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

[SouthAussie]

Yes Someone saw them, evidently the abductor !

And I don't believe that the abductor had to know that the children were there. He just happened to rock up/drive up/walk up at that time, and see a little boy all by himself.
Opportunity right in front of him, and no-one else around. A few nice words to the little boy, and a quick rapport was established ... and still no-one else had seen the abductor in those quiet moments on that Friday morning.

That is how I see it happening.

 

[Karinna]

And I don't believe that the abductor had to know that the children were there. He just happened to rock up/drive up/walk up at that time, and see a little boy all by himself.
Opportunity right in front of him, and no-one else around. A few nice words to the little boy, and a quick rapport was established ... and still no-one else had seen the abductor in those quiet moments on that Friday morning.

That is how I see it happening.

Yes, perhaps. But it is a shame no one else saw anyone hanging around for such an opportunity that i have read about.
In fact i'm not even really sure exactly where WT was when something like that could of happened to him?
From what we were told he was rather a timid child that wouldn't let his FP's too far out of sight?
Although i believe no 3 yr. old is predictable if they get a notion in their head.

 

[JLZ]

And I don't believe that the abductor had to know that the children were there. He just happened to rock up/drive up/walk up at that time, and see a little boy all by himself.
Opportunity right in front of him, and no-one else around. A few nice words to the little boy, and a quick rapport was established ... and still no-one else had seen the abductor in those quiet moments on that Friday morning.

That is how I see it happening.

Awfully risky if he was in the Speddo's van. Even if no one saw him in Benaroon Drive, it could have been seen or videoed on the way in without him knowing. And then he denied even being there. If he wasn't in the van, that tends to suggest foreknowledge.

 

[SouthAussie]

Awfully risky if he was in the Speddo's van. Even if no one saw him in Benaroon Drive, it could have been seen or videoed on the way in without him knowing. And then he denied even being there. If he wasn't in the van, that tends to suggest foreknowledge.

BBM Maybe it was seen or caught on CCTV, and that is why he remains a primary POI.

We don't know what Spedding has told the police. What is in his statement. What he has withheld and/or disclosed. All we know is what ole Col has told the media.

He could have told them changing stories, like Borce did in Karen Ristevski's case, for all we know.

Head of the investigation, Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin, added the kidnapper must have taken tremendous risks.
Psychologist paints portrait of William’s kidnapper

 

[Karinna]

Awfully risky if he was in the Speddo's van. Even if no one saw him in Benaroon Drive, it could have been seen or videoed on the way in without him knowing. And then he denied even being there. If he wasn't in the van, that tends to suggest foreknowledge.

I agree, if BS had done such a thing he must of known that police would be all over him, considering he had dealings with the FGM just a few days prior, to fix her washing machine. He was pretty much one of LE's first known POI's in the media because of that fact.
And as it turned out they did a thorough forensic investigation of him and his vehicle and premises of where he lived.

 

[Karinna]

BBM Maybe it was seen or caught on CCTV, and that is why he remains a primary POI.

We don't know what Spedding has told the police. What is in his statement. What he has withheld and/or disclosed. All we know is what ole Col has told the media.

Head of the investigation, Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin, added the kidnapper must have taken tremendous risks.
Psychologist paints portrait of William’s kidnapper

BBM, Do we really know if BS is still considered a primary POI?
If he is i haven't seen it in any MSM?
Do police normally officially and publicly declare someone is no longer a POI in any given criminal case?

 

[Thebottomline]

Correct me if I’m wrong but any forensic examinations of anyone have not been publicly released .

 

[Thebottomline]

I agree, if BS had done such a thing he must of known that police would be all over him, considering he had dealings with the FGM just a few days prior, to fix her washing machine. He was pretty much one of LE's first known POI's in the media because of that fact.
And as it turned out they did a thorough forensic investigation of him and his vehicle and premises of where he lived.

Anyone who did such a thing would be taking an incredible risk. Their vehicle being seen , them being seen ect, I don’t think BS is any exception

 

[Karinna]

Correct me if I’m wrong but any forensic examinations of anyone have not been publicly released .

Not that i am aware of. But in any criminal case i have followed if there is forensic DNA evidence on a potential perpetrator in question to implicate them in a crime they would be arrested and interrogated further about explaining that evidence and what they know.
Forensic/DNA evidence is normally what convicts someone at Trial.

 

[Thebottomline]

Not that i am aware of. But in any criminal case i have followed if there is forensic DNA evidence on a potential perpetrator in question to implicate them in a crime they would be arrested and interrogated further about explaining that evidence and what they know.
Forensic/DNA evidence is normally what convicts someone at Trial.

A chance it’s inconclusive aswell
Reliability of DNA evidence | ALRC

 

[Karinna]

A chance it’s inconclusive aswell
Reliability of DNA evidence | ALRC

Yeah and that can happen in any criminal case, but mostly that's not what happens.
If they went on that premise hardly anyone would ever be arrested for a crime IMO.
Usually DNA/forensic re testing comes after a person has been convicted and in prison. Then the defense attorney on Appeal can get all that evidence re tested if it was questionable.

 

[Thebottomline]

Yeah and that can happen in any criminal case, but mostly that's not what happens.
If they went on that premise hardly anyone would ever be arrested for a crime IMO.
Usually DNA/forensic re testing comes after a person has been convicted and in prison. Then the defense attorney on Appeal can get all that evidence re tested if it was questionable.

I disagree on the “usually testing coming after someone is convicted or in prison.”

 

[Karinna]

(quote)
This paper is the third in a series by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) on DNA evidence. The first, published in 1990 when the technology was in its relative infancy, outlined the scientific background for DNA evidence, considered early issues such as scientific reliability and privacy and described its application in early criminal cases (Easteal & Easteal 1990). The second, published in 2002, expanded on the scientific background and discussed a significant number of Australian cases in a 12-year period, illustrating issues that had arisen in investigations, at trial and in the use of DNA in the review of convictions and acquittals (Gans & Urbas 2002).

There have been some significant developments in the science and technology behind DNA evidence in the 13 years since 2002 that have important implications for law enforcement and the legal system. These are discussed through a review of relevant legal cases and the latest empirical evidence.
Recent developments in DNA evidence

 

[Karinna]

I disagree on the “usually testing coming after someone is convicted or in prison.”

So are you saying the forensics tested by the State against BS got it wrong?
And that if they re test it they can maybe implicate him in the crime regarding WT?
Maybe i misunderstood what you are saying?

 

[Karinna]

I disagree on the “usually testing coming after someone is convicted or in prison.”

BBM, And to quote you again, i said Re Testing. To have a do over of it eventually post conviction if it was questionable in the first instance.

 

[Thebottomline]

So are you saying the forensics tested by the State against BS got it wrong?
And that if they re test it they can maybe implicate him in the crime regarding WT?
Maybe i misunderstood what you are saying?

No that’s not what I’m saying at all. I can’t say they are wrong when I don’t know the result!

 

[Karinna]

No that’s not what I’m saying at all. I can’t say they are wrong when I don’t know the result!

Ok, thanks for clarifying.
But do you think if there was even a whiff of evidence that implicates BS in the crime of disappearing WT that LE would sit on that and not arrest him as a suspect? Say for instance if the toy that was deemed to be in BS's van had WT's DNA all over it, or a t-shirt that belonged to WT was the one found in the plumbing at BS's residence.
I just can't think why they would do that, when it could further their investigation to locate William and move the case along to conviction?

 

[Thebottomline]

Ok, thanks for clarifying.
But do you think if there was even a whiff of evidence that implicates BS in the crime of disappearing WT that LE would sit on that and not arrest him as a suspect? Say for instance if the toy that was deemed to be in BS's van had WT's DNA all over it, or a t-shirt that belonged to WT was the one found in the plumbing at BS's residence.
I just can't think why they would do that, when it could further their investigation to locate William and move the case along to conviction?

If they had DNA like that then yes of course . I’m just suggesting that perhaps the unknown to us results of forensic searches were inconclusive. I’m just a poster on a forum not a witness being cross examined in a court room and these are just my own suggestions or conclusions.

 

[Bohemian]

If they had DNA like that then yes of course . I’m just suggesting that perhaps the unknown to us results of forensic searches were inconclusive. I’m just a poster on a forum not a witness being cross examined in a court room and these are just my own suggestions or conclusions.

DNA evidence is considered in the context of all other evidence so I suppose one way of looking at this could be in the context of BS visiting FGM’s former residence just days before William was abducted. William had visited there 7 months’ prior, therefore traces of his DNA would probably have been found there. ‘Every contact leaves a trace.’ (Locard’s Exchange Principle) so it could be argued that there was opportunity for a secondary transfer of William’s DNA from FGM’s former residence to BS and consequently a tertiary transfer of William’s DNA from BS to his van, the Spiderman toy and, yes, even the t-shirt. So you’re correct, DNA evidence in this context would be inconclusive.

 

[Karinna]

If they had DNA like that then yes of course . I’m just suggesting that perhaps the unknown to us results of forensic searches were inconclusive. I’m just a poster on a forum not a witness being cross examined in a court room and these are just my own suggestions or conclusions.

Again, thanks for clarifying. I didn't realise you were saying the results could be inconclusive.