Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #36

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes you could, but you wouldn't be able to see what was happening in the front yard.

Of course, people could've been stationed at different points around the house and phones would make communication easy - via text so no noise.
If it were the known "suspects", LE would have their phone pings already, I think.
How about some sort of walkie-talkie?
 
You could see the adults sitting on the covered verandah/deck and the children running around in the grassed areas quite clearly View attachment 139079

It looks like a nice stake-out spot, except for the fact it's directly outside of Number 52. Maybe not a spot to wait if you are concerned about not being seen.

But if someone by chance was turning around at the end of the road, that would be their view... and they might just see WT hiding from his family behind a tree, which means in front of the tree from the road side.... but this photo suggests there is a brick garden wall, so not too sure if WT would climb up there.
 
Yes you could, but you wouldn't be able to see what was happening in the front yard.

Of course, people could've been stationed at different points around the house and phones would make communication easy - via text so no noise.

If the perpetrators entered benaroon via the fire trail they would not be seen. Laying in wait until the top houses were empty. Watching the ff fgm and children watching ff leave. Watching Fm fgm and L go inside and leaving William by himself. The only exit doors from the house are laundry and living room which open up to verandah the family were sitting on. And the front door. All movement from these doors can be seen from top part of benaroon.

Perpetrators may have then left via fire trail.
 
It looks like a nice stake-out spot, except for the fact it's directly outside of Number 52. Maybe not a spot to wait if you are concerned about not being seen.

But if someone by chance was turning around at the end of the road, that would be their view... and they might just see WT hiding from his family behind a tree, which means in front of the tree from the road side.... but this photo suggests there is a brick garden wall, so not too sure if WT would climb up there.
no 52 may have been vacant
 
I thinks it’s all about the cars, the occupants of the sus ones driving in and around benaroon have never come forward stating reasons for being there. I’m talking about ALL cars. The one that was seen doing the U turn, the two parked out front, the speeding 4wd, the car part that may or may not of fallen off or be missing . I think the cars are key in this investigation
 
If anyone has followed the Lynette Dawson case the coroner recommended murder charges be laid. The DPP disagreed and no charges have been laid to date. Could Williams Coroners inquest possibly have the same outcome. The coroner recommends but DPP disagree = No Result.

During a 2003 inquest deputy coroner Carl Milovanovich recommended murder charges be laid against a "known person".

Mr Milovanovich said it was unlikely Lyn had run away. He heard evidence how Mr Dawson threatened to kill her several times when their marriage began to collapse.

"If Lynette Joy Dawson was still alive she would have contacted somebody," he said.

The DPP, much to the disappointment of Lyn's family, does not agree.

"Some of the evidence that was received from the two coronial inquiries into the disappearance of Lynette Dawson would be objectionable and probably inadmissible in a trial where the rules of evidence apply," it said.

"The case, therefore, presently has no reasonable prospect of conviction."

Lynette Joy DAWSON

That last line would be devastating for family to hear... Bolded and Snipped by me

"The case, therefore, presently has no reasonable prospect of conviction
 
If anyone has followed the Lynette Dawson case the coroner recommended murder charges be laid. The DPP disagreed and no charges have been laid to date. Could Williams Coroners inquest possibly have the same outcome. The coroner recommends but DPP disagree = No Result.

During a 2003 inquest deputy coroner Carl Milovanovich recommended murder charges be laid against a "known person".

Mr Milovanovich said it was unlikely Lyn had run away. He heard evidence how Mr Dawson threatened to kill her several times when their marriage began to collapse.

"If Lynette Joy Dawson was still alive she would have contacted somebody," he said.

The DPP, much to the disappointment of Lyn's family, does not agree.

"Some of the evidence that was received from the two coronial inquiries into the disappearance of Lynette Dawson would be objectionable and probably inadmissible in a trial where the rules of evidence apply," it said.

"The case, therefore, presently has no reasonable prospect of conviction."

Lynette Joy DAWSON

That last line would be devastating for family to hear... Bolded and Snipped by me

"The case, therefore, presently has no reasonable prospect of conviction

This is what I worry about when people who have little or no insight into the entirety of the evidence collected, the progress of the investigation and/or do not fully understand the coronial and prosecutorial processes, push for an inquest (based on a conspiracy theory involving NSWPOL and FaCS) before investigators have exhausted all of their lines of inquiry.
 
Last edited:
This is what I worry about when people who have little or no insight into the entirety of the evidence collected, the progress of the investigation and/or do not fully understand the coronial and prosecutorial processes, push for an inquest (based on a conspiracy theory involving NSWPOL and FaCS) before investigators have exhausted all of their lines of inquiry.

My concern exactly Bo. Can someone please clarify for me then, no matter what the coronial inquest reveals, is it then still up to the DPP to go back and find evidence to convict? Is that how it works?
 
My concern exactly Bo. Can someone please clarify for me then, no matter what the coronial inquest reveals, is it then still up to the DPP to go back and find evidence to convict? Is that how it works?

Prosecution is always up to DPP. Police present their brief to DPP sometimes it is rejected if too circumstantial. There is normally only one chance therefore evidence must be the strongest possible to the person/s charged.
 
The property where Derek Nichols lived at the time of William's disappearance backed onto the Kendall Community Pre-school which is located at 19 Railway Street Kendall. This guy is a registered sex offender and has been registered since 1984 and he was permitted to live adjacent to a pre-school! All on A Current Affair video at around 14 minutes. mindblowing!!!
 
The property where Derek Nichols lived at the time of William's disappearance backed onto the Kendall Community Pre-school which is located at 19 Railway Street Kendall. This guy is a registered sex offender and has been registered since 1984 and he was permitted to live adjacent to a pre-school! All on A Current Affair video at around 14 minutes. mindblowing!!!

Actually Derek Nichols ‘[...] said he was living in Dunbogan when William went missing [...]’.

He ‘[...] was living in Kendall and the police came to see [him] because [he] was on the child protection register,” [...]’

“The most significant one was in May when they came and inspected [his] house.”’

Source:

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
Fourth man is quizzed in hunt for William Tyrrell
Taylor Auerbach
The Daily Telegraph
January 2, 2016 12:00am

So he must have moved to Kendall from Dunbogan some time between 12 September 2014 and when police inspected his house in May 2015, as the above was published in January 2016.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
4,156
Total visitors
4,330

Forum statistics

Threads
592,366
Messages
17,968,128
Members
228,760
Latest member
buggy8993
Back
Top