Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #47

[deugirtni]

No idea depending on which MSM source you are reading?

"At 48 Benaroon Drive, police sniffer dogs picked up William's scent, but only within the boundaries of the property.
The day William Tyrrell vanished

"Police dogs were brought in and they managed to find William's scent, but only within the boundaries of the backyard."
William Tyrrell: The boy no-one can find

Re police dogs: the Where's William Tyrrell? podcast (episode 3: "One Last Roar", 08 July 2019) has an actor reading from a police statement by the senior constable who searched Benaroon Drive on 12 Sep 2014 with Police Dog (PD) Gov. It only talks about searching the neighbourhood, not the No.48 house and yard, so presumably this is only part of the statement? Transcribed by me:

"Upon my arrival, I assessed the area and found that tracking was impossible. This is due to the amount of time that had passed between William Tyrrell going missing and the time it took for me to travel to Kendall. During my assessment of the area I was told William Tyrrell was last seen at the rear of the house. The house is the last cul-de-sac, which is bound by thick bushland. It sits on the top of a hill. The easiest line of travel for a person leaving the house was downhill in an easterly direction. I decided it would be most effective for me to begin a search of all the yards heading downhill, away from the house. This was also the direction of travel to the Kendall township, which I believed to be the most likely place a child would walk. I started searching all the rear yards heading in a westerly direction down Benaroon Drive. I was followed by two general duties police and several members of the public, who started a line search approximately 20 metres behind me. PD Gov and I checked in the sheds, play equipment, garden, or any other area a child might hide in. The police behind me spoke to any residents they could find, and checked any houses that were unlocked. They also double-checked the areas PD Gov and I had searched. When we got to the last house on the northern side of Benaroon Drive we crossed to the southern side and began to search in the same way back up the hill towards the end of the cul-de-sac. At no time had I located a scent or a starting point for a search or track. No items of clothing or property relating to William Tyrrell were located during this search."

This link goes to the acast version, where the relevant bit started at 42:54. (On apple podcast it started at 43:25.)

I don't believe I have ever read an MSM article which quoted Fehon or police stating W's scent was found within the yard, or that W's scent wasn't found past the curb/driveway/property edge. Could be wrong, but I don't recall that. They were however, reported to have said that no scent was found, period.

Neither police sniffer dogs nor cadaver dogs had been able to pick up any sign of the boy, Fehon said.
William Tyrell search: police say sniffer dogs have found no trace of boy

Police Strike Force Rosann has been established as sniffer dogs fail to pick up any scent of William Tyrell, five days after he went missing on the NSW mid north coast.
....
Superintendent Paul Fehon says neither police sniffer dogs nor cadaver dogs have been able to pick up any sign of the boy, fuelling fears he may not have wandered away from home.
http://www.nbnnews.com.au/index.php...dogs-fail-to-pick-up-scent-of-william-tyrell/

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't believe I have ever read an MSM article which quoted Fehon or police stating W's scent was found within the yard, or that W's scent wasn't found past the curb/driveway/property edge. Could be wrong, but I don't recall that. They were however, reported to have said that no scent was found, period.

Neither police sniffer dogs nor cadaver dogs had been able to pick up any sign of the boy, Fehon said.
William Tyrell search: police say sniffer dogs have found no trace of boy

Police Strike Force Rosann has been established as sniffer dogs fail to pick up any scent of William Tyrell, five days after he went missing on the NSW mid north coast.
....
Superintendent Paul Fehon says neither police sniffer dogs nor cadaver dogs have been able to pick up any sign of the boy, fuelling fears he may not have wandered away from home.
UPDATE: STRIKE FORCE SET UP AS SNIFFER DOGS FAIL TO PICK UP SCENT OF WILLIAM TYRELL | NBN News

Well, it is very good then, for those that may still feel otherwise despite the clearing of all the parents, that Mr Craddock - who has the police brief and all of the evidence at hand - has clearly stated ...

Research from the US found in 97 per cent of homicides involving children under five, the victim was murdered by a family member.
But the inquest was told that was unlikely in this case, and William was probably put in a car and driven away by someone else.
"If William was murdered, and it's a big if, it may be one of those rare cases of 3 per cent," Mr Craddock said.
"Worldwide these cases have proven most difficult to solve," Mr Craddock said.
William Tyrrell abducted in a car by an offender who chose to 'act on their desires', inquest hears

 

[interested64]

Messenger can be and is hacked.

I don't know if you have ever received a message from a friend - like I and others I know have - who says something like "is this you in this video?". Then if you open the video to look, your details are caught by the hackers - perhaps giving your device a virus.
The message isn't from the friend, it is from someone hacking into the friend's Messenger account.
Fortunately, a lot of people are aware of these hackers now.
But it shows how a Messenger account can be hacked.

Thanks

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Well, it is very good then, for those that may still feel otherwise despite the clearing of all the parents, that Mr Craddock - who has the police brief and all of the evidence at hand - has clearly stated ...

Research from the US found in 97 per cent of homicides involving children under five, the victim was murdered by a family member.
But the inquest was told that was unlikely in this case, and William was probably put in a car and driven away by someone else.
"If William was murdered, and it's a big if, it may be one of those rare cases of 3 per cent," Mr Craddock said.
"Worldwide these cases have proven most difficult to solve," Mr Craddock said.
William Tyrrell abducted in a car by an offender who chose to 'act on their desires', inquest hears

Craddock is counsel assisting. What he states is not necessarily fact. Rather, they are his submissions. Each of the lawyers will then make their own submissions. They too have the entire brief relevant to their own client. The Coroner will then make a finding after hearing the submissions. The Coroner can find against counsel assisting.

I represented a party in an inquest where counsel assisting submitted that a particular party could have prevented the death. The Coroner’s finding was otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that the family was involved. But it is legally incorrect to say that something must be fact because counsel assisting says it is.

 

[SouthAussie]

Craddock is counsel assisting. What he states is not necessarily fact. Rather, they are his submissions. Each of the lawyers will then make their own submissions. They too have the entire brief relevant to their own client. The Coroner will then make a finding after hearing the submissions. The Coroner can find against counsel assisting.

I represented a party in an inquest where counsel assisting submitted that a particular party could have prevented the death. The Coroner’s finding was otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that the family was involved. But it is legally incorrect to say that something must be fact because counsel assisting says it is.

BBM: Not that I said it was fact? Sorry that you got that mistaken impression. I would have thought that we all noticed that Craddock said unlikely and probably and it's a big if in his statement.
Just said that it was a good thing that Craddock said that ... seeing that he has much more information than we or MSM have.

 

[Karinna]

Craddock is counsel assisting. What he states is not necessarily fact. Rather, they are his submissions. Each of the lawyers will then make their own submissions. They too have the entire brief relevant to their own client. The Coroner will then make a finding after hearing the submissions. The Coroner can find against counsel assisting.

I represented a party in an inquest where counsel assisting submitted that a particular party could have prevented the death. The Coroner’s finding was otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that the family was involved. But it is legally incorrect to say that something must be fact because counsel assisting says it is.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Over the years on this thread I have read many many opinions, asserted as fact, stemming from a misunderstanding of how the legal system works. As a result, some of the theories have gone off on a tangent that simply is not possible.

This is why I have become verified.

 

[Karinna]

Well, it is very good then, for those that may still feel otherwise despite the clearing of all the parents, that Mr Craddock - who has the police brief and all of the evidence at hand - has clearly stated ...

Research from the US found in 97 per cent of homicides involving children under five, the victim was murdered by a family member.
But the inquest was told that was unlikely in this case, and William was probably put in a car and driven away by someone else.
"If William was murdered, and it's a big if, it may be one of those rare cases of 3 per cent," Mr Craddock said.
"Worldwide these cases have proven most difficult to solve," Mr Craddock said.
William Tyrrell abducted in a car by an offender who chose to 'act on their desires', inquest hears

I didn't get that as a take away from what was posted. What i understand from the post are the various discrepancies in media reporting. IMO.

 

[Karinna]

Over the years on this thread I have read many many opinions, asserted as fact, stemming from a misunderstanding of how the legal system works. As a result, some of the theories have gone off on a tangent that simply is not possible.

This is why I have become verified.

And again Thankyou for keeping it real.

 

[SouthAussie]

Over the years on this thread I have read many many opinions, asserted as fact, stemming from a misunderstanding of how the legal system works. As a result, some of the theories have gone off on a tangent that simply is not possible.

This is why I have become verified.

It is understood that this is a discusssion thread? Exploring many things? Even the off-on-a-tangent things. Not an adversarial court of law?
Inserting legal opinion is somewhat helpful. While much of the time it is legalities we have already discovered.
But it is legal opinion. I feel that there may likely be opposing legal opinions out there. As well, we all have our own opinions.

I think there is likely clear reason why all of the parents have been cleared. Their alibis have been verified, as per everything we have read and heard from the inquest. And if the Coroner finds otherwise, then so be it.

As it now stands, the parents are not up for speculation or innuendo - as stated by the mods.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I didn't get that as a take away from what was posted. What i understand from the post are the various discrepancies in media reporting. IMO.

Absolutely there are discrepancies. Journalists write what is relevant to their angle. Most journalists wouldn’t know the difference between a suspect/POI and would use the word interchangeably. That’s just one example. Journalists have strict timelines and word numbers and aren’t always careful with their words and sometimes misinterpret something or shorten something so that it comes across different to what actually occurred.

On the other hand, on this thread, everything that journalists say is dissected to the nth degree and often sloppy wording by journalists is interpreted as something of significance. That’s not a criticism of the members. We are bound by TOS, which exist for very good reason. And, after all, this is a sleuthing forum.

I am currently helping a journalist with a story. Yesterday I found out that the journalist was working from the completely wrong raw data. Fortunately the story hasn’t been published yet. And if it had, it’s likely that it wouldn’t have been picked up by most people.

The good thing about this case is that there are so many parties represented by lawyers that if anything is incorrectly published and has the potential to mislead the public, the lawyers force a retraction. So the MSM story stays relatively accurate.

 

[stormbird]

Well, it is very good then, for those that may still feel otherwise despite the clearing of all the parents, that Mr Craddock - who has the police brief and all of the evidence at hand - has clearly stated ...

Research from the US found in 97 per cent of homicides involving children under five, the victim was murdered by a family member.
But the inquest was told that was unlikely in this case, and William was probably put in a car and driven away by someone else.
"If William was murdered, and it's a big if, it may be one of those rare cases of 3 per cent," Mr Craddock said.
"Worldwide these cases have proven most difficult to solve," Mr Craddock said.
William Tyrrell abducted in a car by an offender who chose to 'act on their desires', inquest hears

@SouthAussie
Your reply was to a @deugirtni post about scent dogs and the reporting of whether they found traces of William or not. Your reply might be in regard to some other post? It doesn't appear to be relevant to the topic of how evidence was reported.

But, following your drift: presumably there are non-guilt explanations for PD Gov and later police dogs to find no traces of William's presence - if the reports that deugirtni linked are correct. Are they correct? That is the question. If PD Gov couldn't find a scent at all, anywhere, then I wonder if his scenting ability was hampered by the 30 paralysis ticks which led to his collapse the next day. The poor dog might have been suffering symptoms already by the 12th.

- "William Tyrrell: police dog handler describes 'impossible' search", Daily Telegraph, 24 April 2019. This article is paywalled. Thanks to @FromGermany who posted the details from another article: William Tyrrell MEDIA/TIMELINE, post #46

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I think there is likely clear reason why all of the parents have been cleared. Their alibis have been verified, as per everything we have read and heard from the inquest. And if the Coroner finds otherwise, then so be it.

My earlier comment was not at all implicating the parents. Police have publicly cleared both families. TOS are that we cannot discuss the families as possibly being involved.

My comment was about how submissions of counsel assisting and other lawyers are received by the Coroner and differentiating fact from submissions.

 

[Karinna]

Absolutely there are discrepancies. Journalists write what is relevant to their angle. Most journalists wouldn’t know the difference between a suspect/POI and would use the word interchangeably. That’s just one example. Journalists have strict timelines and word numbers and aren’t always careful with their words and sometimes misinterpret something or shorten something so that it comes across different to what actually occurred.

On the other hand, on this thread, everything that journalists say is dissected to the nth degree and often sloppy wording by journalists is interpreted as something of significance. That’s not a criticism of the members. We are bound by TOS, which exist for very good reason. And, after all, this is a sleuthing forum.

I am currently helping a journalist with a story. Yesterday I found out that the journalist was working from the completely wrong raw data. Fortunately the story hasn’t been published yet. And if it had, it’s likely that it wouldn’t have been picked up by most people.

The good thing about this case is that there are so many parties represented by lawyers that if anything is incorrectly published and has the potential to mislead the public, the lawyers force a retraction. So the MSM story stays relatively accurate.

Thankyou for explaining, and exactly how i imagine it all works with media reporting . It is difficult to know exactly what is fact or not sometimes, but WS asks if we claim something as fact it has to be linked to verify that fact. And MSM is usually all we have unless it is a police presser where the police actually come out and say something about a case to the public and we can then link to a video of it.

 

[SouthAussie]

@SouthAussie
Your reply was to a @deugirtni post about scent dogs and the reporting of whether they found traces of William or not. Your reply might be in regard to some other post? It doesn't appear to be relevant to the topic of how evidence was reported.

But, following your drift: presumably there are non-guilt explanations for PD Gov and later police dogs to find no traces of William's presence - if the reports that @deigirtni linked are correct. Are they correct? That is the question. If PD Gov couldn't find a scent at all, anywhere, then I wonder if his scenting ability was hampered by the 30 paralysis ticks which led to his collapse the next day. The poor dog might have been suffering symptoms already by the 12th.

- "William Tyrrell: police dog handler describes 'impossible' search", Daily Telegraph, 24 April 2019. This article is paywalled. Thanks to @FromGermany who posted the details from another article: William Tyrrell MEDIA/TIMELINE, post #46

No, my post was in direct response to the post that I quoted.

And yes, it is possible that PD Gov was affected by ticks. It is also possible that PD Gov was affected by contamination of the scene by the many searchers who wandered the entire area - including the familial searchers who may have also had their scent on whatever item was given to PD Gov as the initial scent source.

 

[SouthAussie]

My earlier comment was not at all implicating the parents. Police have publicly cleared both families. TOS are that we cannot discuss the families as possibly being involved.

My comment was about how submissions of counsel assisting and other lawyers are received by the Coroner and differentiating fact from submissions.

I personally am not struggling to differentiate fact from submission. But thanks anyway.

I think many of the 'facts' that have been submitted at the inquest - eg: Paul Savage's testimony - are unclear and may be disputed by things found in the police brief. Otherwise, he spent an awfully long time on the stand being questioned. As well as others being questioned about him.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Over the years on this thread I have read many many opinions, asserted as fact, stemming from a misunderstanding of how the legal system works. As a result, some of the theories have gone off on a tangent that simply is not possible.

This is why I have become verified.

But that’s what we do on WS, we explore all tangents and possibilities that are within TOS.

And while it’s great to have legal input, it would be a shame if it was used by members with personal agendas to shut down civilised discussion and explore different ideas and possibilities. IMO.

 

[bearbear]

could det laura beacroft have an eyewitness (ps?) to events happening within her specific time frame, one report said between 10.05 to 10.15, and this article says 10.05 to 10.20, so it could just be a 10 minute window where something was witnessed and if ps witnessed it, could explain all his questioning and also the closed court questioning and why gj was recording him, just hoping he may repeat something hed said at an earlier time before all the media attention on him?
Mystery over last photo of William Tyrrell

 

[Karinna]

could det laura beacroft have an eyewitness (ps?) to events happening within her specific time frame, one report said between 10.05 to 10.15, and this article says 10.05 to 10.20, so it could just be a 10 minute window where something was witnessed and if ps witnessed it, could explain all his questioning and also the closed court questioning and why gj was recording him, just hoping he may repeat something hed said at an earlier time before all the media attention on him?
Mystery over last photo of William Tyrrell

I think you make a valid point seeing as we don't know the full extent of PS's questioning.

 

[bearbear]

Citing statistics about missing children worldwide, Mr Cradock said 97 per cent of the perpetrators of child abduction murders were "family members of acquaintances".

"(But) there are very few family members who had access to William on ... 12 September 2014," he said.

"If William was murdered, and that's a big if, it may be this rare 3 per cent of cases.

"Offenders in child abduction ... come in all shapes, sizes, colours, genders, economic status."
He said that public or media speculation about the alleged guilt of persons or witnesses called to the inquest had no basis.

"There is no evidence anyone called before this inquest was involved in his disappearance," Mr Craddock told the hearing. "This is an inquest, not a criminal trial."

He said it would be wrong to think police believed "that any witness called ... is guilty of abduction or homicide".

"It is possible some of the witnesses have further information."

Mr Craddock said if police believed a witness was guilty they would be before a criminal court.

He said suspicions raised about witnesses had resulted in "quite a degree of naming and shaming in the media".
William Tyrrell inquest hears more on likely abductor