sonlymewalter

Not sure mate but I got the feeling they knew who he was or maybe it's just how the news article was worded

Yep, these are the bits of the story that are missing and I guess will come out once the trial begins. There must be something that has become evident to lead the police to the charges and to looking for Daniels remains in that area. Watch this space I guess.......

Sherlock Holmes

All I've heard is that the suspect was a "person of interest" in the initial stages of the enquiry years back.

Scubaemma

I'm assuming (knowing nothing about it professionally at all) that just because he is contesting the charges doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't given them info in it.

For instance that guy who killed all those kids in Norway recently has said he did it, said he did kill all those kids, but he's still contesting it and pleading not guilty because he's saying it wasn't a criminal act, it needed doing (or something crazy like that).

So just because this guy (who has been named now) is contesting the charges doesn't mean he's necessarily saying he doesn't know anything about it and they've got the wrong guy. (Although he might be saying that for all I know.). If that makes sense.

sonlymewalter

That's one helluva crazy mixed up post- but I understood every word of it

moneypenny20

It does strangely enough. If that's how it is, then it makes him even more of a bastard though. By pleading not guilty (if he really is) means the family have to sit through an entire trial for no reason. Anyway I will stay away until someone tells me all the facts are in as I hate the public mutterings about it when they only know a fraction of the truth.

asprilla

I think most people are just as confused over this. I dug out my Sherlock Holmes hat and smoking pipe over the weekend, and here is my theory....please shoot it down in flames if it seems far fetched...

First, what we are fairly sure is true:
a) The suspect was questioned immediately after the disappearance. Some circumstantial evidence pointed towards him being guilty.
b) Over time, more and more circumstantial evidence was gathered pointing towards the accused. The views of investigating officers would be firming over time, narrowing down suspects. Yet still no hard evidence.
c) The inquest occurred Oct-April 2011. The suspect's alibi was shown to be incorrect. Post April 2011, I think that the police are 99% certain of the suspect's guilt.

Yet there is no smoking gun. Police need to find the body, and they need to link the location to the suspect. How do they do that? They need to get the suspect to reveal the location.

We also know 2 more crucial pieces of info. 1) The suspect was lured back to Qld in a covert op by police. 2) Police are searching a very specific, fairly small area.

Is it possible that a GPS transmitter/homing device was placed on the suspect or on his vehicle? When the suspect headed back into Qld, the police may have followed from a distance into the state forest, and then apprehended him at the site itself.

Why would the suspect return to the location? The only reason I can think of, would be that he was concerned that the body would be uncovered/had already been uncovered.

asprilla

Perhaps I should be doing this too... please delete my post above, if you feel (for any reason at all) that we shouldn't be speculating on this.

regards

moneypenny20

Well we shouldn't but it's human nature to. It's the knee jerk lynch mob mentality I hate. The police have arrested someone so let's string him up by his balls before the prison gates have had a chance to be locked. Doesn't help anyone, especially the family.

Scubaemma

It was after midnight, I'd just finished a busy late shift at work. That's my excuse anyway

Dorothy

Shouldn't the title of this thread be "So it seems they have a suspect in Daniel's disappearance?"

I would think that without a body there is no evidence that he's actually dead. And without a post mortem exam there's no way to say how he died (if he's actually dead). If nobody saw him being abducted is it not possible he left on his own? (unlikely, but still possible).


Yes, I know I'll be slated for this, but it seems that a lot of people have concluded that this suspect is guilty without knowing all the facts.

IvanM

A suspect with enough evidence to charge. There were multiple suspects. This is where the press has to be careful not to prejudice a trial. The worst outcome would be for the press to muck up the trial and we still have a risk to children on the loose.

New media users should also think before they post.

Scubaemma

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

sonlymewalter

it's a bloody forum ..... everyone jumps to conclusions at some time or another, whether it's being bitchy about someone or speculation about a suspected murderer .......everyone has an opinion.....except me

Yeh right admit it. you're as daft as a brush like the rest of us mate

cresta57

You wouldn't want to live in bloody Nambour would you I always thought those folks looked weird, especially the truckies from Nambour
Hey! Jumping to conclusions is the only exercise I get

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.