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

[they'll get you]

Has there been a special on bulk prune juice?

 

[Karinna]

Has there been a special on bulk prune juice?

Why? do you need some,

 

[Warshawski]

Could be something to do with the fact that high up legals have been known to be supportive of pedos.

District Court Judge Garry Neilson was recorded as saying that sexual contact between adults and children or siblings may no longer be regarded by society as “unnatural” or “taboo.”
Outrage as Australian judge says incest, pedophilia ‘may be accepted’ by society

A FAMILY Court judge has granted custody of four children to their father - a convicted pedophile and rapist.
No Cookies | The Advertiser

Western Australia's attorney general has defended a judge's decision to release into the community a pedophile who once told a psychologist he had could have defiled up to 1000 children, but later recanted.
The man was in 2009 convicted of 21 offences against six female victims aged three to 11, and sentenced to 10 years behind bars and declared a dangerous sex offender.
Pedophile 'can't be jailed forever': WA AG

Maybe perhaps & quite possibly eh ?? There is so much fundamentally wrong that this stuff can have an opportunity to occur.

And yet there seems no way for the feelings of mainstream society to be heard ( and I might add - these feelings are cross-cultural. I converse with people from Pakistan, India, Israel, 'Persia' etc - all are equally espousing similar values)

 

[they'll get you]

Why? do you need some,

Someone bought up big.

 

[Warshawski]

Why not an Island in the middle of nowhere and let them all try to outsurvive one another..like they did to human beings with leprosy because they didnt know what else to do with them

And those poor people were actual, genuine human beings. What dreadful & heartwrenching experiences they endured.

 

[Warshawski]

Why? do you need some,

I reckon it's working without even taking it !!

Back to little William.

Perhaps we can go back to the very beginning & try to trace some steps.

Who knows from home in Sydney - anyone with insight there ( friends, associates, enemies etc)
Childten - kindie & (which) school or pre-school ?
Teachers
Friends

Who knew they were leaving early - how early - what time were kids taken from their 'schools'; was this enroute or did they go home first?

What time did they leave Sydney ? Route travelled? Any stops on way (Maccas - what time ? Ate in or drive through?
Toilet break ? Surely ...
Feul up ?
CC cameras surveillance in existence ? Along the way ?

Arrived at FFG at what time ? What substantiates that time ?
Who may have noticed their arrival ? Been anticipating their arrival ? Been waiting for their arrival ?

So many questions, so few answers ...IMO

 

[SLouTh]

Sure do ! But then I'm not happy to spend $ on scum.... Castrate them & peg 'm on an ants nest is my preferred method. Low cost, plenty of ants nests in the bush, a bit if blood will attract ants, birds & other feasters, in no time, no mess left & fit for another scum layer! IMO

Sadly War, I do totally understand where your thoughts are coming from ..

However, I think this might actually contravene the Human Rights Act ...IMO

“The prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is one of the most fundamental rights protected by the Human Rights Act. This right is absolute. It is never justifiable to torturesomeone, whatever the circumstances.”

Just playing Devil’s Advocate here

 

[Georgy]

And those poor people were actual, genuine human beings. What dreadful & heartwrenching experiences they endured.

Yes terrible

 

[Karinna]

Someone bought up big.

LOL,

 

[Karinna]

Sadly War, I do totally understand where your thoughts are coming from ..

However, I think this might actually contravene the Human Rights Act ...IMO

“The prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is one of the most fundamental rights protected by the Human Rights Act. This right is absolute. It is never justifiable to torturesomeone, whatever the circumstances.”

Just playing Devil’s Advocate here

I agree, and that's why my suggestion would be to isolate them far away from children where they can no longer prey on them.
Sadly too sometimes the abused becomes the abuser, in what percentage though i don't know?
And then children who are abused in their own home by a parent, where a child should feel safe. Again don't know stats. on that either?

 

[SLouTh]

I reckon it's working without even taking it !!

Back to little William.

Perhaps we can go back to the very beginning & try to trace some steps.

Who knows from home in Sydney - anyone with insight there ( friends, associates, enemies etc)
Childten - kindie & (which) school or pre-school ?
Teachers
Friends

Who knew they were leaving early - how early - what time were kids taken from their 'schools'; was this enroute or did they go home first?

What time did they leave Sydney ? Route travelled? Any stops on way (Maccas - what time ? Ate in or drive through?
Toilet break ? Surely ...
Feul up ?
CC cameras surveillance in existence ? Along the way ?

Arrived at FFG at what time ? What substantiates that time ?
Who may have noticed their arrival ? Been anticipating their arrival ? Been waiting for their arrival ?

So many questions, so few answers ...IMO

This is a good idea @Warshawski ... I think we have a lot of these answers from Podcasts and articles and we could fill a lot of this in .. it’s been ages since we made a new timeline...

 

[deugirtni]

@Cleaver Greene I was wondering how it worked as far as how the huge brief of evidence would be reviewed by the Coroner's office.

Specifically, I find it disturbing that the Coroner did not notice and/or question the time discrepancy on the 5 photographs which were considered proof-of-life at a certain time for W that morning. We know that Craddock stated the 9:37am time was 'a time they can be sure of' during his announcements. It seemed to take the biodad's new lawyer to notice and question this time discrepancy which had been present all along in the document, and this was after weeks of the Inquest happening, not to mention this particular lawyer's later involvement, ie what if bioDad had not bothered to pursue a lawyer at all?

Would the Coroner herself not be personally reviewing this huge 'brief of evidence'? I understand it is a lot of reading, some 2000 pages as I understand it. Would only one person be responsible for reviewing it, ie would it have been Craddock? How can the public be assured that the contents are being scrutinized, if such an oversight has come to light without the Coroner having previously questioned it until it was pointed out to her? TIA!

 

[Cleaver Greene]

@Cleaver Greene I was wondering how it worked as far as how the huge brief of evidence would be reviewed by the Coroner's office.

Specifically, I find it disturbing that the Coroner did not notice and/or question the time discrepancy on the 5 photographs which were considered proof-of-life at a certain time for W that morning. We know that Craddock stated the 9:37am time was 'a time they can be sure of' during his announcements. It seemed to take the biodad's new lawyer to notice and question this time discrepancy which had been present all along in the document, and this was after weeks of the Inquest happening, not to mention this particular lawyer's later involvement, ie what if bioDad had not bothered to pursue a lawyer at all?

Would the Coroner herself not be personally reviewing this huge 'brief of evidence'? I understand it is a lot of reading, some 2000 pages as I understand it. Would only one person be responsible for reviewing it, ie would it have been Craddock? How can the public be assured that the contents are being scrutinized, if such an oversight has come to light without the Coroner having previously questioned it until it was pointed out to her? TIA!

The brief of evidence is just a bundle of statements, reports etc. Not every piece of evidence makes it in there. I posted this earlier but I’m not tech savvy enough to tell you which post.

It’s not the Coroner’s fault. The job of the lawyers is to either confirm what is in the particular statement, or cast doubt on it. The Coroner would probably have assumed by the opening statement that 9.37 was a definite confirmed time. I think even counsel assisting would assumed such a basic thing, which clearly defined the window of opportunity, and focussed the entire investigation, would have been confirmed.

The questioning of the accuracy of the time stamp shows that the inquest is working. The combined team of lawyers is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

For example, a witness says “I saw x at x place at x time”. That’s assumed to be a fact. It’s only when another witness, or even x themselves says “that wasn’t me because I was elsewhere. Here are airline tickets and a passport stamp confirming I was overseas” that the evidence of the first witness falls apart. Does that make sense?

What is unravelling at the inquest shows some pretty telling oversights by the police including BS lawyer finding evidence that police didn’t bother to get, the time stamp etc. And god only knows what else went on in closed court.

 

[SouthAussie]

What is unravelling at the inquest shows some pretty telling oversights by the police including BS lawyer finding evidence that police didn’t bother to get .....

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 ....

 

[Georgy]

The brief of evidence is just a bundle of statements, reports etc. Not every piece of evidence makes it in there. I posted this earlier but I’m not tech savvy enough to tell you which post.

It’s not the Coroner’s fault. The job of the lawyers is to either confirm what is in the particular statement, or cast doubt on it. The Coroner would probably have assumed by the opening statement that 9.37 was a definite confirmed time. I think even counsel assisting would assumed such a basic thing, which clearly defined the window of opportunity, and focussed the entire investigation, would have been confirmed.

The questioning of the accuracy of the time stamp shows that the inquest is working. The combined team of lawyers is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

For example, a witness says “I saw x at x place at x time”. That’s assumed to be a fact. It’s only when another witness, or even x themselves says “that wasn’t me because I was elsewhere. Here are airline tickets and a passport stamp confirming I was overseas” that the evidence of the first witness falls apart. Does that make sense?

What is unravelling at the inquest shows some pretty telling oversights by the police including BS lawyer finding evidence that police didn’t bother to get, the time stamp etc. And god only knows what else went on in closed court.

Ive always understood the Inquest would test the evidence and i also agree it is a good thing Bio dad has a lawyer.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

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 ....

None of us here know what has been discussed in closed court or what evidence has been suppressed. We cannot assume that we know all the evidence. Continuing to assert that there haven’t been ANY oversights by police, when the evidence so far suggests otherwise, prevents open discussion.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Ive always understood the Inquest would test the evidence and i also agree it is a good thing Bio dad has a lawyer.

That’s exactly what the inquest does. It tests the evidence.

 

[drsleuth]

Every single day? Are you sure about that?

Yes I am

Excuse me? Perhaps some need to go back and read what the mod has said about our members who attend the inquest? Something like .... a person can believe or not believe it, but they are not to challenge it.

I have been passing on what I heard & what I observed at the inquest ( other people who say they were there don't seem to be doing the same , just commenting on what I say )

Yes. Every single day that the inquest was open to the public. Please stop challenging me. It is not necessary.

It is not our fault that the BD's group was disruptive and incurred a glare from the Coroner.

There certainly were glares from the coroner at times at a certain group, especially when she was talking about the suppression orders being broken by people who continued to name the FF despite her very obvious orders Thankfully I think the orders may have finally sunk in to some....as her warnings eventually stopped.
@LiaJHarris
·
Mar 27

Lia Harris (@LiaJHarris) | Twitter

The Deputy State Coroner says there has been an allegation of a “serious breach” of a non publication order protecting the identity of William’s family. Police are investigating.

Im not challenging you, but maybe your info is wrong IMO
One persons opinion is hardly the opinion of all..just saying

You can take my opinion as you wish, but to continually attack my comments is tiresome........

Yes it was every single day + Taree

Yep

Ive always understood the Inquest would test the evidence and i also agree it is a good thing Bio dad has a lawyer.

Me too But it seems to me that it has been taken advantage of by a group of "advocates" IMO.

 

[drsleuth]

The brief of evidence is just a bundle of statements, reports etc. Not every piece of evidence makes it in there. I posted this earlier but I’m not tech savvy enough to tell you which post.

It’s not the Coroner’s fault. The job of the lawyers is to either confirm what is in the particular statement, or cast doubt on it. The Coroner would probably have assumed by the opening statement that 9.37 was a definite confirmed time. I think even counsel assisting would assumed such a basic thing, which clearly defined the window of opportunity, and focussed the entire investigation, would have been confirmed.

The questioning of the accuracy of the time stamp shows that the inquest is working. The combined team of lawyers is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

For example, a witness says “I saw x at x place at x time”. That’s assumed to be a fact. It’s only when another witness, or even x themselves says “that wasn’t me because I was elsewhere. Here are airline tickets and a passport stamp confirming I was overseas” that the evidence of the first witness falls apart. Does that make sense?

What is unravelling at the inquest shows some pretty telling oversights by the police including BS lawyer finding evidence that police didn’t bother to get, the time stamp etc. And god only knows what else went on in closed court.

Do you think it's appropriate that statements from the brief ( FFC & FGM ) have been shared on SM?

 

[Karinna]

Ive always understood the Inquest would test the evidence and i also agree it is a good thing Bio dad has a lawyer.

I think both BP's should of had legal representation as soon as their child was known to be missing from foster care. If nothing else just for legal advice on what they could expect going forward. All IMO.