Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #34

[SouthAussie]

The recent case of the 11 year old girl, snatched from a park on her way to school at Adamstown Heights, sexually assaulted and held captive for five hours, comes immediately to mind.

Thankfully, she survived and the perp was arrested after assistance from the public:

Man arrested following alleged sexual assault of 11-year-old girl in Newcastle

Bung Siriboon (13 yrs old) - on her way to school
Helen Karipidis (10 yrs old) - from a playground where she was playing with her friends, with her father present at the playground
Craig Taylor (10 yrs old) - went into his grandma's beach shack to get ready
Joanne Ratcliffe (11 yrs old), Kirste Gordon (4 yrs old) - went to the public toilets together

All opportunistically taken by someone, all never seen again.

The heartbreaking stories of Australia's missing children

 

[Bohemian]

Bung Siriboon (13 yrs old) - on her way to school
Helen Karipidis (10 yrs old) - from a playground where she was playing with her friends, with her father present at the playground
Craig Taylor (10 yrs old) - went into his grandma's beach shack to get ready
Joanne Ratcliffe (11 yrs old), Kirste Gordon (4 yrs old) - went to the public toilets together

All opportunistically taken by someone, all never seen again.

Cheryl Grimmer (3 years old) taken from Fairy Meadow Beach.
Bradford Phioli (10 years old) from Dundas, heading to Eastwood Railway Station to go to his aunt’s home in Newtown.

 

[deugirtni]

My guess is LE know who they want to prove was there, because they have already said they have never been there.

Thank you for your reply BigT. What do you mean when you say 'they have already said they have never been there'? Who is 'they', where is 'there'? And when did they say it? Thank you, just trying to keep up!

edited to correct typo ('where' changed to 'there')

 

[deugirtni]

And, if there is an arrest for an indictable offence such as murder, there won’t be an inquest until proceedings are finally determined, including the determination of any appeals:

CORONERS ACT 2009 (Sect 6.5, paras 78 & 79).

I had always thought that the purpose of an inquest was to look into/investigate either what happened in a case, or how to prevent something from happening in the future.. however, if there is an arrest for an indictable offence such as murder, there would be a murder trial.. so why would there also be a coroner's inquest?

 

[they'll get you]

From my memory, Allison B C case had forensic evidence gathered of “vegetation” foreign to the location where her body was found, but in abundance at her home.

If you consider a “forensic” search of bush land it could be that anything, even any plant growing, any soil, any deposits of oil or other substance in that area, foreign to that area, may be evidence.

So if someone has been in that bush in the last few years, it will be proven they were there. Even if it’s just a few grains of sand from their shoes or a certain part of the beach.

My guess is LE know who they want to prove was there, because they have already said they have never been there.

Real life CSI type stuff here, someone has to be be getting very nervous. Check the resources being put in, they are not having a guess here, evidence collection is to prove something...

Didn’t Bill say ‘I think I’ve been there’ (or similar)
Any plant or soil matter on his shoes only reinforces he was there...once.

 

[deugirtni]

i mean the fenceline between no 50 and 48, the brown house which was empty that day, at the end of the street and close to cemetary tracks,
from google street view you can see it has a perfect view of that little side porch where they were all sitting, i had always imagined he was taken from the other side by wilsons
maybe the two cars werent there or werent involved?

I thought the cars were across from FG's house, across the road, in front of the house with the fence.. which has already been identified (by us sleuthers).. but isn't the W's house also visible from that house? I also don't think FG's side porch where they were 'all sitting' is visible from that house?

 

[SouthAussie]

But no matter *what* they end up, in the end, finding out about what happened to poor WT, surely it is better to know, than to forever wonder, right? I cannot imagine an esteemed detective such as GJ NOT wanting to know what happened, in fact, isn't that what detectives DO, is find out what exactly happened?

I do believe him when he says he hopes it does NOT get to a coronial investigation, because I believe that LE don't like it when their cases get investigated like that, because it puts everything they've done under scrutiny, and who would like that. There apparently won't be a coroner's inquest as long as there is an investigation ongoing, we've been told that. And GJ says there is lots more investigating to be done. He doesn't want an inquest. But why he wouldn't want to know what happened to this missing toddler, I just cannot imagine. Just my opinion, but I'd be interested to hear why others would believe that GJ doesn't want to know what happened to him, because to me, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

Where do you get that from? That Jubes does not want to know what happened to William? Of course, he wants to know. In fact, I think he does know and is well on his way to proving it.

Jubes has never stood in the way of an inquest. Firstly, he cannot do that. All missing persons cases must be referred to the coroner within 12 months. The coroner then monitors the police progress and the coroner decides when and if an inquest will be called.

Jubes has encouraged inquests in other cases, where the police could go no further and needed people to be compelled to speak.

As we have learned in other cases, if the police investigation is not complete, the coroner will just send the police out again to complete the investigation ... before an inquest will be held.
(We learned this in the Gary Tweddle case.)


An exchange of correspondence, seen by The Australian, confirms that “an inquest will proceed in William’s case” after it was referred to Coroner Michael Barnes for consideration in January 2015.
“All coronial matters, not just this matter, take a significant amount of time and resources to proceed to inquest. Some matters can take a few years,” said one of the letters, written by Coroner’s Court registrar Ann Lambino.
Nocookies
The Australian January 16, 2017

 

[deugirtni]

Gary Jubelin has felt that this is a crime of opportunity. It is some of the experts that can't seem to come to grips with the fact that this type of crime can happen in such a small window of time.

Gary Jubelin's experience may tell him otherwise. I think if we researched we would find other similar crimes that have happened because the opportunity was there, and someone quickly grabbed that opportunity.

He said: “I would have to say it’s opportunistic and it was a very narrow window of opportunity. We’re only talking about a minute or two when William was not supervised ... Someone has come across William and seen an opportunity and seized on the opportunity.”
‘If you’re in there, you’d better come forward’

But GJ cannot have it both ways? If he believes it was a crime of opportunity, then how can it also be a planned attack by a man who supposedly GJ believes is a historical pedophile? Or are we saying now that even though this POI that is accused on a daily basis around here, visited FG's house, and then *also* just happened to show up for opportunity? That makes it even farther fetched, imho.

 

[SouthAussie]

But GJ cannot have it both ways? If he believes it was a crime of opportunity, then how can it also be a planned attack by a man who supposedly GJ believes is a historical pedophile? Or are we saying now that even though this POI that is accused on a daily basis around here, visited FG's house, and then *also* just happened to show up for opportunity? That makes it even farther fetched, imho.

I believe the perpetrator showed up at the house for business, and took the opportunity to take a little boy who was all on his own near the roadside. Then the perpetrator denied that he went to the house that morning. imo

I also think that the perpetrator may not have known who William is. Just a little boy by the roadside, because grandma's family were not supposed to be there yet, and their car was not in the driveway.

 

[ak19861981]

Something I found interesting:
Today as I walked through a shopping centre in inner Sydney I noticed a sign re: William Tyrrell.
I don’t know if it was my mind making the coincidence seem more than it was, as in I hadn’t noticed these signs before, but it felt to me as if the pressure is really on this perpetrator.
Is it just me or have these sort of ad signs not been around recently?

 

[SouthAussie]

Didn’t Bill say ‘I think I’ve been there’ (or similar)
Any plant or soil matter on his shoes only reinforces he was there...once.

I think it is possible that there is plant life in the forest that is not found in people's gardens.

 

[deugirtni]

’I'm personally hoping it doesn't get to a coronial investigation because that would be indicative of us finding out what's happened to William.'

The sentence makes sense to me. Yes, it could use the word 'not'. But it still makes sense how it is.

If this goes to a coronial investigation, it means that it is indicative of what they found out about what happened to William. They didn't find out what happened.

But no matter *what* they end up, in the end, finding out about what happened to poor WT, surely it is better to know, than to forever wonder, right? I cannot imagine an esteemed detective such as GJ NOT wanting to know what happened, in fact, isn't that what detectives DO, is find out what exactly happened?

Where do you get that from? That Jubes does not want to know what happened to William? Of course, he wants to know. In fact, I think he does know and is well on his way to proving it...

I am 'getting that' from what GJ said: '’I'm personally hoping it doesn't get to a coronial investigation because that would be indicative of us finding out what's happened to William.'

He is hoping it doesn't go to 'coronial investigation' *because* that would indicate they had found out what happened to WT. To me, that is saying therefore, that he doesn't want to find out what happened to WT, since he doesn't want it to go to coronial investigation. What am I missing? I can be pretty dense at times!

 

[they'll get you]

Gary Jubelin has felt that this is a crime of opportunity. It is some of the experts that can't seem to come to grips with the fact that this type of crime can happen in such a small window of time.

Gary Jubelin's experience may tell him otherwise. I think if we researched we would find other similar crimes that have happened because the opportunity was there, and someone quickly grabbed that opportunity.

He said: “I would have to say it’s opportunistic and it was a very narrow window of opportunity. We’re only talking about a minute or two when William was not supervised ... Someone has come across William and seen an opportunity and seized on the opportunity.”
‘If you’re in there, you’d better come forward’

Brett Cowan actually described himself as an ‘oportunist’ like a badge and of honour on a resume and he said he ‘just had to have him’.

No pre-planning. I want. I’ll take. Now. Nobody is watching.
Ready, set, gone.
Cowan did a lot of fancy talking to Daniel because Daniel was older and wiser but that filthy pedophile still got Daniel into his vehicle.
Cowan didn’t need to sweet-talk the two smaller children. He just picked them up and took them somewhere close. One into a toilet block and another into the bush and left to die, bashed so severely that when that little boy stumbled out people thought he’d been hit by a semi.

In essence, that’s a freakin’ pedophile.

Never to be trusted. Never to be around children because if the opportunity arises, they’ll act with no regard.

 

[deugirtni]

...Jubes has never stood in the way of an inquest. Firstly, he cannot do that. All missing persons cases must be referred to the coroner within 12 months. The coroner then monitors the police progress and the coroner decides when and if an inquest will be called.

Jubes has encouraged inquests in other cases, where the police could go no further and needed people to be compelled to speak.

As we have learned in other cases, if the police investigation is not complete, the coroner will just send the police out again to complete the investigation ... before an inquest will be held.
(We learned this in the Gary Tweddle case.)
..

Nowhere did I say even suggest that GJ is 'standing in the way of an inquest'. It is obvious from GJ's own words that he wishes this not to proceed to inquest. I am thinking about the case of Daniel Marcombe, when police did not want an inquest, and it was only at the family's ongoing pursuit that it finally happened, and the killer was found (which discussion we've had preivously on this thread).

Which inquests, out of curiosity, has GJ encouraged?

I can imagine in the event there is a coronial inquest and the coroner believes the police invesitgation to not be complete and therefore send the police out again to complete it, that it would it would not be such a great feeling to be the one in charge of not having done a complete police investigation. I can also imagine that it would be a terrible feeling to find that something was bungled or not done properly, or not done at all, in a case, and it comes to light at a coroner's investigation. I 'get it' why police may not be hot on a coronial inquest. jmo.

 

[BigT]

Didn’t Bill say ‘I think I’ve been there’ (or similar)
Any plant or soil matter on his shoes only reinforces he was there...once.

So which POI has said to LE “I have never been anywhere near there, never ever” in interview circumstance, and now will be proven to have been there?

Time to run.......nowhere to hide..........

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

 

[they'll get you]

The recent case of the 11 year old girl, snatched from a park on her way to school at Adamstown Heights, who was sexually assaulted and held captive for five hours, comes immediately to mind.

Thankfully, she survived and the perp was arrested after assistance from the public:

Man arrested following alleged sexual assault of 11-year-old girl in Newcastle

What an amazing youngster she is and incredible description she gave to police.

She’s a hero. She survived!!

 

[ak19861981]

Brett Cowan actually described himself as an ‘oportunist’ like a badge and of honour on a resume and he said he ‘just had to have him’.

No pre-planning. I want. I’ll take. Now. Nobody is watching.
Ready, set, gone.
Cowen did a lot of fancy talking to Daniel because Daniel was older and wiser but that filthy pedophile still got Daniel into his vehicle.
Cowan didn’t need to sweet-talk the two smaller children. He just picked them up and took them somewhere close. One into a toilet block and another into the bush and left to die, bashed so severely that when that little boy stumbled out people thought he’d been hit by a semi.

In essence, that’s a freakin’ pedophile.

Never to be trusted. Never to be around children because if the opportunity arises, they’ll act with no regard.

The thought of these people existing tears me up inside.

I have a question re: the terms used by LE in this case.

The POI term. There’s not one suspect in this case. But we have been told that other are cleared as suspects. Surely they run a risk in using the POI term ie trial by media?

And I wonder if POI really has greater weight than just “someone police want to talk to” after all these years?

 

[deugirtni]

I believe the perpetrator showed up at the house for business, and took the opportunity to take a little boy who was all on his own near the roadside. Then the perpetrator denied that he went to the house that morning. imo

So it is believed that this POI who went to FG's home a few days beforehand, and who may have been told about an impending arrival of young children hence the washer needing quick repair, just happened to show up on that very day they were to arrive, and just happened to be the exact time when the adults were not monitoring, and just snatched the boy without any preplanning... and that after such a sudden, unplanned decision was made, he was still able to do all of that without getting caught and with no DNA of WT found in his vehicle? Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.

 

[Bohemian]

I had always thought that the purpose of an inquest was to look into/investigate either what happened in a case, or how to prevent something from happening in the future.. however, if there is an arrest for an indictable offence such as murder, there would be a murder trial.. so why would there also be a coroner's inquest?

AFAIK, if there was an arrest and conviction, including the exhaustion of appeals, irt William’s case his would be a reportable death:

CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 6 Meaning of "reportable death"

As it stands now, although William’s case has been passed to the Coroner as required after 12 months, there is no conclusive evidence that William is, in fact, deceased. Of course, the Coroner could hold an inquiry now but, as DCI Jubelin says, he believes that would be premature as the police investigation has not been concluded.

 

[Bohemian]

I think it is possible that there is plant life in the forest that is not found in people's gardens.

Bingo!