Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #28

[SouthAussie]

For an act of "spontaneity", the leaving of no trace is really quite remarkable. Crimes of opportunity are rushed, trails are left, things are seen, adrenaline kicks in and mistakes are made.
Nothing in this case. Not one shred of evidence, not a trace. Nothing. Not one single shred of anything.
Maddening. :tantrum:

I don't believe that is true. I believe there is evidence. The police have just not revealed what it is ... nor should they. Until the court case.

 

[louisepiglet]

I don't believe that is true. I believe there is evidence. The police have just not revealed what it is ... nor should they. Until the court case.

Well it must not be very good evidence because there has not been an arrest yet.

 

[Warshawski]

So many 'what ifs'. .. and to be honest I just want answers to the disappearance of little William.

IMO, there is definitely Someone who knows Something...
and it may be as seemingly insignificant as:
'heard a noise' .. Thought I did ? ..
'saw a child 'somewhere' perhaps ..
'saw a Person 'somewhere' .. It seemed strange perhaps ..
'saw a vehicle - familiar or otherwise ..
'know FG's property - any pitfalls or danger area. *I saw a photo just other day that dispelled my Mindset of FG's house. I imagined it as a huge long tree lined driveway! Reality for me was that anyone / children playing in front ov house would be most visible from road .. IMO....
'know of private escape tracks in the area..
'know 'associates' on all sides who may have some Intel - from that little Acorn... and all that ..
'We need to remind ourselves that approaching Det Jubelin with anything in relation to William will be treated absolutely confidentially .. No need to worry that you will exposed

Please, Please .. Speak Up .. in William's name & honour ..

 

[Bohemian]

Regardless of the value of the evidence DCI Jubelin and his team possess, what is required is for the ‘someone who knows something’ to find the courage to come forward and tell what they know. Now is that time, if they haven’t come forward already. As Warshawski says (above) they need to speak up in William’s name — to honour him.

William is/was an innocent child, with no agenda, other than to love and be loved in return. He brought joy and happiness to those around him. He was a blessing to everyone who knew him, as all children are to those who are fortunate enough to have them in their care and protection. Children’s innocence and love for us should not be taken for granted or, even worse, exploited. It should be cherished and honoured. No child deserves William’s fate.

End this. Speak up. There will be no peace for you until you do.

​

 

[they'll get you]

I doubt William was close to the home by the time anyone started searching.


Hundreds of police, members of State Emergency Services, Rural Fire Service and members of the community searched day and night for Tyrrell. Specialist police, including the sex crimes squad form Strike Force were immediately formed. Motorcycles and helicopters were brought in to search. Two hundred volunteers searched overnight, hundreds of people combed rugged terrain around the home and police divers searched waterways and dams. The police searched every house in the estate that surrounds Benaroon Drive several times. The police detection dogs were brought in and they managed to detect Tyrrell's scent, but only within the boundaries of the backyard.[11] "Strike Force Rosann" was established with specially trained investigators from the State Crime Command who are experienced in the unexplained disappearance of young children. They supported the police, other emergency services workers and members of the public involved in the search. After five days, police said they were unable to come up with any leads.[12]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_William_Tyrrell





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Well it must not be very good evidence because there has not been an arrest yet.

Evidence can be good and still be "not conclusive". A prosecutor will not allow an arrest if there is a possibility that a good defence lawyer can create reasonable doubt.

That is why Jubelin has requested, many times, for that person who knows something to speak up. imo
He needs that last nail in the coffin, that piece of confirmation, that breaking of the alibi.

I don't know if they will ever find William.
But I do think they know who the perp is.


.

 

[SouthAussie]

I doubt William was close to the home by the time anyone started searching.


Hundreds of police, members of State Emergency Services, Rural Fire Service and members of the community searched day and night for Tyrrell. Specialist police, including the sex crimes squad form Strike Force were immediately formed. Motorcycles and helicopters were brought in to search. Two hundred volunteers searched overnight, hundreds of people combed rugged terrain around the home and police divers searched waterways and dams. The police searched every house in the estate that surrounds Benaroon Drive several times. The police detection dogs were brought in and they managed to detect Tyrrell's scent, but only within the boundaries of the backyard.[11] "Strike Force Rosann" was established with specially trained investigators from the State Crime Command who are experienced in the unexplained disappearance of young children. They supported the police, other emergency services workers and members of the public involved in the search. After five days, police said they were unable to come up with any leads.[12]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_William_Tyrrell





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree. Didn't Jubelin say in one of his media pieces, perhaps the one where he spent time walking up and down the street with a journo, that by the time everyone started searching for William he was likely 20km away?

 

[1968]

“Enabling can be observed in the relationship between the alcoholic/addict and a codependent spouse or a parent. The spouse may attempt to shield the addict from the negative consequences of their behavior by calling in sick to work for them when they are hungover or binging on substances, making excuses that prevent others from holding them accountable, and generally cleaning up the mess that occurs in the wake of their impaired judgment. In reality, what the spouse is doing may be hurting, not helping. Enabling can tend to prevent psychological growth in the person being enabled, and can contribute to negative symptoms in the enabler. “

“Therapist Darline Lancer writes, "Stopping enabling isn’t easy. Nor is it for the faint of heart. Aside from likely pushback and possible retaliation, you may also fear the consequences of doing nothing. For instance, you may fear your [addict] husband will lose his job...You may be afraid the addict may have an auto accident, or worse, die or commit suicide."[5] The parent may allow the addicted adult child to live at home without helping with chores, and be manipulated by the child's excuses, emotional attacks, and threats of self-harm.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling

Unfortunately I don’t think NC is helpful to BC at all.

It is a real shame I agree and I feel sad for him. He could be doing so much more with the search for William, raising awareness, keeping the case in the public eye etc.

I believe Williams case to be solvable, and trust that Jubelin has his eye on the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

I just want to say one more thing about good evidence .....

There is no way, not a chance, that a search warrant to rip apart all of Spedding's properties would have been issued if there was not reasonable cause to suspect his involvement. They would not have been allowed to seize his items - computer, car(s), mattress, etc - if there was no probable cause. I think we really need to understand that.

Because he said/she said that he wasn't/was supposed to be there that morning, is not reasonable cause. There needs to be more for such an in-depth search and seizure.

BBM

The requirement there is “reasonable cause to suspect” precedes the use of many police powers and provides validity to subsequent police action. When legislation requires "reasonable grounds" as a state of mind (including suspicion and belief), it requires facts ‘sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person ’.

In relation to a suspicion, ‘the facts which can reasonably ground a suspicion may be quite insufficient reasonably to ground a belief, yet some factual basis for the suspicion must be shown’. Suspicion is a state of mind which ‘ falls short of belief ’ and ‘ is more than mere idle wondering whether [the situation] exists or not ’. This principle requires some substance to the suspicion (beyond a hunch) for the establishment of “reasonable cause”.

http://www.lsc.sa.gov.au/dsh/print/ch05.php#Ch2119Se301142

AND we do not know what was discovered in those searches and seizures .. evidently not enough to charge him at this point in time .. but that does not mean that no evidence has been found.

Or evidence against other persons, for that matter.

 

[insanity]

AND MS grandson knows KL.

AND NC’s bestie Ms Loweke is living with Mr Jones’ brother-in-law and she PERSONALLY knows Bill Spedding.

What spider spun this web..

Does anyone understand my reasons or am I going nuts here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Can you remind me who is KL??



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[frogwell]

I just want to say one more thing about good evidence .....

There is no way, not a chance, that a search warrant to rip apart all of Spedding's properties would have been issued if there was not reasonable cause to suspect his involvement. They would not have been allowed to seize his items - computer, car(s), mattress, etc - if there was no probable cause. I think we really need to understand that.

Because he said/she said that he wasn't/was supposed to be there that morning, is not reasonable cause. There needs to be more for such an in-depth search and seizure.

BBM




AND we do not know what was discovered in those searches and seizures .. evidently not enough to charge him at this point in time .. but that does not mean that no evidence has been found.

Or evidence against other persons, for that matter.

The granting of a search warrant may have come with allegation of child sexual assault being reported to police, after BS' family members knew he had done a service call at the FGM's house. Something the D's would find hard to ignore.

 

[madoodi]

Can you remind me who is KL??



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this may be BG friend Kim Loweke. I might be wrong though.

 

[SouthAussie]

The granting of a search warrant may have come with allegation of child sexual assault being reported to police, after BS' family members knew he had done a service call at the FGM's house. Something the D's would find hard to ignore.

Yes, that may be so. I don't know. But I don't think that unless there was factual evidence that he was in that area on that morning, I don't believe a warrant of that magnitude would have been granted.

It could have been ping evidence, call log evidence from the telecomms providers, a CCTV sighting of his van .... something else.

It needed to be factual evidence, not a hunch.

 

[Bohemian]

I just want to say one more thing about good evidence .....

There is no way, not a chance, that a search warrant to rip apart all of Spedding's properties would have been issued if there was not reasonable cause to suspect his involvement. They would not have been allowed to seize his items - computer, car(s), mattress, etc - if there was no probable cause. I think we really need to understand that.

Because he said/she said that he wasn't/was supposed to be there that morning, is not reasonable cause. There needs to be more for such an in-depth search and seizure.

BBM




AND we do not know what was discovered in those searches and seizures .. evidently not enough to charge him at this point in time .. but that does not mean that no evidence has been found.

Or evidence against other persons, for that matter.

I understand. Thank you for making this crystal clear.

 

[frogwell]

Yes, that may be so. I don't know. But I don't think that unless there was factual evidence that he was in that area on that morning, I don't believe a warrant of that magnitude would have been granted.

It could have been ping evidence, call log evidence from the telecomms providers, a CCTV sighting of his van .... something else.

It needed to be factual evidence, not a hunch.

Well, along those line, if there is hard data, it may not be visual. There is hard evidence with the CSA allegations, medical notes etc.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, along those line, if there is hard data, it may not be visual. There is hard evidence with the CSA allegations, medical notes etc.

Yes. But they will not show that he was in the area that morning. Being there 4 days prior to William's disappearance, and being a suspected child molester, is not reasonable cause to believe he was in the area the morning of William's disappearance.

If that was the case, there is the possibility that quite a few others may have been subjected to that in-depth kind of search. "He was on Benaroon Drive a week ago, isn't he a suspected/known child sex offender? Let's see if we can get a warrant to rip his place apart." That just wouldn't fly, unless they could be shown to be in that area that morning.

There must be something more. Something factual. Something we do not yet know about.

 

[Bohemian]

Why is a descriptor of a witness in the historical sexual abuse proceedings, reported early in the case in MSM, ‘haunting me’ now? Was the person described as malicious and/or unreliable? I can’t remember. What I do remember is thinking the description of that witness was akin to victim-blaming at the time and I still think so today. I wish I could find the link. Soso? TIA.

 

[Bohemian]

I know when I am interested in viewing court proceedings, and that won’t be the sentencing of William’s BP.

 

[sosocurious]

Why is a descriptor of a witness in the historical sexual abuse proceedings, reported early in the case in MSM, ‘haunting me’ now? Was the person described as malicious and/or unreliable? I can’t remember. What I do remember is thinking the description of that witness was akin to victim-blaming at the time and I still think so today. I wish I could find the link. Soso? TIA.

Do you mean this one?

A key witness in the case against Bill Spedding has been described as “obsessive, compulsive and bizarre” by a judge, who said she had a history of making similar allegations against men, court documents reveal.

Mr Spedding, who was identified as a “person of interest” by police investigating the disappearance of William Tyrrell last September, was last week granted bail on unrelated child-sex charges..........

The witness, who cannot be named, claimed Mr Spedding and another woman sexually abused children. These alle*gations, which were unrelated to the charges he now faces, were rejected by a judge, who said he was “reasonably satisfied” the abuse did not occur.

The judge found the witness may also have sought to influence the evidence of the children allegedly involved, the court documents show.

The witness, who has separately alleged Mr Spedding committed the offences for which he currently faces charges, was *“obsessive, compulsive and *bizarre”, the judge said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...e/news-story/9b98d96a3dbc4a8101e74fce96668fc2
Witness against Bill Spedding described as ‘bizarre, obsessive’
June 27, 2015

 

[frogwell]

Why is a descriptor of a witness in the historical sexual abuse proceedings, reported early in the case in MSM, ‘haunting me’ now? Was the person described as malicious and/or unreliable? I can’t remember. What I do remember is thinking the description of that witness was akin to victim-blaming at the time and I still think so today. I wish I could find the link. Soso? TIA.

There was a link to a judge's description of the mother of the two victims. It seemed to be his summation of how he considered her evidence in what appeared to be a family law situation, (custodial access?), a few years after the crimes. The judge described her as having had a history of accusing other men of things, real evidence of coaching?. MOO