Where does the OP make any mention of William being three years old?Good thing the OP pointed out he's small as I generally picture 3-year-olds to be the size of basketball players.
Detectives investigating the disappearance of toddler, William Tyrrell, have arrested a 63-year-old man on the state’s Mid North Coast in relation to a series of historical child sex offences.
Around 1.30 this afternoon (Wednesday 22 April), investigators from the State Crime Command’s Homicide Squad attended an address at Bonny Hills, near Port Macquarie, and took the man into custody.
He was taken to the Port Macquarie Police Station where he is being questioned by police about the alleged sexual assaults of two girls, aged three and six, in 1987 in Sydney.
Officers from Strike Force Rosann stress the arrest does not relate to the disappearance of William Tyrrell.
Investigations into that matter are continuing.
I agree to an extent, caveat being he turns out.to be innocent of all charges.This might sound bad but you have to feel sorry for Spedding for being charged with such old events, I know it's not uncommon these day but if Tyrell hadn't disappeared I highly doubt he would've been charged. And this is assuming he's not responsible for taking Tyrell.
Yeah the no bail bit give it away I think.Interesting he was arrested by the Homicide Squad and not some sex crimes squad and then bail for a offences committed in the 1980's was refused. The police are trying to play it down but their actions suggest this is the man, just haven't got enough evidence for the 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
And you know this because. . . . . . . . . . .?I agree to an extent, caveat being he turns out.to be innocent of all charges.
If he actually committed the offences inmthe 80s (which I doubt) than he deserves to be charged.
Has been an absolute media witch hunt on him since day 1 and there just doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest it was him.
Of course they have something on him. These are very serious allegations, and I gaurantee the informants have liaised with the DPP Extensively before proceeding with formal charges........The police havent shown him what they have in person therefor they dont have any !
I was being sarcastic...my response was directed at the following quote from earlier in the thread, regarding the initial interview.Of course they have something on him. These are very serious allegations, and I gaurantee the informants have liaised with the DPP Extensively before proceeding with formal charges.........bail would have been refused because of the seriousness of the offences, and the results of the police investigation.....he would have fronted a justice of the peace initially, who would have based his determination to refuse bail on evidence provided by the police
Next he would have fronted a magistrate to seek bail, and from here the onus is on the accused to show cause as to why he should be granted bail.
That normally includes things like
1: ties to the community
2: family support
4: likelyhood of reoffending while on bail
5: risk to the community
6: cedence report
At this stage, they don't even need to provide the accused lawyers with a hand up brief, something which police are slow to provide at the best of times.
No bail absolutely means they have something on him......