Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #38

[kiwi50]

If someone loves their husband that much that they will alibi them in the case of a child abduction then a reward isn't going to sway them. IMO

We probably all know needy women who just have to have a man, any man will do.
I doubt she will tell the truth now, she has had four years to live with her decision.

 

[SouthAussie]

If someone loves their husband that much that they will alibi them in the case of a child abduction then a reward isn't going to sway them. IMO

That is a truly sick kind of 'love'.

Shouldn't need a reward to be offered, anyway, to tell the truth about harm to a child.

That is not even needy, it is sick.

 

[Violet77]

Part of the reason I believe William did not survive for very long after he was abducted is if someone does know something, she has not come forward throughout the years because in her mind it can’t get any worse than it already is, he “can’t be helped or saved” because he is already dead

 

[purpleandgreen]

If someone loves their husband that much that they will alibi them in the case of a child abduction then a reward isn't going to sway them. IMO

Hypothetical - if this was the case and someone knowingly withheld information, can they be charged with being an accessory after the fact? TIA.

 

[iailwa]

Part of the reason I believe William did not survive for very long after he was abducted is if someone does know something, she has not come forward throughout the years because in her mind it can’t get any worse than it already is, he “can’t be helped or saved” because he is already dead

So true. She may want to be in denial too...(if it is him) MOO

 

[Bohemian]

Hypothetical - if this was the case and someone knowingly withheld information, can they be charged with being an accessory after the fact? TIA.

In a word, yes p&g. It’s called ‘Concealing a Serious Indictable Offence’ (under s316 of the NSW
Crimes Act 1900):

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 316 Concealing serious indictable offence

Looking through the Act, there are probably a number of charges that can be laid against any accessories, depending on the crime committed and their level of knowledge and participation.

 

[SouthAussie]

Part of the reason I believe William did not survive for very long after he was abducted is if someone does know something, she has not come forward throughout the years because in her mind it can’t get any worse than it already is, he “can’t be helped or saved” because he is already dead

Yes, I expect that you are right. Though, of course, it doesn't make it acceptable.

These archaic views held by some (not aimed at anyone here) can be part of ingrained social behaviour. It wasn't right then, and it is not right now.

My dear daughter sent me this ad clip today, because she wants a changing world, too. For us all.

Not trying to start a social behaviour convo ... but women need to stand up for the right thing, too, when it is called for. imo

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=942236055972585

 

[seekingjustice**]

Yes, I expect that you are right. Though, of course, it doesn't make it acceptable.

These archaic views held by some (not aimed at anyone here) can be part of ingrained social behaviour. It wasn't right then, and it is not right now.

My dear daughter sent me this ad clip today, because she wants a changing world, too. For us all.

Not trying to start a social behaviour convo ... but women need to stand up for the right thing, too, when it is called for. imo

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=942236055972585

What a great clip, it's so good to see the awareness Gillette are spreading with this advertisement. Thanks for sharing.

If the Coroner makes a determination of guilt towards a person, does he recommend that charges be laid against any accessories, if there are any accessories?

 

[SouthAussie]

What a great clip, it's so good to see the awareness Gillette are spreading with this advertisement. Thanks for sharing.

If the Coroner makes a determination of guilt towards a person, does he recommend that charges be laid against any accessories, if there are any accessories?

From what I was reading yesterday, about accessory after the fact, the police would charge that person(s) and they can be tried as an accessory before, together with, or after any trial that the perpetrator might have to face ... even if the perpetrator is not 'amenable to justice' (meaning even if the perpetrator does not go to trial, I believe).

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 347 Accessories after the fact--how tried and punished

 

[Violet77]

Yes, I expect that you are right. Though, of course, it doesn't make it acceptable.

These archaic views held by some (not aimed at anyone here) can be part of ingrained social behaviour. It wasn't right then, and it is not right now.

My dear daughter sent me this ad clip today, because she wants a changing world, too. For us all.

Not trying to start a social behaviour convo ... but women need to stand up for the right thing, too, when it is called for. imo

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=942236055972585

Oh absolutely it is not acceptable.

That is a great ad isn’t it.

 

[SouthAussie]

If the Coroner makes a determination of guilt towards a person, does he recommend that charges be laid against any accessories, if there are any accessories?

Just to add, on further looking ... I think, at the very least, a Coroner can identify/recommend (to the police) an accessory before or after the fact.

A secondary, but equally important function is created by s. 82 of the Act. This section enables the Coroner to make any recommendations that are necessary or desirable in relation to any matter connected with Mr Smajovic’s death.
In 2012 he was charged with the murder of Edin Smajovic and Nathan Reddy was charged with being an accessory after the fact to that crime.
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Findings Smajovic.pdf


There is a case here where the Coroner recommended prosecution ....

"I've read the findings of the coroner, the forensic reports, the autopsies, and they all seem to lead to the conclusion that there's overwhelming evidence for a prosecution of manslaughter."
Following a thorough police investigation, Mr Attwater was charged with manslaughter and Mr Maris was charged with manslaughter accessory after the fact.
"The coroner's recommendations to prosecute should be taken seriously and reviewed and that should lead to a decision by the NSW Attorney-General to have the case brought before the court."
Victim's family traumatised over lack of prosecution in brutal killing

 

[seekingjustice**]

Just to add, on further looking ... I think, at the very least, a Coroner can identify/recommend (to the police) an accessory before or after the fact.

A secondary, but equally important function is created by s. 82 of the Act. This section enables the Coroner to make any recommendations that are necessary or desirable in relation to any matter connected with Mr Smajovic’s death.
In 2012 he was charged with the murder of Edin Smajovic and Nathan Reddy was charged with being an accessory after the fact to that crime.
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Findings Smajovic.pdf


There is a case here where the Coroner recommended prosecution ....

"I've read the findings of the coroner, the forensic reports, the autopsies, and they all seem to lead to the conclusion that there's overwhelming evidence for a prosecution of manslaughter."
Following a thorough police investigation, Mr Attwater was charged with manslaughter and Mr Maris was charged with manslaughter accessory after the fact.
"The coroner's recommendations to prosecute should be taken seriously and reviewed and that should lead to a decision by the NSW Attorney-General to have the case brought before the court."
Victim's family traumatised over lack of prosecution in brutal killing

This is very interesting, thanks SA. From my research it appears that the crime of "accessory after the fact" carries a penalty of up to 25 yrs, unless I'm reading an old Crime Act.

I'm hoping there are some very nervous people awaiting the start of the Inquest.

 

[Warshawski]

Hypothetical - if this was the case and someone knowingly withheld information, can they be charged with being an accessory after the fact? TIA.

Absolutely they can, and I'm sure the gate is slowly closing on those people. Concealing a Crime is a serious Crime in itself.
IMO, Det Jubelin has very clearly explained that fact, he spoke specifically to those 'in the know' and said in effect of 'here's a Million Dollars to help you move on IF you speak up now. If you don't, be assured we will eventually come for you, and you won't have any leeway or protection at that point'... IMO.

I agree that Somewhere there is at least One person who's had a moment when they wondered of the possible involvement of someone they know in this awful situation. . and I believe that seed of doubt will have continued to grow, to the point that after all this time they will have no excuse for their silence.

Being suspicious of a friend, associate or loved one would surely be a most unwelcome, uncomfortable & not-nice position to be in, but then I see it as much better to present your concerns to the police (quietly & confudentially) and hopefully have them put to rest, rather then to live with your own implication & involvement in the crime, via your crime of concealment. ... IMO.

 

[Warshawski]

If someone loves their husband that much that they will alibi them in the case of a child abduction then a reward isn't going to sway them. IMO

I struggle to call that 'love' .. It's a sick & twisted person who would accept / condone such behaviour from another, no matter the relationship. IMO, they are just as guilty, and hurray for the punishment for concealment. The sentence should be the same as that of the perpretrator, I'd even go so far as to suggest more ! ... IMO ..

 

[Warshawski]

Part of the reason I believe William did not survive for very long after he was abducted is if someone does know something, she has not come forward throughout the years because in her mind it can’t get any worse than it already is, he “can’t be helped or saved” because he is already dead

Violet ... I admire you for giving these people the benefit of having a Care factor re William. ..

But sadly I'm going to burst that lovely bubble.

(And I'm not prefacing 'he' or 'she' in any of this.)
I'll just say that IMO the reason for 'silence' on the behalf of any & all those who may have knowledge, hints, concerns or a niggle, is purely for Their Own Self-serving & Misguided Preservation.

I do believe their time will come - and the longer their silence goes on, the harder they will fall.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

If someone loves their husband that much that they will alibi them in the case of a child abduction then a reward isn't going to sway them. IMO

The problem might be, there were more perps than one only and each of the wives with a consience, who have knowledge, is thinking "Why should of all people just I talk to police?". Might also be, the wife/wives having knowledge only of a part of details, maybe each wife another part of the whole story (the villain of course some acquaintance and NOT the husband). No wife will start to tell the story, if she believes, her husband maybe the most harmless in the group/club/clan/gang. All IMO and MOO
Besides that, I still think, the POIs had an assignment to fulfill. IMO MOO

 

[Violet77]

Violet ... I admire you for giving these people the benefit of having a Care factor re William. ..

But sadly I'm going to burst that lovely bubble.

(And I'm not prefacing 'he' or 'she' in any of this.)
I'll just say that IMO the reason for 'silence' on the behalf of any & all those who may have knowledge, hints, concerns or a niggle, is purely for Their Own Self-serving & Misguided Preservation.

I do believe their time will come - and the longer their silence goes on, the harder they will fall.

Oh don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe anyone who is able to keep their silence about a crime like this could have any form of care for William, IMO it would just make it easier for her to justify her actions to herself if she thought he was already dead, the only thing that would come out of her speaking, would be her husband going to prison - obviously I don’t share that opinion, William needs to come, no matter what.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder how Margaret's children feel about all this? Or perhaps she doesn't care about potentially fracturing her family?
As far as I can recall, we have only ever heard from one of her children.

A MOTHER is demanding answers after her three children were allowed to live with a “person of interest” in the William Tyrell case, who has now been charged with child sex offences.
The NSW Ombudsman is investigating how the children came to be living with Bill Spedding, despite authorities knowing he allegedly committed child abuse as far back as 1987.
“Someone … needs to be held accountable,” the woman, who cannot be named, told The Australian.
Mother demands answers after Bill Spedding arrest


The unwavering support has gone on and on though. I don't expect that will change, during the inquest.

Margaret Spedding made the offer in a letter sent to the judge who yesterday ordered her husband’s release after he was charged with sexually assaulting two young sisters in Sydney in 1987.
“I’m prepared for William (Spedding) to reside with me if he is granted bail. Whilst William resides with me, there will be no children residing at or visiting the residence,” the letter states.
Nocookies - The Australian June 20, 2015

They allege his wife Margaret, who supported him in court from the public gallery, contacted one of the alleged victims by text shortly after he was arrested and said: “It really saddens me you’re involved in this.”
Tyrrell ‘person of interest’ to appear in court

His wife Margaret was critical to his alibi in the William Tyrrell case and claimed they were drinking coffee together at a café in Laurieton, 10-minutes from Kendall, at the time.
Victoria man Bill Spedding charged by police over indecent assault in 1980s | Daily Mail Online

 

[drsleuth]

I struggle to call that 'love' .. It's a sick & twisted person who would accept / condone such behaviour from another, no matter the relationship. IMO, they are just as guilty, and hurray for the punishment for concealment. The sentence should be the same as that of the perpretrator, I'd even go so far as to suggest more ! ... IMO ..

I agree, in my eyes anyone who has any knowledge/involvement should receive the same punishment as the perpetrator as I think they are just as bad!

 

[Sillybilly]

Please continue at Thread #39.

This thread is now closed.