You're expecting the police to give us the owner of the car - they don't need to and it's possibly in their best interests not to. The VIN and engine numbers are there and easy to find, unless they've been ground off. ACA would know this and it's an indictment on them that they've chosen to ignore it.If police could identify the VIN, we would have an answer. This vehicle has not been burned just to rid DNA, its burned bad, all cooked.
If police could identify the owner via stamps, we would know.
Right now we don't have the answer either way. But is it that crucial. They obviously don't know where his car is.
So whats the chances, near where William went missing. Either way.
I suspect we will have to wait for it to come out. Not like the media to leave the important bits out hey.You're expecting the police to give us the owner of the car - they don't need to and it's possibly in their best interests not to. The VIN and engine numbers are there and easy to find, unless they've been ground off. ACA would know this and it's an indictment on them that they've chosen to ignore it.
If they're still looking then that's not his car plus no car fire will destroy a stamped engine number anyway.I suspect we will have to wait for it to come out. Not like the media to leave the important bits out hey.
That car is burnt in a deliberate attempt at destroying its identification which explains why it was flipped so the heat destroys its identity.
If the heat hasn't removed the VIN ID, it will be interesting to see if someone has gone out of their way to remove the ID.
Either way, vehicle of exact same make and model near Williams abduction in a small town burned hot.
Obviously his car is missing. Nor has it been found otherwise they wouldn't be bothered looking.
Where is his car? Process of elimination really.
Same make and model stolen, dumped near Williams abduction, then flipped and set on hot fire. Engine block is aluminium.If they're still looking then that's not his car plus no car fire will destroy a stamped engine number anyway.
Have you confirmed it is his car yet
Like I asked 2 pages ago
No one can because the car that was the same make and model of someone in one the highest profile cases in Australia who is in the business of scrap metal, was professionally burned so bad near his house, they can't identify the VIN or other identifiers to be his vehicle.
Not even the police, but if his vehicle was present no doubt it could be excluded as his.
The Police would 100% know if this was his car. Even a new recruit would be able to solve this in a matter of minutes. It's clickbait imo.VIN numbers are stamped on vehicles, as are engine numbers on engines. They don't burn off. Police will have the VIN and engine numbers from that vehicle, unless they were ground off. Now, why would they be ground off? There could also be other identifying features of the car that will link to its owner.
There's no way ACA haven't checked those numbers.
The car is badly burned in a "hot" fire. It depends on the damage. The car was turned over so it burned better to remove identifiers.The Police would 100% know if this was his car. Even a new recruit would be able to solve this in a matter of minutes. It's clickbait imo.
Rubbish.The car is badly burned in a "hot" fire. It depends on the damage. The car was turned over so it burned better to remove identifiers.
Even if it is not his car, it wouldn't be the first time someone does a switcheroo. Police check his car, sparkly clean. Police dismiss his vehicle used in the crime. Same make, colour and model in a small town nearby where a POI resides. I guess it just coincidence.
What's the go with that? How did he record someone?
He's facing allegations relating to staff management and using a mobile phone without a warrant to record someone, it is understood.
Staff management issues = clashed with co-workerWhat's the go with that? How did he record someone?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. It's called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation.
Over analysing, media reports is a recipe for disaster.So this has been annoying me. The foster Mum can remember so much detail about two cars that she saw twice on the street (where no one who lives there parks so she says they were suspicious), once just before William went missing (and another LTD with a large ginger man) but didn't remember any of this when she rang to report him missing. She said she was so upset when she first rang emergency and the mind plays funny tricks when she remembered all the details 6 days later.
I searched and listened to the emergency call. She didn't sound very upset and was most composed, calmly listing physical details about William, including "he’s got a freckle on the top of his head when you part it on the left hand side on his left side. A freckle on the top of his head."
Operator: There wasn’t anyone suspicious in the area? Any vehicles or anything?
Foster Mother: No… No… No… Well not that I’m aware of. I was out there talking with Mum and my/our other daughter. So…
Implying if there were vehicles she and her Mum were outside and she had described taking William for a walk around garden so ... she would have seen other vehicles?
And then at the beginning of the call the operators asks how long has he been missing. But she doesn't answer that. Instead she answers how long they've been looking for William! Didn't think how long he's been missing was that different from how long they've been looking for him, so why didn't she answer that question?
Operator: How long has he been missing?
Foster Mother: I thin …Well … I think … well …we’ve been looking for him now for about 15 or 20 minutes but..
Foster mother: I thought it could be 5 or it could be longer. He was just playing around and we heard him and then we heard nothing.