Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #20

[krig101]

Thanks Bohemian! You beat me to it. Exactly what I was going to say and more.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[gregjrichards]

WS next court date & it's another police mention........

https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....ate%22%2C%22sortOrder%22%3A%22ASC%22%7D%7D%7D

Thank you to you and everyone who posts the court dates and any legal updates it is much appreciated.

 

[SouthAussie]

Please excuse my ignorance on such matters, but how many Mentions does one normally have?

There can be a few. The judge has further Mentions to make sure both sides are keeping on track with their obligations towards a 'speedy trial'. When a case is complicated and/or more info is to be sorted through and investigated, more Mentions can happen, from what I have seen.

They will keep happening until the defense team has everything the prosecution has, and things can proceed further.

 

[frogwell]

In relation to this case, at the time BS asked her for a character reference she was not considered a victim by the police or media and there seems to be evidence of an ongoing relationship between her, BS and MS. So it may well have surprised BS her actual thoughts and feelings towards him and MS. When MS discovered that the victim considered herself a victim of BS, although her text can be viewed as harrassment, and unwise, it just looks to me like someone communicating with someone that they had a relationship with up until that point. I don't see how I have victim blamed. I think I am commenting on a complex issue that the media have reported in as biased way as they can. I gave my view on my initial response to the disappearance and have said that other information has obviously been given since then which I think I have actively explored and participated in many scenarios for months now. I also gave my opinion, that the 1st responder stood out to me and the moments around when WT went missing. I don't think there is anything offensive there. I end my posts with MOO, is that abrogating responsibility? And I'm not the only sleuther on here questioning and doubting parts of this police investigation. If you think I'm offensive or breaking TOS, ignore me or contact the moderator to review my comments. Didn't need the lecture either on the effects of child sexual assault or victims rights, I'm quite aware, but I won't let that scare me off from trying to look at other sides or points of the story for fear of being called a victim blamer. There are lots of opinions on here too that I find hysterical, distasteful, one-eyed, ignorant, but I don't make it personal. MOO

 

[sosocurious]

So what happened then? Someone in the family had spoken about him being there to the (alleged) past victims and they called CrimeStoppers? I can’t remember why, but weren’t we speculating at one time that it was someone related to the past case that made that call?

Yep -
BS ... had quoted repair job days before and he was due back to finish repair - at the house that a 3 year old boy had disappeared.
William mother has called the repairmans phone that morning......when he eventually returned that call is still a mystery.
He had deleted his phone after all ....presumably before returning to do the repair approx a week after William disappeared.
He was friends with at least one GAPA member that had been arrested days after William disappeared for child sexual offenses as was the president of this group.
FACS and local Port Detectives were investigating BS for his treatment of children not so long after William disappearance and the children were eventually removed....just in time for his premises to be raided and searched.
Those childrens mother had made a complaint to Facs about historical concerns some 21/2 years earlier.
The historical complaints ............ reference his ex brother in law.
Operation Twigg had been a sucessful investigation in the area ....... lots charged .....
How many crimestoppers calls did the name BS come up in?

Something does not feel right......delve deep......who's alibi's were inconsistent?
The family were all where they said they were.
imo

 

[Bohemian]

In relation to this case, at the time BS asked her for a character reference she was not considered a victim by the police or media and there seems to be evidence of an ongoing relationship between her, BS and MS. So it may well have surprised BS her actual thoughts and feelings towards him and MS. When MS discovered that the victim considered herself a victim of BS, although her text can be viewed as harrassment, and unwise, it just looks to me like someone communicating with someone that they had a relationship with up until that point. I don't see how I have victim blamed. I think I am commenting on a complex issue that the media have reported in as biased way as they can. I gave my view on my initial response to the disappearance and have said that other information has obviously been given since then which I think I have actively explored and participated in many scenarios for months now. I also gave my opinion, that the 1st responder stood out to me and the moments around when WT went missing. I don't think there is anything offensive there. I end my posts with MOO, is that abrogating responsibility? And I'm not the only sleuther on here questioning and doubting parts of this police investigation. If you think I'm offensive or breaking TOS, ignore me or contact the moderator to review my comments. Didn't need the lecture either on the effects of child sexual assault or victims rights, I'm quite aware, but I won't let that scare me off from trying to look at other sides or points of the story for fear of being called a victim blamer. MOO

Oh, froggy, I wasn't talking about you doing those things. Victim-blaming is an all-too-common defence used by lawyers and silks in these types of cases involving women and children (by proxy). As for abrogation of responsibility and disregard for our police and justice system; I'm talking about the alleged perpetrators of any crime.

I'm sorry I was so strident in voicing my opinion. The above are simply my pet hates and they often confront me; particularly in cases of alleged child sex offences.

Please accept my apology if I came across as being personally accusatory. That was not my intention at all.

I really have no skin in the game when it comes to BS' guilt or innocence. That's for the courts to decide.

However, I will always have a stromg opinion on and be a staunch advocate for children who are/were vulnerable and at risk of exploitation simply by virtue of their helplessness.

*steps down from soapbox and slopes off to the corner for a self-imposed time out*

 

[frogwell]

Oh, froggy, I wasn't talking about you doing those things. Victim-blaming is an all-too-common defence used by lawyers and silks in these types of cases involving women and children (by proxy). As for abrogation of responsibility and disregard for our police and justice system; I'm talking about the alleged perpetrators of any crime.

I'm sorry I was so strident in voicing my opinion. The above are simply my pet hates and they often confront me; particularly in cases of alleged child sex offences.

Please accept my apology if I came across as being personally accusatory. That was not my intention at all.

I really have no skin in the game when it comes to BS' guilt or innocence. That's for the courts to decide.

However, this doesn't stop me from being a staunch advocate for children who are/were vulnerable and at risk of exploitation by virtue of their helplessness.

Well thanks for the clarification Bo. You addressed me in your opening line and it looked like you were reacting to my post by the similar words you used at the start of your post. I truly thought you were addressing me and I thought Wexford was jumping on the bandwagon in agreement with his posts. Oh well. Misunderstandings. Sure I accept your apology. OK. Nothing to see here folks.

 

[tiddles24]

I completely agree with you on this one Froggy as that was my interpretation as well !!! MOO

 

[Bohemian]

Well thanks for the clarification Bo. You addressed me in your opening line and it looked like you were reacting to my post by the similar words you used at the start of your post. I truly thought you were addressing me and I thought Wexford and Krig were jumping on the bandwagon in agreement with their posts. Oh well. Misunderstandings. Sure I accept your apology. OK. Nothing to see here folks.

Thanks, froggy. I nearly always address people in my posts. It doesn't mean anything in particular other than I acknowledge there is s human being behind the avatar, username and keyboard.

I have been quite cranky about BS' lawyer's line of defence and the judge's comments regarding the victims/witnesses (eg, hysterical/unreliable/inaccurate) for a while so I guess my anger bubbled over. I'm sorry it did because I know I can sound quite intimidatory.

Please be assured that I appreciate your opinion whether it aligns with mine or not and both are equally valid.

 

[HavenWood]

The historical charges were against TWO young girls. We don't know which of these MS made the phone call to. One of them may have still had some form of relationship with BS and MS, but maybe the other didn't. (in MOO she didn't)
I have personally known of cases where there may be 3 or 4 kids in a family with an abuser, but maybe because of age at the time of the offences, some may totally break away from that relationship, where others may still maintain some contact. For example an older child might remember more, or been a witness to more.

 

[deugirtni]

I am VERY interested in this case, and although I don't like to come here any more, I do peek in every now and then to see if anything is new, or if the focus has shifted from the repairman yet. (I see he is still the main topic of conversation!)

One thing that STRUCK me this time, is the news article linked just above (I'll post link again below my post here). I had always known about the neighbour woman having gone out. I recall something about the timing being weird, to begin with.. something about her saying she heard the kids playing in the yard (from memory), but the timing kind of being off. In fact, I think if I look back (which I will do in the next day), I will find that a different time was quoted earlier.

Anyway, ... when I read the article, it says within a MINUTE???? You know, we always always think of perps as being men, right? And even more especially if a crime happens to involve a young toddler. But, what if???? Has this woman been checked out as to where she went, what she did, who she saw, if she was where she was supposed to be, and how long she was gone.. amongst other things? Not to cast a shadow on an innocent neighbour, but, in this particular case, considering the 'opportunistic', 'plucking', and all of that.. I hope she and her circumstances were fully checked out, even though she is a woman, and even though she is a neighbour.

BBM

A Benaroon Drive resident said his wife drove out of the street, which William's grandmother no longer lives in, one minute before William disappeared.


It was 26 or 28 minutes to 11am, he remembered with minute detail.


"She never saw a car or noticed anything strange," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/william-t...-false-hope-12-months-on-20150903-gjenjz.html

 

[Angeline]

If that's true, then someone drove down the street and plucked William within 60 seconds. Either that or the neighbour wasn't paying attention to the street as she left, which is possible.

 

[purpleandgreen]

I'm sure it would have been checked out. Not that I know anything about LE, but I'm sure they've checked every little tidbit like this, and everyone in the street, including the RSO, even though we don't know who they are.

I am VERY interested in this case, and although I don't like to come here any more, I do peek in every now and then to see if anything is new, or if the focus has shifted from the repairman yet. (I see he is still the main topic of conversation!)

One thing that STRUCK me this time, is the news article linked just above (I'll post link again below my post here). I had always known about the neighbour woman having gone out. I recall something about the timing being weird, to begin with.. something about her saying she heard the kids playing in the yard (from memory), but the timing kind of being off. In fact, I think if I look back (which I will do in the next day), I will find that a different time was quoted earlier.

Anyway, ... when I read the article, it says within a MINUTE???? You know, we always always think of perps as being men, right? And even more especially if a crime happens to involve a young toddler. But, what if???? Has this woman been checked out as to where she went, what she did, who she saw, if she was where she was supposed to be, and how long she was gone.. amongst other things? Not to cast a shadow on an innocent neighbour, but, in this particular case, considering the 'opportunistic', 'plucking', and all of that.. I hope she and her circumstances were fully checked out, even though she is a woman, and even though she is a neighbour.

BBM



http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/william-t...-false-hope-12-months-on-20150903-gjenjz.html

 

[asac]

Hmm, hadn't really thought about that wording too much but...that has to be either poor reporting or poor casual use of language! I don't believe we know what time William actually disappeared accurately enough for people to be saying what they were doing ONE minute either side of that!! Well, except for an abductor!
I'm sure the neighbour is going by the estimated time or maybe said "a minute" (as in vaguely within the time frame).

I am not saying these neighbours were involved at all but gosh, if we were reading a novel or watching a movie - that'd be a clue right there!

 

[Found]

Yes, let’s just hide the fact that this ‘grandfather’ is a sick bleep from everyone other than those directly involved. We wouldn’t want any other parents/children in his world to know about that, would we?

For crying out loud, how about ‘John X - a 61 year-old grandfather from Wherever’?!! Give the people living in that area half a chance to keep their kids from being around him or alone with him.

But they need to protect the baby and family. It's not fair for the child to grow up with this being known about her being by the whole community.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sosocurious]

Hmm, hadn't really thought about that wording too much but...that has to be either poor reporting or poor casual use of language! I don't believe we know what time William actually disappeared accurately enough for people to be saying what they were doing ONE minute either side of that!! Well, except for an abductor!
I'm sure the neighbour is going by the estimated time or maybe said "a minute" (as in vaguely within the time frame).

I am not saying these neighbours were involved at all but gosh, if we were reading a novel or watching a movie - that'd be a clue right there!

The analysts are now sifting through and cross-checking everything they have.
They have established that around 200 people were within a 1km radius of William’s grandmother’s house when he went missing. They are checking and plotting the movements of every single one of those people.
Progress, the detectives say, is being able to exclude people from the investigation. Each time they do so, the field narrows.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...sh-into-thin-air/story-e6frg6z6-1227308929078

Currently we know of 4 people that have made it on to the persons of interest list.

 

[Found]

This is my question "What was obvious here, in your opinion?". All family members were cleared of no perceived involvement right from the start.

Might of been said as I'm just catching up but I think it may of been the location. Yes it's near bush but close enough for a child to run away and get lost in? Within a short time frame? I think that wage bush needed to be searched but a child that young would not just walk off into bush so far he cannot be found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[purpleandgreen]

And surely the dogs would have found a scent.

Might of been said as I'm just catching up but I think it may of been the location. Yes it's near bush but close enough for a child to run away and get lost in? Within a short time frame? I think that wage bush needed to be searched but a child that young would not just walk off into bush so far he cannot be found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 102539]

'They' though.....what does that mean. This family is more than just the three. I imagine it was quite easy to establish where FM, FD (assume CCTV, a witness, or his computer/skype confirmed him) and GM were. But who else is there? The way I see it there are quite a few others that needed to be accounted for very quickly.

Apropos "clearing of family": Later on, did LE clear the family of POI No. 1 (2, 3, 4) - re POI 1 fairly extended and multiple generations, it seems - or did they clear only Mr. and Mrs. senior?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Im a bit hazy on all this now....but can anyone remind me....how did Spedding's name first hit the MSM?
Obviously they looked at him as a recent visitor to the property and we know that someone made a call to Crimestoppers about him......but how did the caller know he was there? I was under the impression he became a POI because of the call but how did the caller know he was there?
Surely he wasn't named in MSM before then?

The caller hadn't necessarily have to know BS was there. Maybe there was quite another reason to call? Maybe "on top" then the fact, BS had been at Benaroon Drive and had some connection.