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

[interested64]

Was just thinking, there are actually 7 potential POIs.

There is also the woman in the land cruiser.

Owen, Abbott, Donohoe, Savage, Spedding, Jones, Land Cruiser Lady


I wonder if the parents have any strong gut feelings about any of the potential POIs appearing at the inquest.
Sometimes parents just 'know'.
The Morcombes said that they just 'knew' that Brett Cowan took Daniel, when they were at Daniel's inquest.

plus the man following in the blue car if different from above list

 

[interested64]

A lawyer saying that is not good enough for me.
It could be possible but not gospel yet.

agree..i havnt heard anything that supports him not being a poi..the van is not proof he wasnt in Beneroon Drive at 10.15

 

[interested64]

It’s only my opinion, based on things said and done by his lawyer.

but isnt that his job to get him cleared in the public eye,even if it is to use lack of evidence to do so ?

 

[SouthAussie]

but isnt that his job to get him cleared in the public eye,even if it is to use lack of evidence to do so ?

He may never be cleared in the public eye until another person is arrested for this crime.
There seems to be many people here, there, and everywhere who are not comfortable with just his lawyer's say-so.

And the thing is, the Coroner is not going to name a person(s) in her report, if she states that she finds William disappeared (or more correctly, alive or deceased) at the hands of a known person.
So, until an arrest is made, there will likely be suspicion in various degrees on all of the POI's testifying. imo

 

[Karinna]

but isnt that his job to get him cleared in the public eye,even if it is to use lack of evidence to do so ?

I doubt it's an Attorney's job to clear him in the public eye LOL.
Now if it were a Criminal Trial then yes, a defense attorney would put forth their case to a Jury in their defense. IMO.

 

[Karinna]

He may never be cleared in the public eye until another person is arrested for this crime.
There seems to be many people here, there, and everywhere who are not comfortable with just his lawyer's say-so.

And the thing is, the Coroner is not going to name a person(s) in her report, if she states that she finds William disappeared at the hands of a known person.
So, until an arrest is made, there will likely be suspicion in various degrees on all of the POI's testifying. imo

Didn't the Coroner give some kind of advice about witnesses going up to testify initially and as to how we should regard them?

 

[SouthAussie]

Didn't the Coroner give some kind of advice about witnesses going up to testify initially and as to how we should regard them?

Of course, Mr Craddock did that on her behalf. However, does anybody honestly believe that is going to change people's opinions? I don't.
For me, Spedding has slid further down the list. But he is not yet officially off the list. And I hope we all respect the opinions of those who choose to ponder on his potential involvement. Personally, I am happy to discuss the potential involvement of all players.

 

[purpleandgreen]

but isnt that his job to get him cleared in the public eye,even if it is to use lack of evidence to do so ?

Yes it is his job to do that, even if he’s guilty. IMO.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

but isnt that his job to get him cleared in the public eye,even if it is to use lack of evidence to do so ?

Yes, it is. But it’s more than than just what his lawyer has publicly said. A lawyer of someone under suspicion wouldn’t leave an inquest while there is still possible evidence to come that may implicate another person (and thereby create reasonable doubt for BS at trial). Police wouldn’t give up an opportunity to thoroughly cross examine a POI on the stand. I think that several of the tactical and strategic decisions made by very experienced and competent lawyers on both sides of the bar table are telling.

 

[SouthAussie]

plus the man following in the blue car if different from above list

Yes, this is true. I hadn't really considered Mr Blue Car ... but it is possible that the woman in the Land Cruiser could have nabbed William under the instruction and watchful eye of a person in the blue car. A person who then followed her closely to ensure she did the 'right' thing (according to that person).

 

[Karinna]

Of course, Mr Craddock did that on her behalf. However, does anybody honestly believe that is going to change people's opinions? I don't.
For me, Spedding has slid further down the list. But he is not yet officially off the list. And I hope we all respect the opinions of those who choose to ponder on his potential involvement. Personally, I am happy to discuss the potential involvement of all players.

BBM, Is that a fact or your opinion? I haven't seen anything stated officially about that?

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM, Is that a fact or your opinion? I haven't seen anything stated officially about that?

Exactly.

 

[Karinna]

Exactly.

So then he could be off the list, only none of us know that officially yet?

 

[purpleandgreen]

Yes, it is. But it’s more than than just what his lawyer has publicly said. A lawyer of someone under suspicion wouldn’t leave an inquest while there is still possible evidence to come that may implicate another person (and thereby create reasonable doubt for BS at trial). Police wouldn’t give up an opportunity to thoroughly cross examine a POI on the stand. I think that several of the tactical and strategic decisions made by very experienced and competent lawyers on both sides of the bar table are telling.

Who would be paying for Speddings lawyer, out of interest, or my guess it’s probably pro bono. IMO

 

[purpleandgreen]

Delete- something went wrong with the links

 

[purpleandgreen]

BBM, Is that a fact or your opinion? I haven't seen anything stated officially about that?

Exactly. Nothing officially stated, so it’s still a fact as far as we know.

 

[SouthAussie]

Who would be paying for Speddings lawyer, out of interest, or my guess it’s probably pro bono. IMO

Spedding may have (had) some lawsuit money from the media to pay for his lawyer. It could be that when the money dried up, the inquest lawyer did too.

I think the next lawsuit will likely be delivered on a typical lawsuit basis - as the first lawsuits could have been - lawyer takes 1/3 if the suit is successful and money is awarded.

 

[purpleandgreen]

So then he could be off the list, only none of us know that officially yet?

But he might not, since none of us know. But knowing mr Speddings propensity for making you tube videos, surely he’d have told us via that if he was off the list. IMO

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Spedding may have (had) some lawsuit money from the media to pay for his lawyer. It could be that when the money dried up, the inquest lawyer did too.

I think the next lawsuit will likely be delivered on a typical lawsuit basis - as the first lawsuits could have been - lawyer takes 1/3 if the suit is successful and money is awarded.

In Australia, lawyers are not allowed to take a percentage of settlement money paid to a successful litigant. There are “no win no fee” agreements but the various Acts and Conduct Rules are very strict about terms, and percentage based fees are not allowed.

Because of this, in Australia, lawyers are very conservative in what cases they take on. Competent lawyers would only take a case on if they felt very strongly that the client would be successful. The reward is not enough to justify the risk.

 

[SouthAussie]

In Australia, lawyers are not allowed to take a percentage of settlement money paid to a successful litigant. There are “no win no fee” agreements but the various Acts and Conduct Rules are very strict about terms, and percentage based fees are not allowed.

Because of this, in Australia, lawyers are very conservative in what cases they take on. Competent lawyers would only take a case on if they felt very strongly that the client would be successful. The reward is not enough to justify the risk.

No opinion on Paul Savage?