Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #30

[SouthAussie]

That’s definitely the (old) Downing Centre and not John Maddison Tower. I can see them walking into The Museum Station which is under the Downing Centre Court.
The Downing centre has the steps out front and John Maddison. Has none.

Margarets smart attitude left me gobsmacked as she walked down into the station.

His first day of court was not in the John Maddison Tower, and that is when the video was taken.
The 2nd and 3rd day were in the JMT.

Yes, I agree. Margaret's attitude seems pretty inappropriate considering the court matter at hand.

 

[they'll get you]

Why is the media so quiet on all of this trial, totally understand the sake of the women involved kept under wraps but why is he afforded this

I don’t understand this either Hbayne. Ol’ Mags was acting like she was a cocky untouchable laughing down into Museum Station.
Huge gggrrrrrrrr from me! She just might be thinking ‘that went well’.
It makes me wonder if it’s a closed court hearing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[they'll get you]

TGY ... you're back! Did you bring us presents??

Dammit my sweet friend. It’s been a lifetime away!

Got two straws? Huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[they'll get you]

Supression orders apparently but it was a crime against children so I think it's probable the court is closed

I’m also thinking it’s a closed court. Maybe that’s why Ol’ Mags was feeling untouchable and laughing at the media.

C’mon Karma, do your thang!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Seek]

Dammit my sweet friend. It’s been a lifetime away!

Got two straws? Huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Great to see you TGY

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Dammit my sweet friend. It’s been a lifetime away!

Got two straws? Huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fill up 3 pages, my friend. We've missed you! :blowkiss:

 

[they'll get you]

Great to see you TGY

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Rightbackatcha my friend.

I acquired an itch only my WS friends can scratch.

I think I just experienced solitary confinement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[they'll get you]

Fill up 3 pages, my friend. We've missed you! :blowkiss:

I like the court talk SA. I always need to learn more.

Would MS be allowed into the closed court, considering she wasn’t around during this particular crime.
Wifey or guide dog privileges maybe. Woof woof.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sosocurious]

I like the court talk SA. I always need to learn more.

Would MS be allowed into the closed court, considering she wasn’t around during this particular crime. Wifey privileges maybe.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes I like the court talk, as well. Much to learn.
She doesn't deserve any privileges ... imo.
Though maybe if she has to hear some of the evidence it might prompt her to ask some questions of both herself and her husband.

 

[they'll get you]

No ill will against the Wilsons but why does this grate on my mind.


Judy Wilson, whose fence sits just 10m from where William was taken, heard him and his sister playing earlier that morning before she headed into town to run some errands.

When she returned, the street was in chaos.

“I wasn’t home and my husband wasn’t home. The only thing I was able to tell police was that I heard the children playing but didn’t see them … I just heard kids laughing and you could tell they were little children,” Mrs Wilson said.

“I don’t think it was an opportunistic grab from someone who just happened to be here *because we don’t get strangers wandering around.”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...r/news-story/03fb14d003bfb73d3c193b5f6731f74c




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[they'll get you]

Yes I like the court talk, as well. Much to learn.
She doesn't deserve any privileges ... imo.
Though maybe if she has to hear some of the evidence it might prompt her to ask some questions of both herself and her husband.

Oh soso, yes in hindsight it’s a good thing it’s closed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bohemian]

Hold that third straw will ya, guys? I have great room service here. Have also met some other mighty interesting guests. Off for a while now. You know how it is. Places to see, people to annoy. See you soon.

 

[Wexford]

I like the court talk SA. I always need to learn more.

Would MS be allowed into the closed court, considering she wasn’t around during this particular crime.
Wifey or guide dog privileges maybe. Woof woof.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well we don't know that she wasn't do we? We only know they weren't married. Could be they have known each other a long time. Perhaps she has evidence of her own? More psychic tapes perhaps?

 

[SouthAussie]

I like the court talk SA. I always need to learn more.

Would MS be allowed into the closed court, considering she wasn’t around during this particular crime.
Wifey or guide dog privileges maybe. Woof woof.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"You are allowed to bring a support person to court if you want to. This can be a family member, friend, professional counsellor or person from an assistance program. A support person cannot speak on your behalf but they can be in the courtroom with you on the day."

http://www.courts.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/cats/courtguide/during_court/witnesses_evidence.aspx

 

[purpleandgreen]

Take care, Bo

Hold that third straw will ya, guys? I have great room service here. Have also met some other mighty interesting guests. Off for a while now. You know how it is. Places to see, people to annoy. See you soon.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well we don't know that she wasn't do we? We only know they weren't married. Could be they have known each other a long time. Perhaps she has evidence of her own? More psychic tapes perhaps?

I wonder how the matter of Margaret trying to influence one of the victims will be dealt with? Will that be something that will make her a witness to be called to the stand? I feel pretty sure that her interference in the matter will be brought up, as will his interference. Did Margaret just happen to have the victim's mobile number? Did she seek it out?

If she is deemed a witness, she won't be allowed into the courtroom until it is her turn to be heard.


"There is a strict rule of all courts that witnesses should wait outside the court until they are called to give their evidence. It is important that witnesses do not hear the evidence given by other witnesses so that they are able to give their own account of the events without being influenced by the evidence of other witnesses."

https://www.actlawsociety.asn.au/public-information/attending-court-as-a-witness

 

[bearbear]

No ill will against the Wilsons but why does this grate on my mind.


Judy Wilson, whose fence sits just 10m from where William was taken, heard him and his sister playing earlier that morning before she headed into town to run some errands.

When she returned, the street was in chaos.

“I wasn’t home and my husband wasn’t home. The only thing I was able to tell police was that I heard the children playing but didn’t see them … I just heard kids laughing and you could tell they were little children,” Mrs Wilson said.

“I don’t think it was an opportunistic grab from someone who just happened to be here *because we don’t get strangers wandering around.”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...r/news-story/03fb14d003bfb73d3c193b5f6731f74c




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

always wondered that and its always seemed the simplest most likely scenario, their place was searched top to bottom numerous times and foster father kept wandering their yard asking if theyd seen him, they have also since moved, i remember they had a white 4wd vehicle in their carport when i did street view ages ago, mr wilson was the neighbour who remembered the exact time his wife left to go shopping

 

[JLZ]

I wonder how the matter of Margaret trying to influence one of the victims will be dealt with? Will that be something that will make her a witness to be called to the stand? I feel pretty sure that her interference in the matter will be brought up, as will his interference. Did Margaret just happen to have the victim's mobile number? Did she seek it out?

(snipped)

I think I read that Spedding had in recent years been on civil terms with one of the victims, visited her and her child. Perhaps he and Margaret had the numbers as a normal family circumstance, even if they didn't use them very often. I think Spedding believed that the bad old stuff was forgotten or the victims had allowed themselves to be persuaded that it didn't happen/it wasn't him/it wasn't anything serious. So he tried to get it in writing while the going was good. But Margaret's contact evidently happened after the allegations had been raised again. If they were on speaking terms I think it would be hard to prove that she was trying to influence a witness; it has 'plausible deniability' as they say.

Previously I thought she may have just been offering sympathy but I've changed my mind and I do see the passive aggression.

 

[SouthAussie]

always wondered that and its always seemed the simplest most likely scenario, their place was searched top to bottom numerous times and foster father kept wandering their yard asking if theyd seen him, they have also since moved, i remember they had a white 4wd vehicle in their carport when i did street view ages ago, mr wilson was the neighbour who remembered the exact time his wife left to go shopping

Other simple scenarios were the person mowing his lawn at the time, and the person who immediately went out with his dog to search.

 

[SouthAussie]

(snipped)

I think I read that Spedding had in recent years been on civil terms with one of the victims, visited her and her child. Perhaps he and Margaret had the numbers as a normal family circumstance, even if they didn't use them very often. I think Spedding believed that the bad old stuff was forgotten or the victims had allowed themselves to be persuaded that it didn't happen/it wasn't him/it wasn't anything serious. So he tried to get it in writing while the going was good. But Margaret's contact evidently happened after the allegations had been raised again. If they were on speaking terms I think it would be hard to prove that she was trying to influence a witness; it has 'plausible deniability' as they say.

Previously I thought she may have just been offering sympathy but I've changed my mind and I do see the passive aggression.

I don't believe I ever read that before, about Spedding being on civil terms with one of the victims?

Perhaps it can be considered plausible deniability, in Margaret's situation. Perhaps not enough for charges to be laid against her, for intimidation of a victim/witness.

I still think that the points will be raised in the trial, however. They have made it into MSM, so they are considered serious enough to be considered. And the police evidently wanted people to know that. (And wanted Margaret to know that everyone now knew about it. More pressure.)



"In NSW, Threatening or Intimidating Victims or Witnesses carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. Intimidation and threats to witnesses are seen most often in offences involving violence, particularly in domestic violence offences."
https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/false-statements/threatening-witnesses