Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #37

[Karinna]

I am not prepared to suggest anything really because I just don't know what the police have. It could well be a "gut feeling" or they may have something they have not told us about. It's equally likely they are trying to flush out "someone else"
I am still trying to understand the Batar Ck Rd connection and the person living nearby.

I tend to agree with what you say.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

We can’t be condemned for thinking BS is somehow involved, we can only go off from what we know as per what has been published in msn and stated by strike force.
Until he is publicly cleared which to my knowledge he hasn’t then it’s fair to post our theories. what I’d like to know is some evidence that he is not involved by those that seem to be quite sure he is not.

You can't have evidence that you are not involved, the onus is on the evidence that you are involved, surely?

 

[Goosewhisperer]

To my knowledge, a person labeled a POI in Australia is usually a suspect, even though the definition is different.

Police in Australia rarely use the word suspect and use POI instead.

It seems that police when they are quoted, do say either suspect or POI but MSM don't appear to differentiate. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

To my knowledge, a person labeled a POI in Australia is usually a suspect, even though the definition is different.

Police in Australia rarely use the word suspect and use POI instead.

I agree. Or they say a person is "helping them with their inquiries", and next thing that helpful person has been arrested and charged.

 

[sleepinoz]

You can't have evidence that you are not involved, the onus is on the evidence that you are involved, surely?

As far as the Police are concerned, you need to have evidence that you are NOT involved to be cleared. It's called an Alibi

 

[Karinna]

To my knowledge, a person labeled a POI in Australia is usually a suspect, even though the definition is different.

Police in Australia rarely use the word suspect and use POI instead.

Although the MSM from previous articles posted up seems to use both interchangeably. It's just confusing IMO.
I can't seem to find anything on legal definitions with Australia in regard to POI?
Wouldn't it mean exactly what is states. A Person of Interest? Someone LE are interested in?

 

[Thebottomline]

It means to me they are probably still being investigated to put 2+2 together. Nothing yet though to my knowledge?
I guess from following cases in the U.S. a POI doesn't legally mean much except police are interested in the person and what they might know. If POI changes to Suspect an arrest usually follows soon after, as has been the case in those cases i have followed. Maybe it works differently in Australia?

Yes I don’t think we can compare the terminology from another country with their own myriad of different legal applications in so many different states to ours here in Australia.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

As far as the Police are concerned, you need to have evidence that you are NOT involved to be cleared.

I can prove that I do have something but I can't prove that I don't have it. So I find that scenario a bit strange.

 

[sleepinoz]

Although the MSM from previous articles posted up seems to use both interchangeably. It's just confusing IMO.
I can't seem to find anything on legal definitions with Australia in regard to POI?

MSM may use them interchangeably, but it's rare to find that Police do.

 

[Karinna]

As far as the Police are concerned, you need to have evidence that you are NOT involved to be cleared. It's called an Alibi

What evidence have they got?

 

[Thebottomline]

You can't have evidence that you are not involved, the onus is on the evidence that you are involved, surely?

Precisely and that is probably why at this point in time he still very much a poi in this case.

 

[sleepinoz]

I can prove that I do have something but I can't prove that I don't have it. So I find that scenario a bit strange.

You can prove you don't have it, if you allow Police to search.

So if anyone in particular doesn't have an alibi they should be cleared in your opinion?

 

[sleepinoz]

What evidence have they got?

On who? It's a discussion about if you have to prove you are not involved. Again it's called an Alibi.

Not talking about anyone in particular.

 

[purpleandgreen]

I can prove that I do have something but I can't prove that I don't have it. So I find that scenario a bit strange.

We’ll surely you could prove that you were at a school assembly and a cafe, but as you say, if you weren’t there, then you couldn’t prove it.

 

[Karinna]

Woudn't it stand that in all criminal investigations that LE have actual forensic/DNA evidence to convict someone of said crime? They can't just go on a gut feeling. And alibi's can be fudged too.

 

[purpleandgreen]

What evidence have they got?

We’ll know that when an arrest is made.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

You can prove you don't have it, if you allow Police to search.

So if anyone in particular doesn't have an alibi they should be cleared in your opinion?

No, not at all, I think even with an alibi, nothing is proven, unless it is CCTV and time stamped. By all accounts BS has an alibi, although I am curious as to why police have not said one way or the other, if it is an alibi.
(I could have gotten rid of the item, hidden it at another premises.)

 

[Karinna]

We’ll surely you could prove that you were at a school assembly and a cafe, but as you say, if you weren’t there, then you couldn’t prove it.

Of course, but we haven't had it verified by LE that the alibi/s didn't check out either?

 

[sleepinoz]

Woudn't it stand that in all criminal investigations that LE have actual forensic/DNA evidence to convict someone of said crime? They can't just go on a gut feeling. And alibi's can be fudged too.

I have said before and I will say it again. Police work differently to the Courts.

For Police it's guilty until proven innocent - For the Courts it's innocent until proven guilty.

If Police assumed everyone was innocent, nobody would ever be charged with a crime.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

Woudn't it stand that in all criminal investigations that LE have actual forensic/DNA evidence to convict someone of said crime? They can't just go on a gut feeling. And alibi's can be fudged too.

You would hope so but it's not always the case, given that some cases have been overturned after a conviction.