Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) 12 Sept 2014 #79

[SouthAussie]

JMO - William's sister can still be seen.

I think Katie said to take sister's face out of the picture.

 

[Couldbe]

I think Katie said to take sister's face out of the picture.

JMO - They could easily have just applied the black blocks like they have done in the other photos.

Edited for typo

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Are you saying the police currently believe it was the Foster Carers that are guilty ?

That’s what’s been reported by Dan Box in June. I am not aware of any other suspects. Are you.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

I think so. They look like copies.

They are copies , you are correct. Not sure how you know they are photocopies. Please provide evidence or is that opinion.

 

[katydid23]

That’s what’s been reported by Dan Box in June. I am not aware of any other suspects. Are you.

I believe that ship has sailed. The Big Dig did not turn up any evidence to back that accusation, AFAIK.

Dan is a journalist and a podcaster. He is not a Homicide Detective. So even if he 'reports' what he thinks happened, it is just his opinion, not that of a Law Enforcement Official who can make a decision.

 

[katydid23]

They are copies , you are correct. Not sure how you know they are photocopies. Please provide evidence or is that opinion.

Did you notice that the OP said " I think " they are copies and "they 'look' like copies?'

So what evidence would need to be provided? And why ask if it is just his opinion when he started the sentence with " I think' they look like copies?

I'm confused by your request, sorry...

 

[australianwebsleuth]

I believe that ship has sailed. The Big Dig did not turn up any evidence to back that accusation, AFAIK.

Dan is a journalist and a podcaster. He is not a Homicide Detective. So even if he 'reports' what he thinks happened, it is just his opinion, not that of a Law Enforcement Official who can make a decision.

Did you read the article?

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Did you notice that the OP said " I think " they are copies and "they 'look' like copies?'

So what evidence would need to be provided? And why ask if it is just his opinion when he started the sentence with " I think' they look like copies?

I'm confused by your request, sorry...

Without evidence I don’t really believe him. The photo I posted has the coroners court logo. It doesn’t look like a photocopy. It looks quite clear compared to the photo. It looks like a photo that had been downloaded.
Question everything.

 

[drsleuth]

View attachment 638814

I think posting this image is really important. It shows you what the photos that were released by the Coroner actually look like.

Notice the poor quality. You would think a brand new camera purchased in Bali would take much better images.

Other images you have seen have been mostly been photoshopped by the media before they are published. This photo is one of the few pieces of evidence in this case.

Does anyone here have a good explanation for their poor quality.

Do you have a link for this image??

 

[Couldbe]

Comparing the grainy photos to this other photo that the Police have released of William it is a very clear photo.

JMO - (Most likely it is one of new copy photographs that have come from a camera(s) owned by his Foster Parents). Not 100% sure that it is from their camera though):

William Tyrrell. New copy photographs of missing NSW North Coast boy William Tyrrell supplied by the Police

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/exdetective-slams-william-tyrrell-inquest-for-delivering-zero-after-years-of-delays/news-story/0f0747be788016374bef6ea2e92ae1a9

 

[katydid23]

This is what Dan Box reports in June last year. You can see who the police suspect is and who it is not.
The police clearly see the Chief suspect as the FFC. They do not consider Frank Abbot as a suspect.

Frank Abbot sits in a prison cell and blows hi mouth off to gain notoriety. Even Dan Box states ' We are not saying it is true"

Yet you quote someone who left the force three years earlier. I think you need to update.

https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...s/news-story/4bda571a3ad08aa194bbf2d2a6d3607f

That's not what I got from the article. Sounds to me like Frank Abbot should still be considered a prime suspect.


In terms of Laidlaw's claim that he thinks it was the Foster Carer, here is what others think of that claiM:


"DCI Laidlaw’s final witness statement to the inquest was heavily redacted with the senior lawyer saying it reflected “one person’s opinions” and that police had found no forensic or eyewitness evidence of what happened to William."

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Do you have a link for this image??

Yes, it’s the one you downloaded. I simply copied your photo.

 

[SouthAussie]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I don't think that anyone has said that Frank Abbott is not one of the 'less than 10' primary POIs.

There are at least several scenarios that could have happened in this case. But there is no forensic or witness evidence (as stated by Mr Craddock).

imo

But he told the court: "A police officer's belief may be right or wrong … the coroner can't act on the express belief of a police investigator."
Mr Craddock also said there was still "no forensic evidence" and "no eyewitnesses" to what happened to William on September 12, 2014.
As Mr Craddock said in court this week: "Guesses are not rational, suspicions form no rational basis for making findings of fact".

Police backed up their theory against William Tyrrell's foster mother. Little incriminating evidence was heard

Almost three years since NSW Police first went public with their theory that William Tyrrell's foster mother may have covered up his death, the evidence why is now being examined. But what was that evidence?

www.abc.net.au

 

[Couldbe]

We should not become privy to this, and I am guessing none of us have become privy to that evidence : All Underlined/BBM

Police backed up their theory against William Tyrrell's foster mother. Little incriminating evidence was heard

“Before this week, many simply trusted that if police believed she was responsible, they must have good reason to suspect her.
This was their opportunity to present those reasons to the coroner, to outline any incriminating evidence they had gathered.

But very little evidence that could be considered incriminating has been presented, at least not in open court.

There was one piece of evidence heard in a closed court, which we cannot legally report, but there is no suggestion it was incriminating.

William's foster mother is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Not only has she never been found guilty of this crime, she's never even been charged.
Furthermore, from what has been put before the coroner, it now appears police may have publicly set their sights on her without any fresh and compelling evidence to suggest she might be guilty, despite her previously being cleared by the former lead investigator.”

 

[LolaAngelina]

We should not become privy to this, and I am guessing none of us have become privy to that evidence : All Underlined/BBM

Police backed up their theory against William Tyrrell's foster mother. Little incriminating evidence was heard

“Before this week, many simply trusted that if police believed she was responsible, they must have good reason to suspect her.
This was their opportunity to present those reasons to the coroner, to outline any incriminating evidence they had gathered.

But very little evidence that could be considered incriminating has been presented, at least not in open court.

There was one piece of evidence heard in a closed court, which we cannot legally report, but there is no suggestion it was incriminating.

William's foster mother is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Not only has she never been found guilty of this crime, she's never even been charged.
Furthermore, from what has been put before the coroner, it now appears police may have publicly set their sights on her without any fresh and compelling evidence to suggest she might be guilty, despite her previously being cleared by the former lead investigator.”

You forgot to bold - “but there is no suggestion it was incriminating”. Not sure the point of your post? We can’t discuss that evidence if it’s not disclosed to us? Have you seen this evidence?