Thebottomline
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 2,312
- Reaction score
- 13,604
Deleted. Confused by last few posts and tostee ?
Birds of a feather and all thatI feel for the little childrenwho may not have been believed and all the future children who never get believed because they are to young .. :
You'd think a neighbour who'd see the van entering and exiting a driveway a lot would recognise it.
I
I wonder too, as the court process can take a long time, if this is another factor why we don't hear anything or it's hard to join the dots.
Another article stated that an applicaction can be made to remove prior judgements from lawsites and records temporarily so that jury can judge fairly based on the case only.
If you've done the crime and the time I think this is fair game in my opinion....
I was there thats allAre you able to elaborate on this? Otherwise it's just another opinion. IMO.
Yes i agree but who lit the fire that caused the smoke??Fearful to say to much about BS but where there is smoke there is fire.in my own opinion
The thing with BS is he was gone over forensically by LE with a fine tooth comb as we read at the time. The rental home where they lived and vehicles etc. I can't ever recall any MSM articles where LE said he was a suspect in WT's case? It was mostly to do with the historic case that pertained to his arrest & charges and upcoming court hearings
Fearful to say to much about BS but where there is smoke there is fire.in my own opinion
Spedding is suing for malicious prosecution, malfeasance and abuse of process. The malicious prosecution can only relate to charges that Spedding was actually prosecuted for. I assume that he is claiming that he was prosecuted over the historic offences for an improper purpose, likely to justify the searches and remanding him in custody. The malfeasance and abuse of process could relate either to the Tyrrell investigation or the investigation and prosecution of historic cases. That is, using historical charges to be able to do things (like detain him for prolonged questioning, listening devices etc) that police could not do if he was just a POI. I don’t know whether that’s what happened; I’m just giving examples of what malfeasance/abuse of process could be in this scenario.
I can’t imagine a lawyer representing a client in a lawsuit like this unless they were cleared in the Tyrrell investigation. It would completely undermine his case if these proceedings were issued and he was then charged with involvement in the Tyrrell case.
If I was defending Spedding and he was still a POI, I would be sitting through the whole inquest to hear the evidence against the other POIs to use at trial. The fact that his lawyer withdrew from the inquest suggests that Spedding is no longer a POI. Peter O’Brien is a very competent lawyer. He would be giving VERY good advice to Spedding.
How did they prove BS was at the assembly ?I was there thats all
So were some of us other members too. That’s all. Seems we must’ve heard different things. IMO.I was there thats all
I don’t believe that’s been proven yet. IMO.How did they prove BS was at the assembly ?
But seems to know the family according to this article: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...r-toddler-william-tyrell-20150121-12ulo7.htmlTGY He lives in the Jolly Nose estate but not in Wandoo Pl, not a direct neighbour. Media reporting slightly inaccurate on that detail.
You'd think a neighbour who'd see the van entering and exiting a driveway a lot would recognise it.
TGY He lives in the Jolly Nose estate but not in Wandoo Pl, not a direct neighbour. Media reporting slightly inaccurate on that detail.
But seems to know the family according to this article: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...r-toddler-william-tyrell-20150121-12ulo7.html