charged, a practice fraught with obvious dangers.

Too often this has "led to disastrous and sometimes dishonest evidence being presented to juries, including faked forensic evidence, perjury and pressured false statements from civilian witnesses.

When the indictment finally reaches the gladiatorial court arena, the temptation can be to tailor the evidence so as to reinforce the case against the person in the dock.

Celebrated UK writer Ludovic Kennedy, who investigated many wrongful convictions beginning with his book 10 Rillington Place, held a jaundiced view of the British-based adversarial court and jury system. &#8220;This is an invitation for police to commit perjury, and they frequently do,&#8221; he wrote.

UNBUDGEABLE BELIEFS
After a trial is over and a conviction is seriously questioned with new evidence, sometimes many years later, the appalling prospect that the criminal justice system may have convicted and jailed an innocent person appears to make that system withdraw into itself, to protect and defend its position.

Denial, or belief perseverance, is a well-documented cognitive trap very familiar to readers of The Skeptic: clinging to a belief despite the emergence of evidence to the contrary.