Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #38

[SouthAussie]

We have his s57 status from private sources so I might have to leave it as rumour. As to the subpoena, I'm not sure whether it's actually been served or whether he's had notice that it will be served in due course. Or perhaps when his lawyer said spoke of summonsing, he didn't mean a subpoena necessarily, just that Spedding would be called to give evidence.

Not according to the things I have referenced in my post #1357 right above yours.
I presume the Spedding support group is minimising, or don't understand that a summons is a subpeona.

 

[they'll get you]

Not according to the things I have referenced in my post #1357 right above yours.
I presume the Spedding support group is minimising, or don't understand that a summons is a subpeona.

SA I want to say thank you for all the knowledge you share.

My problem is I have a computerised brain that needs to be re-booted regularly.

 

[papertrail]

Do you have a theory about who is responsible for his abduction?

A person that cannot be named

 

[JLZ]

Not according to the things I have referenced in my post #1357 right above yours.
I presume the Spedding support group is minimising.

No, this is just me.

O'Brien's explanation strikes me as dishonest anyway, he's not there because Spedding is a witness, he's there to take up s57 leave, and not everyone who's a witness is likely to have a representative. I want to know whether all the invited witnesses receive a summons/subpoena.

I take your point though, that as the document specifies appearance dates, it's much more likely to be referring to the first tranch than the second.

 

[papertrail]

Here is the article again

In another article linked a couple if days ago it was stated they had coffee AFTERWARDS when referring to the assembly.

 

[Thebottomline]

A person that cannot be named

Sorry deleted after post

 

[SouthAussie]

No, this is just me.

O'Brien's explanation strikes me as dishonest anyway, he's not there because Spedding is a witness, he's there to take up s57 leave, and not everyone who's a witness is likely to have a representative. I want to know whether all the invited witnesses receive a summons/subpoena.

I take your point though, that as the document specifies appearance dates, it's much more likely to be referring to the first tranch than the second.

I dont really understand what you mean by "he is there to take up s57 leave". If Spedding has been summoned, which he evidently has been, he is not taking up s57 leave.

 

[Thebottomline]

In another article linked a couple if days ago it was stated they had coffee AFTERWARDS when referring to the assembly.

can you link it then

 

[papertrail]

Col is only repeating what he has been told,unless he was there his words are useless,Im like most of us here....where is the rock solid alibi for that morning,they cant seem to keep their stories straight.

Police have investigated some alleged inconsistencies in what he told them about his movements on September 12
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

And no one has any idea what the inconsistencies were, if indeed there were any.

 

[papertrail]

can you link it then

It is linked a couple of days ago by armchairdetective or similar username.

 

[JLZ]

I dont really understand what you mean by "he is there to take up s57 leave". If Spedding has been summoned, which he evidently has been, he is not taking up s57 leave.

I'm not following. Why wouldn't someone who got a summons to appear not be granted s57 leave?

(And I meant the s57 leave explained the lawyer's presence, whereas the lawyer seems to be implying that anyone required as a witness will "of course" have legal representation.)

 

[they'll get you]

can you link it then

The link was posted a couple of pages ago.

 

[Thebottomline]

Can’t find that

It is linked a couple of days ago by armchairdetective or similar username.

 

[papertrail]

Why?

Because every person is innocent until convicted that's why. Walk a mile in their shoes. This terrible crime is way too perfect with the ease to point investigators to Spedding. Its a setup scenario.

 

[papertrail]

Can’t find that

I will not be looking.

 

[Thebottomline]

The link was posted by Soso I recall a couple of pages ago.

Soso when I find you I’m gonna wring your neck!!
Only kidding

I can’t find any link supporting this. Maybe I’m missing something , the only information I can find is that they had coffee date before assembly in numerous news articles , regardless though it’s irelevent if it can’t be vouched for him actually being there , also if as a poster said it was after a 9am assembly it would still not clear him in that time frame IMO

 

[papertrail]

Yes, I’d LOVE to know why he made statements like he did.

They were not extraordinary statements by any stretch of the imagination. To the point and focused just like a legal would advise.

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm not following. Why wouldn't someone who got a summons to appear not be granted s57 leave?

I believe they are two separate things.

1. You apply for (seek) s57 leave if you want to attend an inquest and ask questions (only for persons deemed by the Coroner to have 'sufficient interest').
2. Or you are summoned (subpeonaed) because the Coroner requires you there ... your lawyer is entitled to ask questions.
3. Otherwise you are family and are entitled to attend .. and ask questions.

CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 57 Representation in coronial proceedings

 

[they'll get you]

Because every person is innocent until convicted that's why. Walk a mile in their shoes. This terrible crime is way too perfect with the ease to point investigators to Spedding. Its a setup scenario.

Crikey a set up?
Well this person who can’t be named better be named to the cops pronto!
Gimmi his/her name and I’ll bloody well do it now.

 

[Thebottomline]

I will not be looking.

That’s fine , you don’t have to but I hope you’ve read the articles I posted earlier which stated the opposite .