Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Detectives questioned Spedding’s wife Margaret about where the toy came from and she reportedly told them it was given to her husband by one of the children they cared for.....

( A snippet from 'The National News' June 10th 2015 ).......

I don't think it is MS changing her story about the figurine...I think it's the Newspapers......I don't think anyone has set BS up by planting the figurine in his vehicle, if that was the case MS wouldn't have admitted to knowing about it in his Vehicle.

I agree Judicious I don't think anyone is setting BS up with anything.
 
I don't know why everyone is so hell bent on slagging of MS. There is some doubt in a lot of people about BS. But then Imagine the doubt you would want or hear as the wife. Just because it's her husband and just because she has stuck by him does not make her some evil woman. Put yourself in her shoes..... Im not convinced BS is innocent but so much hate is directed at her. Yet everyone also quotes the manipulative behaviours of pedophiles. I feel sorry for her. If BS is involved she would not be the first oblivious wife in history by a long shot.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I saw the photo with the bike pictured. Still seems odd. A child would not be riding a bike with an adult handle without a supervising adult present. Comments on NSW Police page referred to police who door-knocked residents describing the child as 3 years old. It doesn't make sense.

What has this got to do with William's disappearance?
 
Nope, not if she knew he had it. And she said he had it in the van the day William went missing. It's just creepy to me.

This case is full of creepy coincidences from an accused paedophile been due to be at the GM's when William was abducted to BS driving around with a Spiderman figure in his van that fateful day.

I don't know why was it a Spiderman figure why not a SpongeBob SquarePants figure or whatever else the coincidences are so strange that there's gotta be something in it MOO.
 
I don't know why everyone is so hell bent on slagging of MS. There is some doubt in a lot of people about BS. But then Imagine the doubt you would want or hear as the wife. Just because it's her husband and just because she has stuck by him does not make her some evil woman. Put yourself in her shoes..... Im not convinced BS is innocent but so much hate is directed at her. Yet everyone also quotes the manipulative behaviours of pedophiles. I feel sorry for her. If BS is involved she would not be the first oblivious wife in history by a long shot.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She protecting a Pedophile! That's why!!
 
I don't know why everyone is so hell bent on slagging of MS. There is some doubt in a lot of people about BS. But then Imagine the doubt you would want or hear as the wife. Just because it's her husband and just because she has stuck by him does not make her some evil woman. Put yourself in her shoes..... Im not convinced BS is innocent but so much hate is directed at her. Yet everyone also quotes the manipulative behaviours of pedophiles. I feel sorry for her. If BS is involved she would not be the first oblivious wife in history by a long shot.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think people's opinion on her plunged somewhat when she allegedly contacted one of the victims after bs was arrested and allegedly guilt bombed her
 
She protecting a Pedophile! That's why!!

Accused paedophile... whilst I'm reasonably it'll be the ultimate outcome (I doubt it would have been so publicised, ie that the police would allow it to be, without good cause), he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
 
As an aside, my main annoyance ( putting it mildly) is how the sexual assaults of two small children was dealt with back in 1987. With what the police had, by way of medical evidence and the statements of what the children had said to the mother and grandmother, it should have been prosecuted. I guess the main criteria for the DPP to pursue cases is if they can win on the evidence they have. Based on that, they often deny people their day in court, victims and people who are accused of offences. They do not seem to think long term about about how that process is positive for all involved. There may not have been a conviction against the accused but there is a public record and details of what they have been accused of. The defendant has to sit through a greatly uncomfortable experience with the fear that they may go to jail and if they have a genuine defence, that is on the record as well. In this case, back in 1987, I don't think the children should have had to have been witnesses in court for proceedings to go ahead. The DPP should have proceeded with what they had from the adults involved. Then the children's worth in society would have been upheld by the law. MOO
 
Detectives questioned Spedding’s wife Margaret about where the toy came from and she reportedly told them it was given to her husband by one of the children they cared for.....

( A snippet from 'The National News' June 10th 2015 ).......

I don't think it is MS changing her story about the figurine...I think it's the Newspapers......I don't think anyone has set BS up by planting the figurine in his vehicle, if that was the case MS wouldn't have admitted to knowing about it in his Vehicle.

I doubt she needed to know about it beforehand.
I think she was probably just repeating what he told her about the toy.
 
What has this got to do with William's disappearance?

The link to the article is a few pages back. Someone called in a "possibly endangered child" to the police. She saw someone take a blond hair little boy off the bike and leave the scene. Police searched the area, knocked on doors and couldn't find anything. Could it have been William? IDK. I think it's really weird that no one has claimed the bike.

*

I think BS having a Spiderman toy in his van is very suspicious. And he just so happened to be in the area with at the same time WT vanished. I've been on the fence about Spedding, and this pushed me over to the guilt side. What kid gives a grown-up a toy? Why would the kid think that adult needs company? A normal adult would say, "Oh, no, that's yours, you keep it." :notgood: Grown-ups give kids toys.
 
As an aside, my main annoyance ( putting it mildly) is how the sexual assaults of two small children was dealt with back in 1987. With what the police had, by way of medical evidence and the statements of what the children had said to the mother and grandmother, it should have been prosecuted. I guess the main criteria for the DPP to pursue cases is if they can win on the evidence they have. Based on that, they often deny people their day in court, victims and people who are accused of offences. They do not seem to think long term about about how that process is positive for all involved. There may not have been a conviction against the accused but there is a public record and details of what they have been accused of. The defendant has to sit through a greatly uncomfortable experience with the fear that they may go to jail and if they have a genuine defence, that is on the record as well. In this case, back in 1987, I don't think the children should have had to have been witnesses in court for proceedings to go ahead. The DPP should have proceeded with what they had from the adults involved. Then the children's worth in society would have been upheld by the law. MOO

Yes. Exactly.
 
As an aside, my main annoyance ( putting it mildly) is how the sexual assaults of two small children was dealt with back in 1987. With what the police had, by way of medical evidence and the statements of what the children had said to the mother and grandmother, it should have been prosecuted. I guess the main criteria for the DPP to pursue cases is if they can win on the evidence they have. Based on that, they often deny people their day in court, victims and people who are accused of offences. They do not seem to think long term about about how that process is positive for all involved. There may not have been a conviction against the accused but there is a public record and details of what they have been accused of. The defendant has to sit through a greatly uncomfortable experience with the fear that they may go to jail and if they have a genuine defence, that is on the record as well. In this case, back in 1987, I don't think the children should have had to have been witnesses in court for proceedings to go ahead. The DPP should have proceeded with what they had from the adults involved. Then the children's worth in society would have been upheld by the law. MOO

In 1987 I was 19 and fresh out of high school. Whilst I was at school it was common knowledge that several students had 'affairs' with teachers and I know this for a fact (not me). One girl married her teacher. This did not have the stigma then that of course it would (and should) today. I dont remember child sexual assault/paedophilia being something that was openly in the MSM at the time either regarding small children or teenagers. Im not saying it didnt occur of course. Im saying it was 'not talked about'. In the case of rape I can say it was common for women not to press charges because of the trauma involved in following a case through and the difficulty of getting a conviction. Times have changed and for that I am truly grateful but it seems clear to me that it would be very likely that it was hushed up.
 
My Websleuths is mucking up badly today....anyone else's ?
 
I'm from the same era and I agree that there was a lot more not talked about then and the lines between high school student and teacher were treated a lot more ambiguously. By my recollection, the rape of little children would have held the same horror then as now. Things have changed somewhat in court proceedings around these offences but not nearly enough. 2 years ago, a friend of mine's daughter was sexually assaulted by a family friend while on holiday, while she was sharing a bed with other children and her mother was sleeping in the next room. She was 13. She woke her little sister after the incident and told her to get mum and then told her mother what happened. They all left and contacted the police who took DNA swabs of the daughter and they had evidence. They went through the whole process of court with closed circuit TV for the child. He was found not guilty, the conclusion the mother drew from it was she would have needed another adult in the room, filmimg what happened to get a conviction. When the jury delivered the verdict, she said a number of them were in tears. A number believed he was guitly but because they couldn't reach a majority, they decided to vote not guilty to spare the victim's family from going through a retrial. This is what the prosecuter relayed to the mother. Still, he had to sit in court and endure what his outcome might be, and that may deter him from future crimes and there is a record of what he is accused of and the evidence presented in case he reoffends.
In 1987 I was 19 and fresh out of high school. Whilst I was at school it was common knowledge that several students had 'affairs' with teachers and I know this for a fact (not me). One girl married her teacher. This did not have the stigma then that of course it would (and should) today. I dont remember child sexual assault/paedophilia being something that was openly in the MSM at the time either regarding small children or teenagers. Im not saying it didnt occur of course. Im saying it was 'not talked about'. In the case of rape I can say it was common for women not to press charges because of the trauma involved in following a case through and the difficulty of getting a conviction. Times have changed and for that I am truly grateful but it seems clear to me that it would be very likely that it was hushed up.
 
This case is full of creepy coincidences from an accused paedophile been due to be at the GM's when William was abducted to BS driving around with a Spiderman figure in his van that fateful day.

I don't know why was it a Spiderman figure why not a SpongeBob SquarePants figure or whatever else the coincidences are so strange that there's gotta be something in it MOO.

I agree with you, why not batman or superman? TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE.
 
Hi. I am new to Websleuths. I just wanted to say thanks for adding me. I don't know little William or his family (bio or foster) from a bar of soap but he has touched my heart deeply, and I pray for his safe return everyday. I just want to see him come home. I am a mum too and I can't imagine the anguish and grief. I have been following this case from the beginning and it just breaks my heart. I haven't posted anywhere but have been sleuthing in the faint hope that someone slips up somewhere and drops a clue to where this gorgeous little boy is. I believe the police are doing their absolute best too. Thanks for having me! PS. I am also interested in the Sharon Edwards case - on a much more personal level. I know Sharon but haven't seen her for 13 years to be honest (lived in Lawrence but moved out of the area 13 years ago. Still have family there). She's a wonderful lady and her disappearance also breaks my heart. So out of character. Wish she'd come home too
 
Ms has been quoted in msn that spiderman was found in BS van but not when.(as far as I can tell)
But her reply "I gather so" in response to the question did it arouse suspicion.
Kind of feels ify. imo
I mean if spiderman was found during the raids. Then I suspect some arousal of suspicion was already present.
Then there is her earlier comment "I have no worries about them going through everything because I know they wouldn't find anything belonging to William".


We know that BS was interviewed soon after William disappeared, he provided DNA.
I got to wonder if he was not asked at an earlier time can we have a peak in the van.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t-william-tyrell/story-fni0cx12-1227195778466
 
its strange ms felt she needed verification from a psychic as to whether bs was guilty or not, she obviously has doubts and its not the sort of thing you can discuss with other family i guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
2,060
Total visitors
2,243

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,140
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top