Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #30

[Hbayne]

I am going to stick my neck out here and predict Spedding will be found not guilty in this trial. IMO there is not enough evidence to prove he is the abuser and the children were young enough at the time for one of them to have no memory of the abuse. I am NOT saying he is not guilty, just saying the evidence will not be enough to find him guilty.

Correct me if I’m wrong maybe I watch to much crime tv. Don’t they have to have to have sufficient evidence to be allowed to go to trial? If so hopefully there is enough ?? Tricky in such an old case . I watch the real life show “cold case” where the two women go back and investigate old crimes that never got to court due to lack of evidence, they find that evidence and then submit to the DA ( or whoever it is ) to grant a trial due to new evidence uncovered before. They then get a yes or no as to wether there is enough evidence to go to trial . If that’s the way it works in aus then I’m hoping they have something pretty damning on him.

 

[Bethan]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...band-used-as-william-tyrrell-alibi/ar-BBJ3UN3

“”A widow has said she does not want her late husband used as an alibi by a person of interest in the William Tyrrell case.
As reported on A Current Affair last night, Tony Jones, who lived 20 minutes from the Kendall home William disappeared from in 2014, offered his first public alibi.
Mr Jones, who remains a person of interest in the case but has not been charged, said he was helping a neighbour install a hot water system at his house the day the then-three-year-old vanished.

The neighbour has since died, but his widow told A Current Affair that Mr Jones did install a hot water system at their house, at least four months before William's suspected abduction.

She said Mr Jones had driven a white station wagon seized by police for evidence, which Mr Jones claimed belonged to his ex-partner.””


I’ve not kept up to date on this case, so forgive me if this is “old news” but it sounds pretty significant........

 

[SouthAussie]

Correct me if I’m wrong maybe I watch to much crime tv. Don’t they have to have to have sufficient evidence to be allowed to go to trial? If so hopefully there is enough ?? Tricky in such an old case . I watch the real life show “cold case” where the two women go back and investigate old crimes that never got to court due to lack of evidence, they find that evidence and then submit to the DA ( or whoever it is ) to grant a trial due to new evidence uncovered before. They then get a yes or no as to wether there is enough evidence to go to trial . If that’s the way it works in aus then I’m hoping they have something pretty damning on him.

Yes, I think you are right. There must be enough evidence to take the case to trial in the first place.

And we actually do not know what all that evidence is. All we have heard is the diatribe that the defence lawyer, Mr O'Brien, put out .. that they lost Spedding's first police interview, that Hillsley 'could have done it' , that a judge said some woman was scatty, that a judge said the evidence was weak.

I read an MSM report just the other day that contradicted that, where the initial judge said the evidence was strong. (The judge that refused him bail, initially.) I will have to see if I can find it.

Also, Justice Geoffrey Bellew is, apparently, the one that said that the evidence is weak, and he is not the trial judge ... thank goodness.


.

 

[sleepinoz]

Yes, I think you are right. There must be enough evidence to take the case to trial in the first place.

And we actually do not know what all that evidence is. All we have heard is the diatribe that the defence lawyer, Mr O'Brien, put out .. that they lost Spedding's first police interview, that Hillsley 'could have done it' , that a judge said some woman was scatty, that a judge said the evidence was weak.

I read an MSM report just the other day that contradicted that, where the initial judge said the evidence was strong. (The judge that refused him bail, initially.) I will have to see if I can find it.

.

I think they have enough evidence - to take it to court. The thing is not all cases with evidence get the 'right' result.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think they have enough evidence - to take it to court. The thing is not all cases with evidence get the 'right' result.

I definitely agree with that. There are people who have walked away from crimes, and their trials, due to opinion.

Hoping that a judge-only trial overcomes that.

Overall, I do not think it looks good for Spedding. None of it. No matter what diatribe his defence lawyer tries to spin.



"The magistrate agreed the evidence against Mr Spedding was strong and refused him bail ahead of another court appearance in June.

Detectives allege that at times Mr Spedding did not act alone, with Victoria Police now investigating claims involving other adults and alleged victims.

Police also allege after Mr Spedding was probed in relation to William Tyrell’s disappearance, he contacted one alleged victim to demand a signed document declaring she was not abused."

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...of-bill-spedding-over-missing-william-tyrrell

 

[SouthAussie]

If it helps our confidence or hopes at all ...

This is the judge who let Spedding out on bail.

The Honourable Justice Geoffrey Bellew was admitted to practice in November 1983. From 1983 until 1991 he practiced as a solicitor, before being admitted to the NSW Bar.
Those cases included prosecutions for revenue fraud, people smuggling, importation of large quantities of narcotics and terrorism offences, as well as proceedings under Proceeds of Crime legislation. His Honour's civil practice focussed upon acting for insurers in various proceedings including personal injury litigation. He also appeared regularly in administrative law proceedings.

https://www.lexisnexis.com.au/en/insights-and-analysis/authors-and-experts/justice-geoffrey-bellew

His Honour also had an extensive civil practice, and appeared regularly for professional and amateur sports persons in disciplinary tribunals, as well as in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
https://www.nd.edu.au/sydney/schools/law/staff/geoffrey-bellew

And this is the judge who is presiding over Spedding's trial ....

“Magistrate Syme is among the most experienced judicial officers in NSW Local Courts and has acted as Chief Magistrate and Senior Children’s Magistrate in recent years,” said Mr Hatzistergos.
Magistrate Syme began her legal career in Perth in 1979. In 1987, at the age of 32, she became one of the youngest people to be appointed to the bench of the West Australian Children’s Court.
“As Deputy Chief Magistrate, Ms Syme has presided over some of the most serious and complex matters to come before Local Court in recent years.”

https://www.nswbar.asn.au/circulars/2009/mar09/dso.pdf

 

[Hbayne]

I really believe spedding and AJ and perhaps a few cohorts are the centre pieces of Williams abduction. IMOO . I don’t think bio dad or mum at all involved. As for the two old attention seekers NC and KL , can’t see them in the picture either.

 

[Whàngarei]

I really believe spedding and AJ and perhaps a few cohorts are the centre pieces of Williams abduction. IMOO . I don’t think bio dad or mum at all involved. As for the two old attention seekers NC and KL , can’t see them in the picture either.

Natalie isn't involved. Imo.

 

[sleepinoz]

Natalie isn't involved. Imo.

Nahh she's just there for her 15 minutes

 

[JLZ]

Correct me if I’m wrong maybe I watch to much crime tv. Don’t they have to have to have sufficient evidence to be allowed to go to trial? If so hopefully there is enough ?? Tricky in such an old case . I watch the real life show “cold case” where the two women go back and investigate old crimes that never got to court due to lack of evidence, they find that evidence and then submit to the DA ( or whoever it is ) to grant a trial due to new evidence uncovered before. They then get a yes or no as to wether there is enough evidence to go to trial . If that’s the way it works in aus then I’m hoping they have something pretty damning on him.

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

See in link The Decision to Prosecute: Guideline 4.

The DPP prosecutes when it considers that it's in the public interest to do so. The guideline talks about what factors contribute to that.

This is different from an assessment that something is proved beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of the DPP, apart from the fact that it is the jury's evaluation that matters.

Also remember that Spedding waived his right to committal, so the prima facie case has not been tested by a judge.

 

[Whàngarei]

Nahh she's just there for her 15 minutes

However Kim is another story

 

[sleepinoz]

However Kim is another story

Much the same IMO

 

[sleepinoz]

However Kim is another story

Why would anyone give an ACA interview shortly after being interviewed by Police? IMO she called them to let them know she was interviewed.

 

[Whàngarei]

Why would anyone give an ACA interview shortly after being interviewed by Police? IMO she called them to let them know she was interviewed.

That was her fatal error.Too cocky .

 

[sleepinoz]

That was her fatal error.Too cocky .

What was so fatal about it?

 

[SouthAussie]

IMO these non-players in William's case - Kim Loweke, Natalie Collins, Katrina 'Whoever' - have all now received their $2,000/however-much-money for appearing on ACA, and are laughing all the way to the shops.


“Nothing we can do,” his mother Natalie Collins told A Current Affair.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...ological-dad-jailed/ar-BBIDriN?%3Bocid=ASUDHP

"I don't know why my name has come up in this situation," Ms Loweke told A Current Affair.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...dmother-with-links-to-two-persons-of-interest

Watching footage of Mr Jones's confrontation with A Current Affair reporter Steve Marshall, Katrina said she had never seen Mr Jones "so angry".
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...f-interest-in-william-tyrrell-case/ar-BBJ0JnO

 

[sleepinoz]

IMO these non-players in William's case - Kim Loweke, Natalie Collins, Katrina 'Whoever' - have all now received their $2,000/however-much-money for appearing on ACA, and are laughing all the way to the shops.


“Nothing we can do,” his mother Natalie Collins told A Current Affair.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...ological-dad-jailed/ar-BBIDriN?%3Bocid=ASUDHP

"I don't know why my name has come up in this situation," Ms Loweke told A Current Affair.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...dmother-with-links-to-two-persons-of-interest

Watching footage of Mr Jones's confrontation with A Current Affair reporter Steve Marshall, Katrina said she had never seen Mr Jones "so angry".
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...f-interest-in-william-tyrrell-case/ar-BBJ0JnO

Katrina C (or whoever as you put it) being an Admin on one of W4W FB groups, Natalie being egged on by W4W .................makes you wonder is it W$W (sorry had to do that as the $ is uppercase on the 4) .

 

[SouthAussie]

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

See in link The Decision to Prosecute: Guideline 4.

The DPP prosecutes when it considers that it's in the public interest to do so. The guideline talks about what factors contribute to that.

This is different from an assessment that something is proved beyond reasonable doubt in the opinion of the DPP, apart from the fact that it is the jury's evaluation that matters.

Also remember that Spedding waived his right to committal, so the prima facie case has not been tested by a judge.

Interesting that Spedding waived his right to committal, though. That is exactly the point where he could have had the charges dismissed, if the evidence is so weak. (And saved us taxpayers a whole bunch of trial defence dollars.)



Committal proceedings essentials
s. 66 Discharge
If the Magistrate is not of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would convict the accused person of an indictable offence, the Magistrate must immediately order the accused person to be discharged in relation to the offence.

http://www.austcrimlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Committal_hearing_essentials-2012.pdf

 

[Warshawski]

All i remember reading is the FF weren't even there 24 hours and WT went missing. So i imagine they arrived sometime in the evening or night?

wasnt it morning when little William went missing? To me that means they could have arrived at FG's at lunch time the day before to fit into the 'less than 24 hours' time frame.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has travelled long distance to visit Grandparents. We make it work.

I dont know the area, was it said it was a 2 hr / 2.5 hr drive ?

And what was the distance from Childcare pickup (earlier than usual) to the McDonalds ? - which would have been timed for their dinner IMO.

So I doubt it would have been any later than 7pm arrival at FG. ..no dinner to prepare, FM & FD would have made beds in a nano-minute. Kids prob given special treat & allowed leaway on bed time.

and I think it was maybe FG who left the porch to make a cuppa, while FM was at the loo with L.

William was intent on finding a good hiding place - while Washing Machine Man has parked on the curb & walked down side of house to where ge knew the WM was located.

Lo & behold ...it's a sweet little superman ...



please, please dear God, hear our prayers for William..

 

[Whàngarei]

Left about 3.00 pm its about 3 hours 56 min trip plus stop at Maccas.