Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #34

[Bohemian]

I think you are not alone in that. I hear people here and there saying that Jubes has a 'vendetta' against Spedding. With no evidence of that at all. Without considering that Jubes was not the arresting officer. Without stopping and thinking that there had to be good and reasonable cause for the search warrants against Spedding. For him to be named as a POI.
Perhaps things like no proof in his alibi, mobile phone ping records indicating lying, CCTV recordings perhaps, shirt found stuffed in his house drainpipe, meant to be at the grandma's house that same morning according to his son and others .......

Not having a go at anyone here, bearbear. So please don't think that.
It just frustrates me when people think others are ganging up on Spedding, just because Spedding put out a video saying he wasn't there or for whatever reason they have for thinking that.

Yes, the intimation that there is some conspiratorial reason surrounding ‘a change in lead investigators’ sticks in my craw a little. Supt Fehon was the Local Area Commander when William disappeared and was thought to be lost in the bush. Of course, due to his age and the fact that he was a child missing under suspicious circumstances, his case would have been assigned soon after an initial search to a Homicide detective, who happened to be DI Rupp. He then retired, after 41 years of service I think, and DCI Jubelin stepped into the lead investigator’s role. No good reason for any thoughts of impropriety there, as far as I can see.

 

[k-mac]

I think you are not alone in that. I hear people here and there saying that Jubes has a 'vendetta' against Spedding. With no evidence of that at all. Without considering that Jubes was not the arresting officer. Without stopping and thinking that there had to be good and reasonable cause for the search warrants against Spedding. For him to be named as a POI.
Perhaps things like no proof in his alibi, mobile phone ping records indicating lying, CCTV recordings perhaps, shirt found stuffed in his house drainpipe, meant to be at the grandma's house that same morning according to his son and others .......

Not having a go at anyone here, bearbear. So please don't think that.
It just frustrates me when people think others are ganging up on Spedding, just because Spedding put out a video saying he wasn't there or for whatever reason they have for thinking that.

nobody is on speddings side SA.
lets just make that clear.
there is not anything of substance on spedding and jubes knows it.
THAT is my position.
when jubes has substance i'll get on the bus! ;-)

so don't be frustrated. we're all on the same team xx

 

[deugirtni]

I am 'getting that' from what GJ said: '’I'm personally hoping it doesn't get to a coronial investigation because that would be indicative of us finding out what's happened to William.'

He is hoping it doesn't go to 'coronial investigation' *because* that would indicate they had found out what happened to WT. To me, that is saying therefore, that he doesn't want to find out what happened to WT, since he doesn't want it to go to coronial investigation. What am I missing? I can be pretty dense at times!

Okay so yeah, it seems I *am* pretty dense sometimes.. but that's okay, my ego can withstand the battering and I will admit it when I'm wrong. Actually, more than dense, it is a matter of how something is read/perceived.. and this entire time since that quote came about, I have read it that same way that I've been reading it all along.... until just now when it clicked what he really meant.

A shy WS member wrote privately.. and when I saw the quote again, I immediately saw it in the way he intended. Yay! So what he meant when he said that, was that he hopes it doesn't get to coronial investigation because for it NOT to get to that point, would mean police have already solved this case and therefore obliterated the need for an inquest. Pretty simple huh, but I was reading it *completely* differently. (Which is a topic of discussion all on its own.. how interpretations of English (or any language, I'm assuming!) *can* be completely wrong!)

Thanks y'all for being respectful thru my density, some of you may still not be able to even see how I had been reading it previously, since it seems the words have to hit you in a certain way. I still stand by my belief however, that GJ does NOT want an inquest and will do what it takes to make that NOT happen, for previously mentioned reasons, which are, to me, understandable. I can imagine that to get to that point would be like an admission that they (LE) cannot go any further with what they've got and they've got nowhere else to look.. a 'giving up', so to speak, and I definitely get it that GJ is not a giver-upper, and so here we are, onto the next phase of his investigation.

 

[Bohemian]

Okay so yeah, it seems I *am* pretty dense sometimes.. but that's okay, my ego can withstand the battering and I will admit it when I'm wrong. Actually, more than dense, it is a matter of how something is read/perceived.. and this entire time since that quote came about, I have read it that same way that I've been reading it all along.... until just now when it clicked what he really meant.

A shy WS member wrote privately.. and when I saw the quote again, I immediately saw it in the way he intended. Yay! So what he meant when he said that, was that he hopes it doesn't get to coronial investigation because for it NOT to get to that point, would mean police have already solved this case and therefore obliterated the need for an inquest. Pretty simple huh, but I was reading it *completely* differently. (Which is a topic of discussion all on its own.. how interpretations of English (or any language, I'm assuming!) *can* be completely wrong!)

Thanks y'all for being respectful thru my density, some of you may still not be able to even see how I had been reading it previously, since it seems the words have to hit you in a certain way. I still stand by my belief however, that GJ does NOT want an inquest and will do what it takes to make that NOT happen, for previously mentioned reasons, which are, to me, understandable. I can imagine that to get to that point would be like an admission that they (LE) cannot go any further with what they've got and they've got nowhere else to look.. a 'giving up', so to speak, and I definitely get it that GJ is not a giver-upper, and so here we are, onto the next phase of his investigation.

More like not being able to solve the case, more than a ‘giving up’, I think. DCI Jubelin believes that he, and the members of SFR, can solve William’s case — if they are able to complete their investigation. But, you’re right, he’s not a quitter. His raison d’être, at this stage of his career, is to bring closure for the families of victims of crime. So, yes, here we are, mere spectators to what continues to be an unique and complex investigation into William’s disappearance.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Missing persons guide updated Feb 18.pdf
The inquest is led by the Coroner to gather more information about a suspected death. He/she listens to all of the evidence and, at the conclusion of the inquest, makes a finding. In a missing person’s case, the Coroner firstly has to make a finding in respect of whether, on the balance of probabilities, he/she believes the missing person is deceased. If the Coroner finds that the missing person is deceased then he/she is required to continue the inquest and, if there is sufficient evidence available, make findings as to five issues: the identity, date, place, cause and manner of death. Coroner’s do not apportion blame or determine guilt in their investigations.
Witness If the Coroner requires clarification of evidence they may call witnesses to give evidence at an inquest. The Coroner can subpoena witnesses and call experts to give evidence of their knowledge of the circumstances of the suspected death and/or the circumstances surrounding the missing person’s disappearance. In some circumstances a hearing may be an ‘Officer in Charge (OIC) only’ inquest, where the OIC is the only witness called to provide evidence. Witnesses will be called to the stand, asked to swear to tell the truth, will be seated in the witness box and will provide evidence by speaking into a microphone. The witness gives evidence about what they know. The Coroner, the Counsel Assisting, a lawyer representing an interested party, or an interested party (at the discretion of the Coroner) may ask questions of witnesses and the witness gives evidence about what they know. Witnesses are not allowed to talk about the case to other witnesses. Witnesses are allowed to stay inside the courtroom after they have finished giving evidence.
As a complete layman I would think, when an inquest proceeds, the whole investigation has to be laid open and the chance for LE to get on more details/evidence is lost for ever. Is that about right?

 

[frogwell]

I think you are not alone in that. I hear people here and there saying that Jubes has a 'vendetta' against Spedding. With no evidence of that at all. Without considering that Jubes was not the arresting officer. Without stopping and thinking that there had to be good and reasonable cause for the search warrants against Spedding. For him to be named as a POI.
Perhaps things like no proof in his alibi, mobile phone ping records indicating lying, CCTV recordings perhaps, shirt found stuffed in his house drainpipe, meant to be at the grandma's house that same morning according to his son and others .......

Not having a go at anyone here, bearbear. So please don't think that.
It just frustrates me when people think others are ganging up on Spedding, just because Spedding put out a video saying he wasn't there or for whatever reason they have for thinking that.

I do understand your point of view. If GJ has those things on BS, he has been sitting on them for a long time. They should have charged him by now. It seems BS has readily co-operated with police in the WT investigation, giving a statement, Giving a DNA sample, giving a denial, and the explanation of the FM about contact with BS on that day has not indicated that they were waiting for him to turn up at Benaroon Drive that day. The police tipped the media off that BS was the suspect when they did the searches and have hung him out to dry over this matter by not clearing him of POI status/non status to date. It has occurred to me that the historical charges have served three purposes, a way to warn people publicly that he is a danger, buy time to make an airtight case and if historically found guilty, provide motive for kidnapping WT. If at the end of this investigation, the police just arrest BS, then I personally will feel some cynicism about the police methods towards the rest of the investigation. You do not have to eliminate the rest of the world from your investigation to prove that someone did it. If you do, then your evidence might not be weighty enough.... It has been over three years since BS was arrested for the historical charges... at the end of his trials, if he is found not guilty, there will be a proportion of people who will still think he is guilty, because the police think he is, but got away with it....... To my mind the methods used may be legal but deny the person natural justice, and everyone is vulnerable. But like someone else said, when they put up their evidence I'll be happy to get on the bus too.IMO

 

[frogwell]

http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Missing persons guide updated Feb 18.pdf
The inquest is led by the Coroner to gather more information about a suspected death. He/she listens to all of the evidence and, at the conclusion of the inquest, makes a finding. In a missing person’s case, the Coroner firstly has to make a finding in respect of whether, on the balance of probabilities, he/she believes the missing person is deceased. If the Coroner finds that the missing person is deceased then he/she is required to continue the inquest and, if there is sufficient evidence available, make findings as to five issues: the identity, date, place, cause and manner of death. Coroner’s do not apportion blame or determine guilt in their investigations.
Witness If the Coroner requires clarification of evidence they may call witnesses to give evidence at an inquest. The Coroner can subpoena witnesses and call experts to give evidence of their knowledge of the circumstances of the suspected death and/or the circumstances surrounding the missing person’s disappearance. In some circumstances a hearing may be an ‘Officer in Charge (OIC) only’ inquest, where the OIC is the only witness called to provide evidence. Witnesses will be called to the stand, asked to swear to tell the truth, will be seated in the witness box and will provide evidence by speaking into a microphone. The witness gives evidence about what they know. The Coroner, the Counsel Assisting, a lawyer representing an interested party, or an interested party (at the discretion of the Coroner) may ask questions of witnesses and the witness gives evidence about what they know. Witnesses are not allowed to talk about the case to other witnesses. Witnesses are allowed to stay inside the courtroom after they have finished giving evidence.
As a complete layman I would think, when an inquest proceeds, the whole investigation has to be laid open and the chance for LE to get on more details/evidence is lost for ever. Is that about right?

Well from what I followed in Daniel Morcombes inquest, more information came to light to be going on with. If someone suddenly looks like a suspect in an inquest, the inquest is suspended so the police can do further investigation. IMO

 

[sleepinoz]

Well from what I followed in Daniel Morcombes inquest, more information came to light to be going on with. If someone suddenly looks like a suspect in an inquest, the inquest is suspended so the police can do further investigation. IMO

From what I've read and IMO - the sting on Cowan had already begun before he appeared at the inquest. It was on his plane ride home from the inquest that it all began, and there would have been weeks and weeks of setting it up.

It just goes to show that we have no idea what Police are doing behind the scenes.

The young bloke in seat 42D on the 8pm back to Perth had the friendliest face Cowan had seen all day. Perhaps too friendly. It was April 1, 2010, and it had been a long couple of days on the stand at the Daniel Morcombe inquest. Lawyer after lawyer had attacked him.

Category: | The Courier Mail

 

[SouthAussie]

nobody is on speddings side SA.
lets just make that clear.
there is not anything of substance on spedding and jubes knows it.
THAT is my position.
when jubes has substance i'll get on the bus! ;-)

so don't be frustrated. we're all on the same team xx

Thanks, k-mac, but it is not the Spedding thing that frustrates me. I couldn't care less about Spedding himself ... I think he is a filthy pedo who has harmed children, and I hope he goes down for that, sooner or later.

It is the lack of respect I see in places for the efforts of Jubelin (because the heat is directed at him) and his team. That Jubelin is thought, by some, to be 'after' Spedding unjustly. When, in fact, Jubelin did not start the proceedings against Spedding - he was not the lead person authorising all that has 'happened' to Spedding.

Aside from that, if the police have allowed the naming of certain POIs, it is because they have good and valid reasons for that. If they have not removed those persons from their POI list, they have good and valid reasons for that, too. They are not actively seeking lawsuits for wrongful determinations, or 'ruining' people's lives/livelihoods. imo

 

[mussopossum]

I have noticed in all of Jubes interviews that he has given (recorded) since this new search started he seems agitated, fidgety, nervous, just really different to how he used to present and interview before this latest new search. In some cases I have seen him stutter, stop to think before speaking and then continue. Before he was straight forward, alert, confident and extremely focused. IMO Put it down to either exhaustion or more what I beleive, Jubes IMO knows exactly what they are looking for there and knows that whatever it is is going to give all or more answers to what happened to WT or enough to make an arrest. I feel that it is sheer dermination, fear and whatever information he is geared up with that he is appearing a bit more out of whack or less composed in this recent flock of interviews. He does a great job and is an amazing cop and is so dedicated to William, you can see it is just personal to him now to get answers for William and his family.

 

[SouthAussie]

I agree. I felt that Jubes looked tired and under (likely self-imposed) pressure recently. It has been a long 3½ years for him, and he wants resolution. I can only imagine the things they have all had to look at and investigate, when they have been searching for William among the pedos.

Fortunately, Jubes apparently has good, healthy outlets for that stress - so it is not going to make him ill.


Martial arts, qigong, meditation, a lot of yoga plus boxing are all in the mix, as are surfing and riding motor bikes.

“I'm into the yin yang of things ... meditation and qigong help give me perspective so I can check myself when things are getting stressful,” he said.
“I throw myself into my work but I always make time for my fitness and meditation – it’s how I balance myself.”

Finding peace in a life full of crime

 

[mussopossum]

He truly is an amzing man indeed.

 

[Warshawski]

Thanks... could you let me know the real name of Alison so that I can look up the case to see what y'all are talking about? Thanks! Also.. yes, I see that Bo has kindly posted Jube's recording.. and seems he definitely says that.. but.. it just doesn't make sense to me AT ALL.. he talks fast.. is it possible that he left out the word NOT? Have you ever caught yourself when either writing and/or talking, and realize that you said or wrote something that was opposite or just wrong? I have. There could be no downside to knowing what did happen to WT, so that is a bizarre thing for him to have said, don't y'all think? I can't be alone here? jmo.

Hi D. Look for Alison Baden-Clay. God Rest her Soul .

 

[Warshawski]

But no matter *what* they end up, in the end, finding out about what happened to poor WT, surely it is better to know, than to forever wonder, right? I cannot imagine an esteemed detective such as GJ NOT wanting to know what happened, in fact, isn't that what detectives DO, is find out what exactly happened?

I do believe him when he says he hopes it does NOT get to a coronial investigation, because I believe that LE don't like it when their cases get investigated like that, because it puts everything they've done under scrutiny, and who would like that. There apparently won't be a coroner's inquest as long as there is an investigation ongoing, we've been told that. And GJ says there is lots more investigating to be done. He doesn't want an inquest. But why he wouldn't want to know what happened to this missing toddler, I just cannot imagine. Just my opinion, but I'd be interested to hear why others would believe that GJ doesn't want to know what happened to him, because to me, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

Hi D. I see it differently.

I don't have any doubt that GJ wants to, & will, solve the mystery over what happened to William.

However, IMO, he sees an inquest as a last resort, something that happens to hopefully find answers, when none have been otherwise able to have been found.

GJ is no where near that stage. He knows the path he's on, he knows the bits he's still to fill in, and he's in that journey.

Soon will be the arrest/s. At which point there will no doubt be the weeping, handwringing, gnashing of teeth etc., all to no avail since they've been given so many warnings of what's coming (OMG ... my poor kids only got 'counting to 3, move or else' !)

 

[k-mac]

whatever he finds...we are all on jubes side!
he deserves fruit for his labour
its such a win for william the powers at be are giving him the money and resources to do these searches.
god give him something to work with where ever the chips may fall.
can you imagine how disappointing for the team if they don't find what they are looking for.
makes me wonder though if finding nothing is as important as finding something.
that is then justifiable money spent and likely to get the go ahead.??
which I know a few have posted already, good food for thought.

 

[Warshawski]

But GJ cannot have it both ways? If he believes it was a crime of opportunity, then how can it also be a planned attack by a man who supposedly GJ believes is a historical pedophile? Or are we saying now that even though this POI that is accused on a daily basis around here, visited FG's house, and then *also* just happened to show up for opportunity? That makes it even farther fetched, imho.

I see possibilities as 'opportunistically' presented, which leads to a 'plan of action'. By whoever was responsible ..

 

[bearbear]

I think you are not alone in that. I hear people here and there saying that Jubes has a 'vendetta' against Spedding. With no evidence of that at all. Without considering that Jubes was not the arresting officer. Without stopping and thinking that there had to be good and reasonable cause for the search warrants against Spedding. For him to be named as a POI.
Perhaps things like no proof in his alibi, mobile phone ping records indicating lying, CCTV recordings perhaps, shirt found stuffed in his house drainpipe, meant to be at the grandma's house that same morning according to his son and others .......

Not having a go at anyone here, bearbear. So please don't think that.
It just frustrates me when people think others are ganging up on Spedding, just because Spedding put out a video saying he wasn't there or for whatever reason they have for thinking that.

no, youve misunderstood my post, im in no way accusing det jubelin of any vendetta against bs, it was simply a date mixup, i thought dj took over the case much earlier and was the det in charge at the time of bs house search, and hoped with him having knowledge of bs paedophile history and friends, charges, brother inlaw etc, he would know what sort of person he was dealing with and get to the truth quickly, thats all,
i have respect for det jubelin and think hes a good strong man who has put his heart and soul into this case and admire that strength and tenacity,
my gut feeling is bs is a cunning lying paedophile who has been offending for years and i hope he gets life in prison if hes responsible for hurting william, im still not sure if hes the perp though?

 

[SouthAussie]

no, youve misunderstood my post, im in no way accusing det jubelin of any vendetta against bs, it was simply a date mixup, i thought dj took over the case much earlier and was the det in charge at the time of bs house search, and hoped with him having knowledge of bs paedophile history and friends, charges, brother inlaw etc, he would know what sort of person he was dealing with and get to the truth quickly, thats all,
i have respect for det jubelin and think hes a good strong man who has put his heart and soul into this case and admire that strength and tenacity,
my gut feeling is bs is a cunning lying paedophile who has been offending for years and i hope he gets life in prison if hes responsible for hurting william, im still not sure if hes the perp though?

I’m sorry, bearbear. I didn’t mean to seem to vent about your post. I very much respect your posts and your thoughts.

I think I just temporarily lost my patience, and it came out in the wrong way.

I agree … none of us know for sure who has done this crime. All we have is what has been laid before us. And what is laid before us are details primarily about one POI (thanks, Col and Rodney), maybe two. With only one of them having a known reason to be on Benaroon Drive that morning. imo

It is usually no big surprise when an arrest happens in any of the cases we follow. The police generally seem to make the primary POI known via the media, and by allowing the media close enough to record/publish what is happening.
The only one that I can recall being otherwise was the case of Kylie Blackwood. That murdering POI was kept well under wraps (other than the car he was driving that day ... so he and the car owner would have known he was under suspicion). And no other POI was named.

 

[Hbayne]

I do understand your point of view. If GJ has those things on BS, he has been sitting on them for a long time. They should have charged him by now. It seems BS has readily co-operated with police in the WT investigation, giving a statement, Giving a DNA sample, giving a denial, and the explanation of the FM about contact with BS on that day has not indicated that they were waiting for him to turn up at Benaroon Drive that day. The police tipped the media off that BS was the suspect when they did the searches and have hung him out to dry over this matter by not clearing him of POI status/non status to date. It has occurred to me that the historical charges have served three purposes, a way to warn people publicly that he is a danger, buy time to make an airtight case and if historically found guilty, provide motive for kidnapping WT. If at the end of this investigation, the police just arrest BS, then I personally will feel some cynicism about the police methods towards the rest of the investigation. You do not have to eliminate the rest of the world from your investigation to prove that someone did it. If you do, then your evidence might not be weighty enough.... It has been over three years since BS was arrested for the historical charges... at the end of his trials, if he is found not guilty, there will be a proportion of people who will still think he is guilty, because the police think he is, but got away with it....... To my mind the methods used may be legal but deny the person natural justice, and everyone is vulnerable. But like someone else said, when they put up their evidence I'll be happy to get on the bus too.IMO

Time will tell , I think spedding days are numbered .

 

[bearbear]

I’m sorry, bearbear. I didn’t mean to seem to vent about your post. I very much respect your posts and your thoughts.

I think I just temporarily lost my patience, and it came out in the wrong way.

I agree … none of us know for sure who has done this crime. All we have is what has been laid before us. And what is laid before us are details primarily about one POI (thanks, Col and Rodney), maybe two. With only one of them having a known reason to be on Benaroon Drive that morning. imo

It is usually no big surprise when an arrest happens in any of the cases we follow. The police generally seem to make the primary POI known via the media, and by allowing the media close enough to record/publish what is happening.
The only one that I can recall being otherwise was the case of Kylie Blackwood. That murdering POI was kept well under wraps (other than the car he was driving that day ... so he and the car owner would have known he was under suspicion). And no other POI was named.

thankyou, yes i agree, everything we have heard or read seems to point to bs, so many coincidences etc, but ive always had a feeling it might be someone smarter, someone they really have to dot all the eyes with to get a conviction, and i think det jubelin really has a hard job here