Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #52

[Tinker Taylor]

I’ve often thought about contractors in the area that morning and not necessarily postal.. 43 Benaroon was a vacant lot I believe which had tree removal and undergrowth works done..

If that was underway when William went missing, wouldn't you think someone would have mentioned it? Those wood chippers are extremely noisy, so unlikely to go unnoticed.

 

[JLZ]

Heaps of new details coming out, mainly about PS.
It seems like more revelations have come to light from Jubes’ case than from the darn coronial inquest!

Or from Jubes' new career.

 

[sleepinoz]

I’ve often thought about contractors in the area that morning and not necessarily postal.. 43 Benaroon was a vacant lot I believe which had tree removal and undergrowth works done..

No the works were not happening at that stage, it was still up for sale.

 

[Thebottomline]

We discussed way back the KISS theory . I think it’s more relevant now than ever.

 

[Tinker Taylor]

double

 

[SouthAussie]

Heaps of new details coming out, mainly about PS.
It seems like more revelations have come to light from Jubes’ case than from the darn coronial inquest!

Yes. It is good to finally know a few details about why Jubes is so interested in Savage. I think that Savage is probably who Jubes was referring to when he said at the Sydney Writers festival (?) that he thinks he knows what happened to William.

It is good that Australia is hearing that there IS a primary POI in Jubes’ opinion. (At least that is what I am getting from all of this info.) Jubes is a highly intelligent, savvy and compassionate investigator in many people’s view IMO.

 

[Thebottomline]

double

Yes I agree, would have all been checked out. I think the one responsible is right here in our faces and the media’s and GJ’s right now. IN my opinion of course. Too many holes with no explanations .

 

[interested64]

Or from Jubes' new career.

I wonder what time William was seen running to the car

 

[Thebottomline]

Yes. It is good to finally know a few details about why Jubes is so interested in Savage. I think that Savage is probably who Jubes was referring to when he said at the Sydney Writers festival (?) that he thinks he knows what happened to William.

It is good that Australia is hearing that there IS a primary POI in Jubes’ opinion. (At least that is what I am getting from all of this info.) Jubes is a highly intelligent, savvy and compassionate investigator in many people’s view IMO.

I am thinking along the same lines too SA. Have since the day he was named in msm

 

[SouthAussie]

That's what I took from 'considered granting'--that it didn't happen--though it isn't actually said that it didn't. But, from reading the Section, it seems that in the first place the witness has to object to giving evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination. So it's not like the coroner speculates that the witness might be more forthcoming with a certificate and therefore offers one on her own initiative. Anyone who knows about this jump in, because I'm not in any way an expert.

CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 61 Privilege in respect of self-incrimination

I wonder what Savage’s 1.5 hours of closed court was about. Maybe a Sec 61 offer?

 

[SLouTh]

Perhaps the Section 61 offer never came to pass?

The Telegraph states that Jubes had lodged the Section 61 in Court...… (?ready if needed...) so he must have been seriously considering the offer...

"An investigation plan written by Jubelin and tendered in court detailed how consideration may be given to having Savage granted a section 61 certificate in the Coroner’s Court.

The certificate, granted by a coroner, protects a witness from self-incriminating evidence but not from perjury."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

 

[JLZ]

The Telegraph states that Jubes had lodged the Section 61 in Court...… (?ready if needed...) so he must have been seriously considering the offer...

"An investigation plan written by Jubelin and tendered in court detailed how consideration may be given to having Savage granted a section 61 certificate in the Coroner’s Court.

The certificate, granted by a coroner, protects a witness from self-incriminating evidence but not from perjury."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

That says the investigation plan was tendered . . . nothing about having a certificate 'ready if needed' or 'lodged'. The second paragraph just explains what such a certificate is, that it is granted by a coroner, not IMO that it was.

I'm so glad for information about the DT articles since I can't read them.

 

[Tinker Taylor]

One thing I have always found curious is that there seems to have been a focus on the people who were at their home when William went missing.

Someone mentioned it earlier and it's true, we don't actually know what time he went missing, we only what time he was missed.

It seems to me that if someone in the neighbourhood snatched William, and they weren't seen doing it, when questioned they would simply say they weren't there at the time. There would be a very small window of opportunity to make him disappear. They would cruise back home later in the day/week and act surprised about what had happened.

That is what makes me think that we/the cops are barking up the wrong tree.

If it WAS a neighbour, it would be someone who was apparently NOT home.

Otherwise it is an unknown person, that no one saw drive up the lower driveway and took William and no one saw him leave either.

 

[sleepinoz]

The Telegraph states that Jubes had lodged the Section 61 in Court...… (?ready if needed...) so he must have been seriously considering the offer...

"An investigation plan written by Jubelin and tendered in court detailed how consideration may be given to having Savage granted a section 61 certificate in the Coroner’s Court.

The certificate, granted by a coroner, protects a witness from self-incriminating evidence but not from perjury."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

It was tendered in Court for his trial, not the Inquest.

ETA: And by It was tendered I mean the Investigation plan, not the S61

 

[Chrissy74]

If that was underway when William went missing, wouldn't you think someone would have mentioned it? Those wood chippers are extremely noisy, so unlikely to go unnoticed.

Not necessarily.. someone may have been sent to have a look at or quote the property for future works.. it may have been an in and out visit with nobody else knowing... the crabs mentioned hearing what they believed to be the postie but maybe it was a tradie in a van or 4wd

 

[Thebottomline]

One thing I have always found curious is that there seems to have been a focus on the people who were at their home when William went missing.

Someone mentioned it earlier and it's true, we don't actually know what time he went missing, we only what time he was missed.

It seems to me that if someone in the neighbourhood snatched William, and they weren't seen doing it, when questioned they would simply say they weren't there at the time. There would be a very small window of opportunity to make him disappear. They would cruise back home later in the day/week and act surprised about what had happened.

That is what makes me think that we/the cops are barking up the wrong tree.

If it WAS a neighbour, it would be someone who was apparently NOT home.

Otherwise it is an unknown person, that no one saw drive up the lower driveway and took William and no one saw him leave either.

I think GJ was up the right tree . Time will tell, after all these years I think we are very close to the truth , which I think was right in our faces the whole time.

 

[SLouTh]

Just jumping off your post, there is only one recording that was made when the warrant had expired.

“The fourth recording was made when no warrants were in place. That would seem to be more serious, except that there had been a warrant. It had simply expired. A new one was soon issued.”
NoCookies | The Australian
Hunter now the hunted

I don't want to create an argument but I don't think that is quite correct...…. (that only ONE recording occurred after the Warrant had Expired.... )

All Four Alleged Illegal Recordings were made after the warrant expired......

The Warrant was obtained in May 2017 and Expired on 25 October 2017

OR 2 Newspapers printing incorrect and conflicting information ??????

Reference below:

The 57-year-old is accused of illegally recording four conversations: one at Parramatta in November 2017 and another three at Kendall in 2018.

On Tuesday, it was revealed in court the conversations were with Paul Savage, who lived near William's Kendall home when the boy disappeared in 2014 and became a person of interest.

Prosecutor Phil Hogan told Downing Centre Local Court a telephone intercept warrant for Mr Savage's landline and mobile phone was issued in May 2017, along with a surveillance location warrant relating to his home the next day.

The court heard the telephone warrant expired on October 26 and about a week later Mr Jubelin made a recording at police headquarters in Parramatta.

Former detective breached surveillance warrants in William Tyrrell case, court hears

 

[Ms Kite]

This is probably been discussed and hashed over, PS had met William on at least 2 occasions prior to Sept. 12. 2014? This is new for me, I didn't know he knew William. Would William run down to greet him?


Kendall resident Paul Savage had seen William Tyrrell on two occasions before his disappearance in 2014 and observed he had a close relationship with his foster parents, the coronial inquest into the three-year-old's disappearance has heard.
The inquest heard in 2013 Mr Savage visited a Christmas party hosted by a resident of Benaroon Drive.
Mr Savage said he observed the 'little fellow' (William) had a close relationship with his foster parents as he 'followed them around the party'. He said he had also seen William on one other occasion.
Neighbour asked what he saw on day William Tyrrell vanished


Is this the reason for the request by coroner for videos taken of search party? While Inspector Aldridge is speaking on camera, they pan left and PS can be seen heading up the road with other volunteer searchers, he turns to look at camera briefly.
Child missing at Kendall

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I thought that the reasons they asked for videos of the search party was:
a) because it's known that perpetrators insert themselves into the search

b) to try and narrow down the times that PS (or others) are not accountable

 

[Thebottomline]

I don't want to create an argument but I don't think that is quite correct...…. (that only ONE recording occurred after the Warrant had Expired.... )

All Four Alleged Illegal Recordings were made after the warrant expired......

The Warrant was obtained in May 2017 and Expired on 25 October 2017

OR 2 Newspapers printing incorrect and conflicting information ??????

Reference below:

The 57-year-old is accused of illegally recording four conversations: one at Parramatta in November 2017 and another three at Kendall in 2018.

On Tuesday, it was revealed in court the conversations were with Paul Savage, who lived near William's Kendall home when the boy disappeared in 2014 and became a person of interest.

Prosecutor Phil Hogan told Downing Centre Local Court a telephone intercept warrant for Mr Savage's landline and mobile phone was issued in May 2017, along with a surveillance location warrant relating to his home the next day.

The court heard the telephone warrant expired on October 26 and about a week later Mr Jubelin made a recording at police headquarters in Parramatta.

Former detective breached surveillance warrants in William Tyrrell case, court hears

I think it was in Cunneen closing arguments

 

[Ms Kite]

That's what I took from 'considered granting'--that it didn't happen--though it isn't actually said that it didn't. But, from reading the Section, it seems that in the first place the witness has to object to giving evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination. So it's not like the coroner speculates that the witness might be more forthcoming with a certificate and therefore offers one on her own initiative. Anyone who knows about this jump in, because I'm not in any way an expert.

CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 61 Privilege in respect of self-incrimination

Thank you. That's a good explanation.