And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental death at
nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?

Then we still wont know what happened.

Caiphas the Pharisee <caiphas@judea.org> wrote

> And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
> death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?

Who cares if they do. They should have done those tests right back then.

Rod Speedbot Legal Charlatan wrote:
=============================

>
> > And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
> > death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?
>
> Who cares if they do.

** Police haters ??

> They should have done those tests right back then.

** Need to get court orders for that requiring reasonable suspicion of the foster parents involvement.
Better just to keep monitoring the pair - like using phone taps till you have something worthwhile.

Of course it also has the disadvantage of telling the public the missing boy is considered to be dead when he may not be.

....... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
>>> death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?

>> Who cares if they do.

> Police haters ??

They are completely irrelevant, just you dole bludgers.

>> They should have done those tests right back then.

> Need to get court orders for that

Nope, not if the foster parents agreed to those tests.

> requiring reasonable suspicion of the foster parents involvement.

Wrong as always when they were testing
if Bill fell off the balcony accidentally.

> Better just to keep monitoring the pair - like using
> phone taps till you have something worthwhile.

Trouble with that approach is that that makes it too easy
for them to get rid of any evidence that they did it.

But given how well he was treated by them, its
very bloody unlikely that they would have killed
him or even given him away to someone else.

And they clearly haven't found any evidence in the car.

Yes, its theoretically possible that he did end up over
the balcony and the foster parents covered their failure
to prevent that up, after the event, but its very bloody
unlikely given that his sister was there too and could
have been intimidated into not saying anything about
it or say had been involved in him going over the
balcony and is saying nothing about that for that reason.

> Of course it also has the disadvantage of telling
> the public the missing boy is considered to be dead

They haven't said that. Just that that’s one
obvious possibility. That’s no news to anyone.

> when he may not be.

Its certainly possible.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
>>>> death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?
>
>>> Who cares if they do.
>
>> Police haters ??
>
> They are completely irrelevant, just you dole bludgers.
>
>>> They should have done those tests right back then.
>
>> Need to get court orders for that
>
> Nope, not if the foster parents agreed to those tests.
>
>> requiring reasonable suspicion of the foster parents involvement.
>
> Wrong as always when they were testing
> if Bill fell off the balcony accidentally.
>
>> Better just to keep monitoring the pair - like using
>> phone taps till you have something worthwhile.

In fact the did bug their car.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-18/ex-detective-gary-jubelin-says-police-bugged-foster-parents-cars/100626930

> Trouble with that approach is that that makes it too easy
> for them to get rid of any evidence that they did it.
>
> But given how well he was treated by them, its
> very bloody unlikely that they would have killed
> him or even given him away to someone else.
>
> And they clearly haven't found any evidence in the car.
>
> Yes, its theoretically possible that he did end up over
> the balcony and the foster parents covered their failure
> to prevent that up, after the event, but its very bloody
> unlikely given that his sister was there too and could
> have been intimidated into not saying anything about
> it or say had been involved in him going over the
> balcony and is saying nothing about that for that reason.
>
>> Of course it also has the disadvantage of telling
>> the public the missing boy is considered to be dead
>
> They haven't said that. Just that that’s one
> obvious possibility. That’s no news to anyone.
>
>> when he may not be.
>
> Its certainly possible.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 18:34:19 +0800, Caiphas the Pharisee
<caiphas@judea.org> wrote:

>And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental death at
>nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?

Was it accidental? Perhaps he was tossed off. Perhaps he drove the
foster parents wild. Cute kids are not always the victim, and yes
Lucifer was the Brightest of the Angels. Why was he in foster care
anyway?
.....Hmmmmmmm.

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> Caiphas the Pharisee <caiphas@judea.org> wrote
>> And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
>> death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?
> Was it accidental? Perhaps he was tossed off.

Pretty stupid way to kill him. No guarantee that it would kill him.

> Perhaps he drove the foster parents wild.

Since they were foster parents, they can just hand him back.

> Cute kids are not always the victim, and
> yes Lucifer was the Brightest of the Angels.

> Why was he in foster care anyway?

The biological parents are druggys.

> ....Hmmmmmmm.

Humming won't save your bacon, boy.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:08:04 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>> Caiphas the Pharisee <caiphas@judea.org> wrote
>
>>> And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
>>> death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?
>
>> Was it accidental? Perhaps he was tossed off.
>
>Pretty stupid way to kill him. No guarantee that it would kill him.
>
>> Perhaps he drove the foster parents wild.
>
>Since they were foster parents, they can just hand him back.
>
>> Cute kids are not always the victim, and
>> yes Lucifer was the Brightest of the Angels.
>
>> Why was he in foster care anyway?
>
>The biological parents are druggys.
>
>> ....Hmmmmmmm.
>
>Humming won't save your bacon, boy.

I has just occurred to me that a William Tyrell strangled the Princes
in the tower in 145* and he got away with it.
Clearly the plot thickens!

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>> Caiphas the Pharisee <caiphas@judea.org> wrote
>>>> And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
>>>> death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?
>>
>>> Was it accidental? Perhaps he was tossed off.
>>
>>Pretty stupid way to kill him. No guarantee that it would kill him.
>>
>>> Perhaps he drove the foster parents wild.
>>
>>Since they were foster parents, they can just hand him back.
>>
>>> Cute kids are not always the victim, and
>>> yes Lucifer was the Brightest of the Angels.
>>
>>> Why was he in foster care anyway?
>>
>>The biological parents are druggys.
>>
>>> ....Hmmmmmmm.
>>
>>Humming won't save your bacon, boy.
> I has just occurred to me that a William Tyrell
> strangled the Princes in the tower in 145*

No he didn't.

> and he got away with it.
> Clearly the plot thickens!

Rots actually with those two.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>> And after publishing speculative scenario of his accidental
>>>>> death at nanna's house, will they cop come blowback?
>>
>>>> Who cares if they do.
>>
>>> Police haters ??
>>
>> They are completely irrelevant, just you dole bludgers.
>>
>>>> They should have done those tests right back then.
>>
>>> Need to get court orders for that
>>
>> Nope, not if the foster parents agreed to those tests.
>>
>>> requiring reasonable suspicion of the foster parents involvement.
>>
>> Wrong as always when they were testing
>> if Bill fell off the balcony accidentally.
>>
>>> Better just to keep monitoring the pair - like using
>>> phone taps till you have something worthwhile.
>
> In fact the did bug their car.
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-18/ex-detective-gary-jubelin-says-police-bugged-foster-parents-cars/100626930
>
>> Trouble with that approach is that that makes it too easy
>> for them to get rid of any evidence that they did it.
>>
>> But given how well he was treated by them, its
>> very bloody unlikely that they would have killed
>> him or even given him away to someone else.
>>
>> And they clearly haven't found any evidence in the car.
>>
>> Yes, its theoretically possible that he did end up over
>> the balcony and the foster parents covered their failure
>> to prevent that up, after the event, but its very bloody
>> unlikely given that his sister was there too and could
>> have been intimidated into not saying anything about
>> it or say had been involved in him going over the
>> balcony and is saying nothing about that for that reason.
>>
>>> Of course it also has the disadvantage of telling
>>> the public the missing boy is considered to be dead
>>
>> They haven't said that. Just that that’s one
>> obvious possibility. That’s no news to anyone.
>>
>>> when he may not be.
>>
>> Its certainly possible.

Fark, this is turning into one hell of an abortion by the fucking cops.
https://iview.abc.net.au/video/FA2035H042S00