Originally Posted by Scubaemma

Absolutely, we must remember innocent until proven guilty. And I really hope we get a fair trial.

Originally Posted by odyssey

They have been looking in an area 50 metres squared (although they are now searching watercourses past that because of the flood).

The guy, regardless of whether he did it is a known paedophile who brutally attacked 2 other young boys - both who came forward later and got him charged.

He was living on the Sunshine Coast at the time.

He admits that he drove down that road now.

All of a sudden it has become very specific - the search area, the charges - I mean they didnt just charge him with suspected abduction. They have, what seems to be detailed information.

I was saying to Andrew, they wouldnt want to put me on the jury because whether he did it or not I woudlnt risk the chance and would just vote guilty anyway. Who gives a s**t - hes an admitted pervert who has already ruined two little boys lives - the only thing I hope is that it is the right man and something of Danny can be found so at least his parents have him back.

They found a shoe and brought in the dogs - so lets hope its not just an old shoe and it does belong to him - not that of course I want him to be dead but if he is, let those poor parents get their sons body back to bury.

It is a busy road, but under that bridge, its so dark and inconspicous. A bus was due and was late and Daniel put his hand up for it - the driver radioed in and was told not to pick him up, they woudl send another. 5 minutes later he was gone.

Now this is total supposition but I just picture, this paedophile with a pre-existing penchant for teenage boys, seeing Daniel with his red t-shirt on putting his hand up and the bus passing him.

Daniel was a nice, polite, young child of 13 - biggish or not there is no chance a child of this age would have any chance against a grown man who wanted to abduct him. Theres nothing "maddy" like about this story - he was abducted - they know that. The thing is finding out who and how.

Its every parent's nightmare. And those parents have and are doing more for child safety in Australia than anyone -their search has been tireless and they are always thinking of how they can help others and raise awareness. They give talks to schools continuously and are real people who have respected everyone around them - from the police, to the accused right the way through.

All of the persons of interest were known paedophiles I think - straight after the inquest they burnt an effigy used in the original reconstruction of the suspect P7 (who has now been arrested) and so I am sure there is a lot more we dont know about.

Originally Posted by odyssey

yea maybe. The spot is under a bridge and its quite a shadow there - I drive past a lot and always look at the memorial and think how the bridge sort of makes it hard to see.

But also, it seems strange to some, but its such a safe area here. Especially pre-Daniel.

So people tend to help each other and chat - I am not sure if anyone had stopped and said "hey mate, missed the bus? I can drop you down" that a child wouldnt go. seems unreal in this day and age but, living here, I feel a little like I have gone back in time. Especially years ago when I first came here.

There was a lot of press in the uk about attempted abductions where they ask the way somewhere and then show a map - child reaches in, gets grabbed and pulled into the car. I can remember my mum telling me never to go near any car.

I guess time will tell the story hopefully.

Originally Posted by odyssey

so maybe he did know him - this guys a lovely man:

His attraction to young boys started in primary school and by the time he was 18 he had preyed on 10 to maybe 30 children.

...........


He brutally molested the six-year-old, at one stage covering the child’s mouth as he cried loudly.

P7 left the boy to die.

The youngster was found that evening when he stumbled out of bushland naked and covered in dirt, cuts and bruises.

His eyes had haemorrhaged and his lung was punctured, injuries doctors said were caused by strangulation. He was so battered the policewoman who found him thought he had been run over by a car.

“I don’t have to worry about anything, I didn’t do it,” P7 told police when he was interviewed at the caravan park.

It was not until four days after the attack when police told him they had found DNA evidence on the boy that P7 confessed.

Originally Posted by Dorothy

So what does that have to do with Daniel?

Originally Posted by asprilla

Personally, I think it is highly relevant information.

Given the facts of the case, there is a high degree of probability that DM was abducted. We know that only a very tiny percentage of the population is capable of this kind of act, a very small number of people. We know for certain that the suspect is one of that number, as he has been tried and convicted on several occasions. The fact that the suspect has already shown himself to be a repeat offender after being punished several times in the past, indicates that there is a probability that he has/will repeat the offence.

If we agree that DM was abducted, and if we agree that only a very tiny percentage of the population would undertake the crime of abduction, then the suspect's past history is highly relevant because straight away it flags him as one of a very small number of people who are known (with certainty) to be capable of abduction.

Originally Posted by Dorothy

But do we agree he was abducted? Do the police have evidence that he was abducted? Witnesses who saw him being abducted or just the presumption?

Sorry, I know I sound argumentative, but these are questions I really have to ask before I'm willing to find someone guilty of a crime based on prior bad acts. I can only hope a jury will ask the same questions before passing judgement.

Originally Posted by asprilla

edit - as per my other post though, the reason that the past acts are relevant, is that it flags the suspect as someone who is capable of abduction. The police will certainly have based the arrest on something more substantial than what we have discussed in this thread.

Originally Posted by odyssey

they obviously have good information - they've foudn 3 human bones in the search site.

this is obviously not acting on a maybe although we dont know yet if it is daniel

Originally Posted by fish.01

DNA confirms it is Daniel...poor little fella...if it was my boy how could I cope...those poor people.