on 21-10-2014 12:13 PM
on 10-06-2015 06:25 PM
@polksaladallie wrote:I wonder why police have released this info. There must be a reason.
Have the police released tha information? The last I heard they were refusing to confirm the reports.
If the spiderman toy had been William's one would imagine it would have had his DNA on it.
on 10-06-2015 06:37 PM
New South Wales police will not confirm a newspaper report they found a Spider-Man toy in the work van of William "Bill" Spedding, a person of interest in the case of missing child William Tyrrell.
on 10-06-2015 08:27 PM
on 21-06-2015 01:12 PM
Not sure if there is another thread about this as I didn't check........ but..... William Spedding has been released on bail.
on 22-06-2015 06:29 AM
do you want to read far fetched??
In granting bail, Justice Geoffrey Bellew said one of the girls, who was three at the time of the alleged offence, had no recollection of it and "vague memories of youth" despite a 21-page statement.
He said the reliability of the complainant would probably be an issue and there were concerns about whether both girls were "coached" by an adult in making the claims.
"It is clear to me that the matters to which I have referred to will be a substantial issue in the proceedings brought against the applicant," Justice Bellew said.
"It is difficult to accept the crown submission that [the] crown case is strong."
Justice Bellew noted that Spedding was investigated over the alleged offences nearly 30 years ago and never
charged.
He said Spedding becoming a person of interest in William's disappearance had "revived" the prior allegations.
Justice Bellew pointed out further shortcomings in the crown case including that it had no transcript of an interview with Spedding from the investigation in the 1980s.
He said Spedding's "need to be at liberty to prepare for trial is greater than what would otherwise be the case".
Spedding was granted bail on a number of conditions including that he be of good behaviour, not leave NSW, not contact any crown witnesses, and reside at an address on the north coast.
A condition was also imposed that he not be in contact with any person under age of 18.
At a previous bail application hearing it was argued by Spedding's lawyer that a "known paedophile" had access to the girls at the time of the alleged offences.
Solicitor Peter O'Brien also suggested the pair may have made the allegations against Spedding after being "coached" by an adult.
But the crown prosecutor told the court the "known paedophile", who cannot be named for legal reasons, could not have committed the assaults as he was in prison at the time.
It was submitted that the crown case against Spedding was not strong and that he should be granted bail.
The case against Spedding has been adjourned to Campbelltown Local Court until July 29.
on 22-06-2015 07:16 AM
on 22-06-2015 07:31 AM
The crowns historic case on BS is far fetched, has alreadfy been extensively investigated at the time it occurred, and IMO
designed to leverage Spedding into spilling the beans... and it has not worked, maybe there are no beans to spill?
..... I think the investigators in WT case are grabbing at straws whether BS is involved or not I do not know but I can see I
large compensation case for deprivation of liberty/wrongful imprisonment unfolding.
How FU are our privacy laws given that:
But the crown prosecutor told the court the "known paedophile", who cannot be named for legal reasons, could not have committed the assaults as he was in prison at the time.
while conversely BS has been convicted of no crime but tarred and feathered a rock spider
How FU are police investigation files given that
"Justice Bellew pointed out further shortcomings in the crown case including that it had no transcript of an interview
with Spedding from the investigation in the 1980s."
So the do you beleive police had no transcript?...
or
Police had no transcript available that suited their charges...
or
Police had no transcript beacuse it was deleted and therefore could again interview and charge BS for a historic crime which suited the investigating detectives of another unrelated case?
or???
on 22-06-2015 07:36 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/focus-on-police-not-the-laws-20131103-2wuok.html
Arrest is a deprivation of liberty.
The process may involve the use of force and is likely to be humiliating and demeaning.
There is a long-standing recognition in law that arrest can operate as a de facto punishment (before any trial and sentencing process). It should be a measure of last resort.
There are other options: court attendance and penalty notices, warnings and cautions.
But when it is needed, such as in cases of domestic violence, the power to arrest is already there.
on 22-06-2015 08:22 AM
@colic2bullsgirlore wrote:The crowns historic case on BS is far fetched, has alreadfy been extensively investigated at the time it occurred, and IMO
designed to leverage Spedding into spilling the beans... and it has not worked, maybe there are no beans to spill?
..... I think the investigators in WT case are grabbing at straws whether BS is involved or not I do not know but I can see I
large compensation case for deprivation of liberty/wrongful imprisonment unfolding.
How FU are our privacy laws given that:
But the crown prosecutor told the court the "known paedophile", who cannot be named for legal reasons, could not have committed the assaults as he was in prison at the time.
while conversely BS has been convicted of no crime but tarred and feathered a rock spider
How FU are police investigation files given that
"Justice Bellew pointed out further shortcomings in the crown case including that it had no transcript of an interview
with Spedding from the investigation in the 1980s."
So the do you beleive police had no transcript?...
or
Police had no transcript available that suited their charges...
or
Police had no transcript beacuse it was deleted and therefore could again interview and charge BS for a historic crime which suited the investigating detectives of another unrelated case?
or???
The known murderer and pedophile has already been named though, I hadn't realised they have now suppressed his name, how ridiculous!
On the face of it, I see 2 things that are glaringly obvious...
Missing child:,
the coffee shop receipt etc, where Spedding was supposed to be when the child went missing, surely that is easy to verify? I checked my bank statements this morning and it shows the precise time I used my card, and it also tallies with the receipt I was given at the time........both banks that I use do this, don't all banks?
Historical charges:
The other thing is, the known pedophile was living in the same house as the victims, police have given vague details about the medical reports and the timing, the mother and grandmother knew he was a pedophile, the grandfather warned him not to take children into the bedroom.
I agree re the "missing" transcript, too convenient.
Another thing that irks me is that if anyone says Spedding might not have been the abuser, they cop abuse for making the victims feel bad, like victims can't be wrong or might be lying, or coached etc. but because they are victims, they can't be wrong.
I read a good article recently about that, will see if I can find it.
26-06-2015 05:32 PM - edited 26-06-2015 05:34 PM