That is very interesting, considering this sighting seemed to be important enough to be discussed at the Coroner's Inquest. And yet nothing was said (that the public knows of) to suggest the sighting or the reporting of it, were bogus and not worthy of police investigating it. imo.
I think everyone would agree, even Spedding himself understands that police needed to investigate him as a potential suspect, but if police tell one, 'you did it', and 'your name is forever going to be associated with the victim and vice versa', and 'we're going to ruin your life' (or whatever the words were that BS and MS said police used), and such, and then several media are noticed camped out at one's house from sunrise, seemingly with inside knowledge that something unknown to the occupant was on the brink of being newsworthy there at one's address, it seems like the media were given not only LE's blessing, but also encouragement, to very publicly spotlight this one individual, that is going way over and above 'investigating', and seems to suggest more of a motive than simply doing their due diligence in following up on all leads. imo.
I'm not understanding where it is coming from that Spedding's home was searched two days after his business. At the time it was widely reported that both his business premises and his home were searched on same day, and that the home was searched January 20, 2015?
It might have something to do with whether the person subscribes to 'call waiting' (or whether that feature is turned on)? I think if one has 'call waiting', the phone will beep during a current phone conversation to alert there is an another incoming call, and that number will then appear on the 'call list'... however, if one doesn't subscribe to that service, it would immediately go to voicemail and the call wouldn't show up on the call list? Also, I have noticed with my own phone there are numerous times when I have no record of a call coming in, but yet I will notice I have a voicemail (of which I don't seem to have any indication of). I have a mainstream cellphone provider, so not sure why this happens sometimes. imo.
How could GJ be in disbelief that RC's tip wasn't followed up, when he was the one heading the investigation by the time when it came to be known? His flat-out 'no' seems to indicate that he believed this 'tip' to be unworthy of investigating at the time, for one reason or another - it seems BS's lawyer believes it was because LE's focus was tunnelled to one person in particular, while there may be other reasons we don't yet know about (such as perhaps GJ felt it was not believable for some reason), but why wouldn't any such reasons have been brought up at the Inquest if they existed, when this issue was being discussed? Isn't that what the Inquest is for - to determine what happened to William, where any shortcomings in the investigation were with a goal of trying to fix them now, etc?
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...heads-to-mid-north-coast-20190731-p52cnj.html
