Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #26

[frogwell]

It is confusing in BS's case. Are the two children in the historic case the victim's in all these charges or are there other children involved? It is never clear to me with how they word their articles in msn.

My understanding is that the charges in NSW relate to 2 victims. The charges in Victoria relate to 1 victim who is one of the NSW victims. My understanding is that all the allegations come from the 1 victim. MOO

 

[Karinna]

My understanding is that the charges in NSW relate to 2 victims. The charges in Victoria relate to 1 victim who is one of the NSW victims. My understanding is that all the allegations come from the 1 victim. MOO

Again, Thankyou for the clarification.

 

[SouthAussie]

So the child mentioned in this post is a different child than the two girls?

It is very difficult to tell, Karinna. Abused children are well protected from the media in Australia.
Police and the courts will not divulge the facts to the media. Only the abused children, once they are adults, can do that if they wish.
So, assumptions may be made ... but they may or may not be correct.

The two girls, grown women now, have decided to allow a certain amount of non-identifying information into the media.
If there are other children involved, they evidently are not doing the same, or are under-age and cannot do so ... yet.

 

[they'll get you]

Wow you lot are sleuthing brilliantly! Gotta be something in the water lately.

At times genius and thought provoking.

Spedding is as smart as a gutter rat unlike Brett Peter Cowan who opened up like a ripe melon and lead police to Daniel's remains. I'm sure LE have tried every trick in their book with Spedding The way Spedding watched every word he spoke in this sidewalk interview he could be lawyered up and very well advised.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=kBQhdvruBU4



[FONT=Roboto-Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, HelveticaNeue, sans-serif-light, Arial, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

 

[Karinna]

It is very difficult to tell, Karinna. Abused children are well protected from the media in Australia.
Police and the courts will not divulge the facts to the media. Only the abused children, once they are adults, can do that if they wish.
So, assumptions may be made ... but they may or may not be correct.

The two girls, grown women now, have decided to allow a certain amount of non-identifying information into the media.
If there are other children involved, they evidently are not doing the same, or are under-age and cannot do so ... yet.

Oh definitely, and understandably so. But i'm not expecting to know full disclosure on the victims, just a bit of clarity with the charges. Like BS charged with a historic case dating some 30 yrs, and
more recent separate charges on different victim/s dating some 10 yrs. back. Something like that for example.
Otherwise i'm assuming the charges all involve the same two victims, and no others involved.

 

[Karinna]

Wow you lot are sleuthing brilliantly! Gotta be something in the water lately.

At times genius and thought provoking.

Spedding is as smart as a gutter rat unlike Brett Peter Cowan who opened up like a ripe melon and lead police to Daniel's remains. I'm sure LE have tried every trick in their book with Spedding The way Spedding watched every word he spoke in this sidewalk interview he could be lawyered up and very well advised.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=kBQhdvruBU4



[FONT=Roboto-Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, HelveticaNeue, sans-serif-light, Arial, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

BBM, He would be stupid not to have legal representation in such serious allegations & charges against him IMO.

 

[Karinna]

I think if BS is found guilty it will be splashed all across different msn, but i wonder if he is found not guilty because the case wasn't proven BARD, if it will also be announced in msn?

 

[sosocurious]

Wow you lot are sleuthing brilliantly! Gotta be something in the water lately.

At times genius and thought provoking.

Spedding is as smart as a gutter rat unlike Brett Peter Cowan who opened up like a ripe melon and lead police to Daniel's remains. I'm sure LE have tried every trick in their book with Spedding The way Spedding watched every word he spoke in this sidewalk interview he could be lawyered up and very well advised.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=kBQhdvruBU4



[FONT=Roboto-Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, HelveticaNeue, sans-serif-light, Arial, sans-serif]


[/FONT]

Yes the side walk interview.
Not a whisper of the historical charges or Gary Jubelin in the media at that point.

 

[SouthAussie]

Oh definitely, and understandably so. But i'm not expecting to know full disclosure on the victims, just a bit of clarity with the charges. Like BS charged with a historic case dating some 30 yrs, and
more recent separate charges on different victim/s dating some 10 yrs. back. Something like that for example.
Otherwise i'm assuming the charges all involve the same two victims, and no others involved.

Whereas I just cannot make that assumption, knowing the level of protection afforded the child victims, particularly children of the state.
So many more children are abused than we ever hear reported. That is by choice of the courts and/or the police and/or the families and/or the grown children. Because even if details are not disclosed, people can often make deductions about who those children may be.

 

[sosocurious]

I think if BS is found guilty it will be splashed all across different msn, but i wonder if he is found not guilty because the case wasn't proven BARD, if it will also be announced in msn?

Well it is not too long before we will find out.
I do hope the media report it either way.
imo

 

[SouthAussie]

Just to add ... about my reluctance to assume that the alleged sexual abuse of these two girls are the only offenses that Spedding may have committed.

Yes, the point of the publicity may be to apply more pressure on Spedding. The police want him locked away from children, they also want him to come clean about William. imo

But if he is guilty of these horrendous crimes against the girls .... well, we all know it wouldn't have been a 'stage' in his life ... there would be others that we may never know about, others which are unreported or hard to prove, others whose records are sealed and cannot be spoken of.

The police only need the sad and disgusting offences against the girls to exhibit to the public that this is the type of person Spedding 'is'. No need to drag any others into the public eye, request that publication be allowed.


.

 

[Karinna]

Yes the side walk interview.
Not a whisper of the historical charges or Gary Jubelin in the media at that point.

But he was already implicated in WT's disappearance by then wasn't he?

 

[Karinna]

Just to add ... about my reluctance to assume that the alleged sexual abuse of these two girls are the only offenses that Spedding may have committed.

Yes, the point of the publicity may be to apply more pressure on Spedding. The police want him locked away from children, they also want him to come clean about William. imo

But if he is guilty of these horrendous crimes against the girls .... well, we all know it wouldn't have been a 'stage' in his life ... there would be others that we may never know about, others which are unreported or hard to prove, others whose records are sealed and cannot be spoken of.

The police only need the sad and disgusting offences against the girls to exhibit to the public that this is the type of person Spedding 'is'. No need to drag any others into the public eye, request that publication be allowed.


.

Undoubtedly.

 

[Karinna]

Whereas I just cannot make that assumption, knowing the level of protection afforded the child victims, particularly children of the state.
So many more children are abused than we ever hear reported. That is by choice of the courts and/or the police and/or the families and/or the grown children. Because even if details are not disclosed, people can often make deductions about who those children may be.

It is a well known fact children that are State Wards or in State care are the most vulnerable children exposed to abuse, apart from familial abuse, and those victims are now speaking out by the hundreds, and that is great that the horrors inflicted upon them are finally being exposed by those that should of protected them,IMO.

 

[they'll get you]

Just to add ... about my reluctance to assume that the alleged sexual abuse of these two girls are the only offenses that Spedding may have committed.

Yes, the point of the publicity may be to apply more pressure on Spedding. The police want him locked away from children, they also want him to come clean about William. imo

But if he is guilty of these horrendous crimes against the girls .... well, we all know it wouldn't have been a 'stage' in his life ... there would be others that we may never know about, others which are unreported or hard to prove, others whose records are sealed and cannot be spoken of.

The police only need the sad and disgusting offences against the girls to exhibit to the public that this is the type of person Spedding 'is'. No need to drag any others into the public eye, request that publication be allowed.


.

 

[ozazure]

There is no legal distinction between "suspect" and "POI" that I am aware of. POI is deliberately ambiguous but in context is most often used to mean suspect so to say he hasn't been named a suspect really means nothing, and he was/is clearly being investigated quite publicly.

Frogwell, thanks for your insightful posts. Not sure what to make of it all. Obviously this is a very toxic family and I don't find it a difficult stretch to imagine either scenario, using abused girls as leverage in other dynamics, or multiple abusers, living in denial and the only truth teller coming across as unhinged. More strident work should have been done here decades ago.

 

[ozazure]

Just to add ... about my reluctance to assume that the alleged sexual abuse of these two girls are the only offenses that Spedding may have committed.

Yes, the point of the publicity may be to apply more pressure on Spedding. The police want him locked away from children, they also want him to come clean about William. imo

But if he is guilty of these horrendous crimes against the girls .... well, we all know it wouldn't have been a 'stage' in his life ... there would be others that we may never know about, others which are unreported or hard to prove, others whose records are sealed and cannot be spoken of.

The police only need the sad and disgusting offences against the girls to exhibit to the public that this is the type of person Spedding 'is'. No need to drag any others into the public eye, request that publication be allowed.


.

This is it, reading that Hillsley document, there are two detailed instances of extreme sexual abuse of children he had barely any ties to, that went unreported - so minimal opportunity to groom them into compliance. The first two acts described would surely be physically traumatic and yet she had not told anyone what had occurred. You'd think something like that wouldn't go unnoticed by adults but it obviously can, which is terrifying.

 

[Karinna]

There is no legal distinction between "suspect" and "POI" that I am aware of. POI is deliberately ambiguous but in context is most often used to mean suspect so to say he hasn't been named a suspect really means nothing, and he was/is clearly being investigated quite publicly.


Frogwell, thanks for your insightful posts. Not sure what to make of it all. Obviously this is a very toxic family and I don't find it a difficult stretch to imagine either scenario, using abused girls as leverage in other dynamics, or multiple abusers, living in denial and the only truth teller coming across as unhinged. More strident work should have been done here decades ago.

Terms like “suspect,” “target,” and “material witness” are more clearly defined, and even have formal definitions given to them by the Department of Justice. However, “person of interest” remains undefined formally. It does not show up in formal manuals like the Associated Press Stylebook, which reporters use to aid them in writing their stories, and it has never been officially defined by police, prosecutors, or journalists. The term is more of a colloquialism, rather than an official definition.

The term “person of interest” is often used interchangeably with “suspect,” which may trigger a trial by media. “Trial by media” is the phrase used to describe the widespread media coverage of a case, and its impact on a person’s reputation, as well as the public’s opinion. A “trial by media” encourages the public to come up with their own verdict of guilty or innocent, either before or after a verdict is actually handed down. This has the power to jeopardize an accused person’s .
Read more@
https://legaldictionary.net/person-of-interest/

 

[Eloise]

There is no legal distinction between "suspect" and "POI" that I am aware of. POI is deliberately ambiguous but in context is most often used to mean suspect so to say he hasn't been named a suspect really means nothing, and he was/is clearly being investigated quite publicly.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle91...e-between-a-suspect-and-a-person-of-interest/

Q: In some stories, you list a criminal as a “person of interest.” Sometimes you actually call them a “suspect.” Why do you keep changing between the two? Do police tell you to do this?
A: There’s a difference between a suspect and a person of interest.
A person of interest is someone police want to talk to for information about a case; a suspect is somebody officers think may be involved in the crime, Bellevue police spokesman Greg Grannis said.
“Sometimes a person of interest becomes a suspect, but not always,” he said.

^ American, but I think the terms are used by the media here the same way - thanks to the overwhelming cultural influence of American TV and film.



I can believe there are over 100 people who can give info about WT's disappearance. I don't believe there are over 100 suspects. (Referring to comments by police in the media that there are over 100 POIs in WT's case).

This matters while a crime is being investigated but once someone is arrested, whether they were ever defined in the media as a suspect or POI matters not.

 

[ozazure]

Terms like “suspect,” “target,” and “material witness” are more clearly defined, and even have formal definitions given to them by the Department of Justice. However, “person of interest” remains undefined formally. It does not show up in formal manuals like the Associated Press Stylebook, which reporters use to aid them in writing their stories, and it has never been officially defined by police, prosecutors, or journalists. The term is more of a colloquialism, rather than an official definition.

The term “person of interest” is often used interchangeably with “suspect,” which may trigger a trial by media. “Trial by media” is the phrase used to describe the widespread media coverage of a case, and its impact on a person’s reputation, as well as the public’s opinion. A “trial by media” encourages the public to come up with their own verdict of guilty or innocent, either before or after a verdict is actually handed down. This has the power to jeopardize an accused person’s .
Read more@
https://legaldictionary.net/person-of-interest/

This is not an Australian source, plus it is not referenced for US purposes either.

If there are NSW specifics of any difference between being publicly named a suspect and a POI i'd be very surprised, I have looked on multiple occasions in several states and found nothing. They have to tell you if you are being questioned as a suspect or a witness. They use the term suspect in their operation documents. There is nothing anywhere about what weight being called a POI or suspect has, because all it has is ramifications on your reputation in the community, and the difference is negligible, especially when investigations are clearly being undertaken and are confirmed.