I am particularly interested in the curiously worded statement by the WA POL in regard to the phone call at 5.15am that morning. 'It was from a man connected to the property'.. this was the descriptor, but if you break that down, it doesn't say quite a few things....
(a) is doesn't say the man was AT the property, making the call from a landline, or from a mobile, or wherever the caller was located, merely connected to the farm in some fashion, emotionally, figuratively, metaphorically, financially, contiguously... .. so many ways one can be 'connected' to a place.
(b) it didn't say which man. middleaged, young, old, Australian, foreign..
(c) it didn't say that the WA POL recognized the voice of the caller, either, or , conversely, didn't recognize the voice of the caller
(d) a two minute call is quite a long time , really. either lots was said, or a lot of heavy breathing and gasping was done, or a lot of screaming gloating triumphant howling, or a lot of brokenhearted sobbing, but the police give no indication in any way whatsoever as to what the nature of the call was.
(e).. Mr Cockburn in convinced he knows exactly what was said to the police in that 5.15am call by, he claims, ( and ONLY MR COCKBURN CLAIMS, the police have at no stage said who it was) Peter Miles , and Mr Cockburn also claims to know why the call was made, and in what sequence of the events the call fitted into.. .