Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #49

[Whàngarei]

So, what you are saying is that the police had reason to check out Nichols (other than him being a notorious pedo who lived in the area) and once realising that Nichols couldn't have been involved (for whatever reason), Jubes at some point noticed how much Savage looks like Nichols ... so he zoomed in on Savage?
And then Jubes found many weaknesses - perhaps even impossibilities - in Savage's story.

Interesting theory. If that is what you are saying. There is certainly some reason why Savage is under the microscope.

He’d have started looking closely at him because of connections he shared imo

 

[Whàngarei]

So, what you are saying is that the police had reason to check out Nichols (other than him being a notorious pedo who lived in the area) and once realising that Nichols couldn't have been involved (for whatever reason), Jubes at some point noticed how much Savage looks like Nichols ... so he zoomed in on Savage?
And then Jubes found many weaknesses - perhaps even impossibilities - in Savage's story.

Interesting theory. If that is what you are saying. There is certainly some reason why Savage is under the microscope.

Could be along those lines .

 

[KateM]

I think that when William's case was spoken of as a 'once in a decade crime' that it pretty much fit the time gap between Daniel's stranger abduction and William's stranger abduction. And, sadly, I think it most likely means stranger abduction with death as the final result.

This type of abduction being far less common than parental abduction, or the creep that abducts a child from Kmart and abuses the child then lets them go.

Daniel Morcombe was abducted from a highway, not a quiet cul-de-sac...

 

[Deleted member 102539]

William Tyrrell’s foster mum: ‘I beat myself up’
I was looking for something else and came across this article. First time I have ever seen Nocturnal Man given a name.
"Ms Sharpley then saw missing William’s foster mother knocking on the door of a house occupied by a man called Peter.

Described in court as a “nocturnal” person who neighbours hardly knew, he didn’t answer the knock."

... and "Peter" didn't know PB, the ex taxi entrepreneur from formerly Sydney (AFAIK)? Who loved buying a lolly for disabled girls?

 

[SouthAussie]

He’d have started looking closely at him because of connections he shared imo

Yes, well, unlike others I think this was a one-person crime. And that is why it has been so difficult to pin the abductor down. Get the proof that they need for an arrest.
One person knows what he did, one person is keeping a dark secret, one person is not going to tell.

 

[interested64]

He is to me. For many reasons .one being kl connection .

kl?lease fill me in on initial..ta

 

[interested64]

He is to me. For many reasons .one being kl connection .

ok ive worked it out loll

 

[KateM]

Yes, well, unlike others I think this was a one-person crime. And that is why it has been so difficult to pin the abductor down. Get the proof that they need for an arrest.
One person knows what he did, one person is keeping a dark secret, one person is not going to tell.

I think more than one person is keeping a dark secret.

 

[Whàngarei]

I think more than one person is keeping a dark secret.

Definately imo

 

[Whàngarei]

The likes of DP hmmmm

.....

 

[Whàngarei]

.....

 

[SLouTh]

Peter knows ps knows pb chances are pb knows peter . Imo.

Can you possibly share how that know each other ??? Especially the part of PS knowing PB please?? thanks

 

[SouthAussie]

Peter knows ps knows pb chances are pb knows peter . Imo.

Maybe you need to take this off-thread. I am pretty sure that we all know that discussion that includes non-POIs and potential involvement is not allowed here.

 

[Whàngarei]

Can you possibly share how that know each other ??? Especially the part of PS knowing PB please?? thanks

.......

 

[Georgy]

Or he’s scared, got told to say what he said in the first place . Then under the questioning backed down

Yeh but by who?

 

[SLouTh]

Pretty sure we are allowed to discuss all of those persons mentioned above, especially as we have discussed all of them many times before, and all of the above persons have been mentioned in the media relating to this case....

To our newer members.... hopefully these links will help you find previous discussion and catching up easier too!

PB - there are 13 pages of posts about him on the thread:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22276899/?q=Paul+Bickford&t=post&o=date

DP - there are 4 pages of comments on the thread:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22277266/?q=Dean+Pollard&t=post&o=date

PS - there are 21 pages of comments on the thread-
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22277328/?q=Paul+Savage&t=post&o=date

DN - there are 6 pages of comments on the thread -
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22278803/?q=Derek+Nichols&t=post&o=date

Nocturnal Man - Multiple pages of mentions -
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22284077/?q=nocturnal+man&o=date

KL - also multiple mentions here -
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22286275/?q=kim+loweke&o=date


As it is a sleuthing thread, we should be able to establish if there are any links between them,,, within the TOS of course!!

Especially, if someone who was a just a friend of former POI has 9 pages of comments where he is mentioned ….
results here :
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22279269/?q=Col+Youngberry&t=post&o=date

Also TOS does state this along with being victim friendly :

Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.
Reference: Rules - Etiquette & Information

All my own opinion

 

[SouthAussie]

Pretty sure we are allowed to discuss all of those persons mentioned above, especially as we have discussed all of them many times before, and all of the above persons have been mentioned in the media relating to this case....

To our newer members.... hopefully these links will help you find previous discussion and catching up easier too!

PB - there are 13 pages of posts about him on the thread:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22276899/?q=Paul+Bickford&t=post&o=date

DP - there are 4 pages of comments on the thread:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22277266/?q=Dean+Pollard&t=post&o=date

PS - there are 21 pages of comments on the thread-
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22277328/?q=Paul+Savage&t=post&o=date

DN - there are 6 pages of comments on the thread -
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22278803/?q=Derek+Nichols&t=post&o=date

Nocturnal Man - Multiple pages of mentions -
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22284077/?q=nocturnal+man&o=date

KL - also multiple mentions here -
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22286275/?q=kim+loweke&o=date


As it is a sleuthing thread, we should be able to establish if there are any links between them,,, within the TOS of course!!

Especially, if someone who was a just a friend of former POI has 9 pages of comments where he is mentioned ….
results here :
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/search/22279269/?q=Col+Youngberry&t=post&o=date

Also TOS does state this along with being victim friendly :

Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.
Reference: Rules - Etiquette & Information

All my own opinion

What we are not allowed to do is discuss a non-POIs involvement in the crime ... which is what I was referring to.
Whangerei understood what I was saying, and has adjusted their posts accordingly. It appears that you didn't understand.

 

[drsleuth]

William's thread has become a mess

 

[SouthAussie]

William's thread has become a mess

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Maybe you need to take this off-thread. I am pretty sure that we all know that discussion that includes non-POIs and potential involvement is not allowed here.

I think, who knows whom is interesting for brainstorming in some way and for the big picture of the puzzle, but doesn't mean, that someone is urgently a participant in a felony. MOO
Since September 2014 we all are sashaying on egg shells on this thread and don't woe.