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

[JWSleuth]

You critisized the MSM article i posted and my question pertained to that.

thanks for clarifying.
I don’t think the article is balanced.
A lot of information has been left out.

I am not really sure what your next question means into who’s truth, But I like to read an article that gives me all the info where it’s not clear. I don’t think it does this -IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

thanks for clarifying.
I don’t think the article is balanced.
A lot of information has been left out.

I am not really sure what your next question means into who’s truth, But I like to read an article that gives me all the info where it’s not clear. I don’t think it does this -IMO.

Would also be good if they indicated a source for their information.

"The ABC has learned .... "
"The ABC has been told ...."

From who? By who? Peter O'Brien? Ole Col? APS? The guy at the local wine bar? Bits and pieces from other MSM?

 

[JWSleuth]

Would also be good if they indicated a source for their information.

"The ABC has learned .... "
"The ABC has been told ...."

From who? By who? Peter O'Brien? Ole Col? APS? The guy at the local wine bar? Bits and pieces from other MSM?

Thank you SA always find the missing words exactly!
Each of the statements could also be turned around to mean the opposite as well in my opinion.

Deleted by me

 

[Karinna]

thanks for clarifying.
I don’t think the article is balanced.
A lot of information has been left out.

I am not really sure what your next question means into who’s truth, But I like to read an article that gives me all the info where it’s not clear. I don’t think it does this -IMO.

BBM, The article pertained to the information regarding BS litigation and the reasons why his attorney is going ahead with that. Pretty straightforward IMO.
I asked who is the trier of fact in it? Who is determining what is accurate in what has been stated in other words? Not any of us IMO unless we have insider information.

 

[JWSleuth]

BBM, The article pertained to the information regarding BS litigation and the reasons why his attorney is going ahead with that. Pretty straightforward IMO.
I asked who is the trier of fact in it? Who is determining what is accurate in what has been stated in other words? Not any of us IMO unless we have insider information.

BBM, The article pertained to the information regarding BS litigation and the reasons why his attorney is going ahead with that. Pretty straightforward IMO.
I asked who is the trier of fact in it? Who is determining what is accurate in what has been stated in other words? Not any of us IMO unless we have insider information.

IMO not clear at all. I didn’t say it wasn’t true I said it wasn’t balanced and did not provide information as to why. IMO does not show anything.

should we start a BS litigation page for discussion? As I’m confused what points you are trying to make and why.

 

[SouthAussie]

Thank you SA always find the missing words exactly!
Each of the statements could also be turned around to mean the opposite as well in my opinion.

e.g. all charges where either dismissed or dropped, due to the lack of Forensic evidence available...

Also ... "Former journalist and Laurieton resident Gordon Wiegold backed up their evidence, telling the inquest that he saw Mr Spedding at that assembly."

Whereas local MSM report more fully ....

Mr Wiegold said he remembered being at an assembly where Hallelujah was sung. He also remembered Mr Spedding being at an assembly.
However, Mr Wiegold could not confirm to Mr Craddock if the assembly where the song was sung and when Mr Spedding was present was the same assembly.
Sawmill combed by police as William Tyrrell inquest continues

 

[JWSleuth]

Do you want the coroner to review this information when releasing a finding? I’m confused?

 

[JWSleuth]

Sorry I’ve taken the bait again....

 

[Karinna]

Do you want the coroner to review this information when releasing a finding? I’m confused?

Please refer to the context of my posts starting from my post #1401. In reply to SA about the Coroner clearing anyone at a CI, and that poster's post mentioning Spedding.

 

[SouthAussie]

Sorry I’ve taken the bait again....

No worries, JW. I get what you mean. And, in general, I find ABC to be better at reporting on political issues rather than crime. imo

 

[JWSleuth]

Please refer to the context of my posts starting from my post #1401. In reply to SA about the Coroner clearing anyone at a CI, and that poster's post mentioning Spedding.

I was simply stating

1. no - I don’t think (iMO) the coroner would take that information into consideration)
2. Pointing out (imo) the article is unbalanced and not clear

i can see the frustration of the coroner - it’s her job to ask the questions. she’ll ask what she needs to and make her own unbiased opinions made from that.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes she wants to determine what happened to WT. But my point was it's not a Coroner's job to determine guilt or innocence of anyone at a CI. They just don't do that. But if her findings lead her to anyone that needs further investigation she would refer that on. That's my understanding of how CI's work anyway.

I read in an MSM article that the most recent search had been ordered by the Coroner. (The one held while the Inquest proceeded in Taree.)

 

[Karinna]

I read in an MSM article that the most recent search had been ordered by the Coroner. (The one held while the Inquest proceeded in Taree.)

Yeah the link i posted up earlier stated further what other things a Coroner is able to do.
(quote)
Power to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas and order arrest

The Coroner may summon witnesses, and people found lying are guilty of perjury. Additional powers of the Coroner include the power of subpoena, the power of arrest, the power to administer oaths, and the power to sequester juries of six during inquests.

Further powers of the Coroner include:

• authorising a police officer or other person to enter any place and gather evidence, similar to a search warrant
• the power to retain possession of the body of a person whose death is reportable to the Coroner. Burial or cremation of such bodies must be authorised by the Coroner.
• clearing court in certain circumstances and preventing publication of certain evidence
• authorising or directing post mortem examinations
• authorising the retention of whole organs (if the coroner is satisfied that the retention is necessary or desirable to assist in the investigation of the manner or cause of the person’s death)
• directing the exhumation of a body for the purpose of a post mortem examination.

In some situations, the decision of a Coroner can be reviewed or appealed.
The Coroner's role

 

[stormbird]

Also ... "Former journalist and Laurieton resident Gordon Wiegold backed up their evidence, telling the inquest that he saw Mr Spedding at that assembly."

Whereas local MSM report more fully ....

Mr Wiegold said he remembered being at an assembly where Hallelujah was sung. He also remembered Mr Spedding being at an assembly.
However, Mr Wiegold could not confirm to Mr Craddock if the assembly where the song was sung and when Mr Spedding was present was the same assembly.
Sawmill combed by police as William Tyrrell inquest continues

Two people gave evidence about the assembly:

- Mr W remembered hearing Hallelujah and seeing BS, but couldn't remember the date;
- Ms E remembered the date and hearing Hallelujah, but couldn't remember seeing BS.

Taken together, their evidence says that BS was at the assembly when Hallelujah was sung on 12 Sep 2014.

- "William Tyrrell inquiry: Former person of interest set to take NSW Police to court," Caroline Overington, The Australian, 21 August 2019
with thanks to @bearbear for posting the link previously (thread #43, post #2016).

 

[deugirtni]

BBM: There is no 'new' proof discovered by lawyers. We always knew about the receipt, the cafe, the school assembly, the police speaking with school personnel and other attendees at the assembly, Spedding's and Margaret's claims, the fact that Spedding wanted to attend kids footy that weekend.

Why is it that others here are not satisfied with the 'evidence'. It is because we have heard it all before (witness names excluded) and it still did not relieve Spedding of his POI status.

No oversights by the police. I keep advising to read the thread and get across the details, so making erroneous assumptions is avoided ....

I think we had heard from Col at the start that a bank debit existed on Spedding's bank statement/records, however I believe the actual receipt from Buzz Cafe showing exact time, what (and how many) was exactly ordered, etc., to match that same amount from the bank statement, was not known about previously, and seemed to be produced at 2nd tranche of the Inquest. Spedding's lawyer made mention that police had not bothered to seek out evidence that had been available to them for years and that they had to seek it out themselves (which is not normal, imo). (see link below.)

As well, I believe O'Brien was also referring to the video/photo which showed that Spedding was somewhere else at the time when Pollard in a police statement had said Spedding was acting suspiciously driving in or out of the bush on the night W disappeared, which allegation caused a large search of the area. These things are what I believe to be the "'new' proof discovered by lawyers".

Contrary to the quoted statement above, many seem to believe Spedding is no longer a POI (perhaps not many on this site, but in general). The Coroner had set aside an additional day for BS to be cross examined, but I believe I read that nobody had questions after his testimony and it seemed to satisfy the Coroner, at which time I believe O'Brien excused himself from being present further. That additional day that had been set aside was a wasted day when there was no court held at all, IIRC.

Perhaps we might *all* benefit from reading the thread and the details. If any one of us were dragged through the dirt like Spedding has been for the past five years, I'm pretty sure we would believe these things to be oversights by police and may not be satisfied with the 'evidence'. Even FM has publicly complained about oversights made, by police failing to cordon off the street right away, for one. imo.
----
"Defence lawyer Peter O’Brien was this month forced to gather the evidence that clearly ruled Mr Spedding out, despite it being available to police for years.

“I’m not suggesting for a moment police shouldn’t have looked at my client,” he said. “But it would, or should, have been fairly evident fairly quickly there wasn’t anything in it.”"

NoCookies | The Australian

 

[JWSleuth]

I think we had heard from Col at the start that a bank debit existed on Spedding's bank statement/records, however I believe the actual receipt from Buzz Cafe showing exact time, what (and how many) was exactly ordered, etc., to match that same amount from the bank statement, was not known about previously, and seemed to be produced at 2nd tranche of the Inquest. Spedding's lawyer made mention that police had not bothered to seek out evidence that had been available to them for years and that they had to seek it out themselves (which is not normal, imo). (see link below.)

As well, I believe O'Brien was also referring to the video/photo which showed that Spedding was somewhere else at the time when Pollard in a police statement had said Spedding was acting suspiciously driving in or out of the bush on the night W disappeared, which allegation caused a large search of the area. These things are what I believe to be the "'new' proof discovered by lawyers".

Contrary to the quoted statement above, many seem to believe Spedding is no longer a POI (perhaps not many on this site, but in general). The Coroner had set aside an additional day for BS to be cross examined, but I believe I read that nobody had questions after his testimony and it seemed to satisfy the Coroner, at which time I believe O'Brien excused himself from being present further. That additional day that had been set aside was a wasted day when there was no court held at all, IIRC.

Perhaps we might *all* benefit from reading the thread and the details. If any one of us were dragged through the dirt like Spedding has been for the past five years, I'm pretty sure we would believe these things to be oversights by police and may not be satisfied with the 'evidence'. Even FM has publicly complained about oversights made, by police failing to cordon off the street right away, for one. imo.
----
"Defence lawyer Peter O’Brien was this month forced to gather the evidence that clearly ruled Mr Spedding out, despite it being available to police for years.

“I’m not suggesting for a moment police shouldn’t have looked at my client,” he said. “But it would, or should, have been fairly evident fairly quickly there wasn’t anything in it.”"

NoCookies | The Australian

Two people gave evidence about the assembly:

- Mr W remembered hearing Hallelujah and seeing BS, but couldn't remember the date;
- Ms E remembered the date and hearing Hallelujah, but couldn't remember seeing BS.

Taken together, their evidence says that BS was at the assembly when Hallelujah was sung on 12 Sep 2014.

- "William Tyrrell inquiry: Former person of interest set to take NSW Police to court," Caroline Overington, The Australian, 21 August 2019
with thanks to @bearbear for posting the link previously (thread #43, post #2016).

Two people gave evidence about the assembly:

- Mr W remembered hearing Hallelujah and seeing BS, but couldn't remember the date;
- Ms E remembered the date and hearing Hallelujah, but couldn't remember seeing BS.

Taken together, their evidence says that BS was at the assembly when Hallelujah was sung on 12 Sep 2014.

- "William Tyrrell inquiry: Former person of interest set to take NSW Police to court," Caroline Overington, The Australian, 21 August 2019
with thanks to @bearbear for posting the link previously (thread #43, post #2016).

I do feel for the guy, he has a couple of really, really crappy alibis.

IMO - they are still crap, I am going to need to respectfully disagree on this. That is all.

 

[JWSleuth]

Just because you have a terrible alibi doesn’t make you guilty.

IMO.

But also, it doesn’t change the fact you have a terrible alibi ?

 

[deugirtni]

Just because you have a terrible alibi doesn’t make you guilty.

IMO.

But also, it doesn’t change the fact you have a terrible alibi ?

Wasn't BioMom's alibi that she'd been shopping for baby needs and produced a receipt showing purchases, along with a timestamp to suggest she couldn't have been at 48B at the time? Not sure if that receipt was compared against her banking records. But apparently this was enough to clear her, someone who was known to already have absconded with this same child and hidden him for weeks. Not shedding suspicion on her at all, just saying that that is what I understand to have cleared her.

But yet BS has a similar alibi in that he and his wife were in a coffeeshop together, they have each other as witnesses, produced a receipt showing purchases at a time when it would be impossible for him to have been at 48B at the time of W's disappearance, but it's not good enough. A fellow confirmed seeing him at the assembly in which the song Hallelujah was sung by the kids, which was emotional and therefore remembered by seemingly all who attended - the man could not remember the date, but he did know it was at the assembly when that song was sung. I'm unclear on exactly when it was that police asked these witnesses to confirm whether they'd seen BS, but that could certainly play a big part in who would have remembered another parent's presence. I know I don't keep track of which other people are in attendance at school functions, and would soon forget if not asked right away, even if I did remember seeing one or two that I knew. People have busy lives and don't tend to dwell on what others are doing when they're trying to run their own lives. How many witnesses would it take, I wonder?

 

[JWSleuth]

We could go be back and check these things and times. It still doesn’t change the fact that no-one is 100 certain on seeing BS at that time or date.

Nothing will change my opinion based on the above only that the alibi is crap. Sorry that’s my opinion.

Same as everyone else’s alibis. RD has a timesheet to say he was working. Should we take that as cleared? Doesn’t look like it.

I really don’t see what your issue is with this?

Wasn't BioMom's alibi that she'd been shopping for baby needs and produced a receipt showing purchases, along with a timestamp to suggest she couldn't have been at 48B at the time? Not sure if that receipt was compared against her banking records. But apparently this was enough to clear her, someone who was known to already have absconded with this same child and hidden him for weeks. Not shedding suspicion on her at all, just saying that that is what I understand to have cleared her.

But yet BS has a similar alibi in that he and his wife were in a coffeeshop together, they have each other as witnesses, produced a receipt showing purchases at a time when it would be impossible for him to have been at 48B at the time of W's disappearance, but it's not good enough. A fellow confirmed seeing him at the assembly in which the song Hallelujah was sung by the kids, which was emotional and therefore remembered by seemingly all who attended - the man could not remember the date, but he did know it was at the assembly when that song was sung. I'm unclear on exactly when it was that police asked these witnesses to confirm whether they'd seen BS, but that could certainly play a big part in who would have remembered another parent's presence. I know I don't keep track of which other people are in attendance at school functions, and would soon forget if not asked right away, even if I did remember seeing one or two that I knew. People have busy lives and don't tend to dwell on what others are doing when they're trying to run their own lives. How many witnesses would it take, I wonder?

 

[JWSleuth]

Further I’m not sure where bio lives but closer to Sydney I think? Would be much easier to confirm that she could not be in Kendall at this time.

The article written by abc had strongly stated that BS was far away.

Isn’t laurieton only 20 minute drive?