Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sep 2014 - #65

[JBowie]

All of this discussion about access visits just goes to underscore the emotional tug of war experienced by kids in such situations, especially when there's clearly animosity between the adults involved.

 

[winterberry]

Toxic vibes. JMO

Yes, possessive vibes too IMO.

I think it's quite clear that there were some issues around posessiveness of the children in the FMs case. Maybe some of that is understandable because she had the lion's share of responsibility for raising them and felt like they were hers. I'm not above giving compassion to her position because I think it would be extremely difficult to raise children with all that comes with that role, with the micromanagement of the FACS guidelines, etc.

However, it's troubling that it looks like she felt entitled to ownership of the children and took a position of power and control with them, and actively discouraged their relationships with the BF. This isn't in the best interest of the children no matter how much she felt she was entitled to that position.

IMO only.

 

[k-mac]

These people publically questioned why PS was no longer a poi and continued to cast suspicion on him.

They now are tasting their own medicine and I am guessing it is bitter

Paid talking heads that have gotten close to the last people to see William have tainted opinions that absolutely have no more weight than those who are here for William and his sister only

JMO

All the previous POI's were put through the ringer here and when questioned the emotional toll it may take on them was reminded constantly...but this is about WILLIAM....shouldn't ones feelings be a side note to get to the bottom of it??

guess it depends WHO the POI of the day is as to the rules of empathy.

MOO

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Just listened to the interview..."these are professional people from a decent area of Sydney" Wow.

Oh jeez .. listening now.

 

[ollijack]

IMO it is likely only the two adults present at 48 Benaroon Drive after 9.00am know what occurred with William, and from words spoken by the FFC (links to many interviews conducted with media representatives have been posted in the WS Media 'no discussion' thread - page 7), she was with William for substantial periods of time on the morning of 12/9/2014.

Yes yes yes whoever did this is an evil human being. No excuse. Never ever ever. iMO

 

[winterberry]

Maybe her suspect is closer to home than Chris realises..

Be awful if she is innocent but surely they wouldn’t have done it again??

IMO If she's guilty the list of high profile people with egg on their faces is exponentially expanding.

I wonder how their egos will cope if it turns out they were duped.

 

[antechinusRAWR]

It's entirely possible that the incident at the picnic was accurately described *and* neither of the bio parents ever met the FFC

If the FFC suddenly appeared & addressed her complaints to the person supervising the visit then immediately left without interacting in any way with the bio parents, then all the statements could be true

 

[k-mac]

I just made myself very vulnerable and shared something about myself where I was stigmatised, endured emotional trauma, and suffered professionally, all because of another person’s lies.

Honestly, did you afford Bill Spedding and Paul Savage the same level of empathy that you do the fosters?

But that was different.

Just because... I guess...??

Have no idea actually.

But you are correct.
Anybody who questioned the emotional feelings of these men were vilified...right here.

I am ok with that....HOWEVER the same rules apply to everybody.

moo

 

[winterberry]

All the previous POI's were put through the ringer here and when questioned the emotional toll it may take on them was reminded constantly...but this is about WILLIAM....shouldn't ones feelings be a side note to get to the bottom of it??

guess it depends WHO the POI of the day is as to the rules of empathy.

MOO

I think it's a class issue, sadly. None of the other POIs were wealthy executives so IMO people feel entitled to trash them.

I can't imagine how different this investigation might have been if the FF were poor and lived in Mt Druit.

IMO only.

 

[Marg944]

Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law


Trial By Ordeal? Polygraph Testing In Australia

1. 
   What are Polygraphs?
   
   
2. A Polygraph or "lie detector" is "an instrument used to measure the autonomic nervous system responses in terms of blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate and galvanic skin response. In theory when a person tells a lie, fear of detection causes uncontrollable reactions in these physiological areas which the polygraph indicates with inked lines on a moving paper scroll". [1]

1. There is considerable debate about the validity and accuracy of lie detector tests in the questioning of crime suspects and others[2] and indeed about the validity of the technique as a whole.[3]
   
   
   
2. The most obvious concern is that lie detectors do not actually tell you whether the subject has lied but rather feed on physiological responses recorded during the questioning of a person.

1. The admissibility of polygraph tests has not yet been considered by the High Court of Australia. It has however been raised in inferior courts.

1. Statutory Restrictions on Polygraphs
   1. With the exception of the New South Wales Lie Detectors Act (1983), there is no legislation in Australia specifically prohibiting the admission of lie detector evidence in criminal trials. It would be interesting to see how a Court outside of New South Wales would respond to a case where all parties consented to the admission of lie detector evidence interpreted by an experienced well qualified and recognised Psychiatrist or Psychologist.
      
      
      
   2. It may be the case that a Prosecutor who doubts the veracity of a complainant's account may wish to invite a complainant to undertake a lie detector test. The defence may well support such an approach, as a finding that the complainant "had lied" on the lie detector test may well persuade the prosecution to proceed no further with the case.
      
      
      
   3. Such examination of the complainant would be a double-edged sword. If the complainant "passed" the lie detector test, then if this evidence was deemed admissible in the criminal trial, the defendant's position could be severely prejudiced. It would therefore seem unlikely that defence lawyers would support the admissions polygraph evidence, unless the accused or other defence witnesses had "passed" the test, or prosecution witnesses had "failed it".

1. Conclusion
   
   
   
2. It is doubtful that results from lie detector tests will ever be held admissible in Australian criminal courts. While proponents of polygraph evidence claim that test results are a definitive indication of the veracity of an accused's denial of guilt, such the results are hearsay and amount to a self-serving statement which is inadmissible at both common law, and pursuant to statutory rules of evidence. Further, there does not appear to be any general acceptance of the validity and reliability of polygraphs within the Australian scientific community.

1. Until that time, Australian courts will continue to rely on that tried, trusted and time-honoured common law lie detector, the 12 men and women of the jury

<FONT SIZE=+3>Trial By Ordeal? Polygraph Testing In Australia</FONT> - [2000] MurUEJL 6[/QUOTE]
Author: Ben Clarke LLB (Tasmania) LLM (Bristol)
Lecturer, Notre Dame University of Australia School of Law
Issue: Volume 7, Number 1 (March 2000)
*******
NSW Government - NSW Legislation
Lie Detectors Act 1983 No 62
Current version for 6 July 2009 to date (accessed 29 November 2021 at 13:24)
Output etc not admissible in evidence
(1) Subject to subsection (2), anything that is, or purports to be:
(a) output from an instrument or apparatus when used in the commission of an offence against this Act referred to in section 5, or
(b) an analysis of, or opinion as to the effect of, any such output,
is inadmissible as evidence before any court or any person or body of persons authorised by law or by consent of parties to receive and examine evidence
View - NSW legislation

 

[Jaded325594]

My family member has custody of her son. The father and his family can only have supervised visits with the child at a play centre by a reputable and licensed organisation.

There are strict rules regarding drop off times and pick up times so as both families are not there at the same time and don't cross paths.

Never, ever would my family member be permitted to turn up and watch or interact in any way and she would have been told to leave if she did.

For some reason the supervisor in this situation allowed it to happen. If their case was before the court, both the Judge and court psychologist would have been concerned about FFC actions. Unfortunately it is too late now. JMO

The arrangements for contact aren't necessarily the same for each family though

 

[Limaes]

IMO paternal Gran isn’t a reliable source because much of her claims in MSM contradicted testimony from Mum and Dad at the inquest. Didn’t she also say she’d had a phone call with Dad on the morning William disappeared, yet he said he did not speak to her? MOO.

I’d also be surprised if she was authorised to attend contact sessions tbh. JMO.

No I don't think he said he didn't speak to her. IIRC he explained why he said he didn't feel right when speaking to her. JMO

 

[Mrs G Norris]

OK just finished this, this is interesting in that it demonstrates that Chris Smith doesn't think people that he knows and has coffeed with could have committed such a crime, yes I'm sure we all feel that way until something happens and our delusions are shattered.

I understand why he doesn't trust police, but it's a bit blinded in that he seems to forget that GJ was in charge of the case when all the BS stuff went down, and this is a completely different group who had nothing to do with that, yet he somehow gives GJ a pass on all that .. maybe he has coffeed with him too?

All this commentary is interesting, but they know about as much as we do at this stage by the sounds of it.

Why Chris Smith 'doesn't buy' investigation of William Tyrrell's foster parents - 2GB

 

[Limaes]

The arrangements for contact aren't necessarily the same for each family though

I know. But they still have procedures to follow regardless of the issues.

 

[sniffsniffcough]

wait a minute---it was FM that jumped into the visit to give treats? I thought it was to ask BF not to give WT lolly's because of his supposed ADHD?

I have no problem with her standing in the background and watching the visits, because of the time they took him and ran. I'd watch too if it was my foster kid.

Yes the foster carer also fed William her foster child what appears to be sugar-laden sweets and treats
William Tyrrell's Family Vows To Never Stop Looking For 'Our Precious Little Boy'


Child's remains found near a dumped suitcase may belong to missing toddler William Tyrell

Below photo shows 3 candles so it is William's last birthday 78 days before he vanished!



There are other photos of William eating what appears to be chocolate cake (with him smearing such all over his mouth area) that are on the 60minutes video available to view on the WS Media 'no discussion' thread. - page 7

Seems to be a bit of contradiction as to what the FFC said she does not permit William to consume and to what he actually consumed regarding what appears to be sugar-laden food IMO.

 

[winterberry]

OK just finished this, this is interesting in that it demonstrates that Chris Smith doesn't think people that he knows and has coffeed with could have committed such a crime, yes I'm sure we all feel that way until something happens and our delusions are shattered.

I understand why he doesn't trust police, but it's a bit blinded in that he seems to forget that GJ was in charge of the case when all the BS stuff went down, and this is a completely different group who had nothing to do with that, yet he somehow gives GJ a pass on all that .. maybe he has coffeed with him too?

All this commentary is interesting, but they know about as much as we do at this stage by the sounds of it.

Why Chris Smith 'doesn't buy' investigation of William Tyrrell's foster parents - 2GB

As far as I'm aware, most people who commit criminal acts do the best to hide them.

I'm always surprised when I hear people say things like "I just can't believe this happened in our street" etc, as though crime only happens in streets called "murder street".

If criminals walked around with flashing neon signs on their heads, there wouldn't be a need for police investigation in the first place.

 

[HilaryHormone]

No I don't think he said he didn't speak to her. IIRC he explained why he said he didn't feel right when speaking to her. JMO

He said he didn’t remember, my bad.

William Tyrrell inquest: Biological father had a 'feeling' day he went missing | Daily Mail Online

The junior counsel assisting the inquest, Tracey Stevens, asked William's dad why he didn't go to his usual construction job that day.

He replied: 'I didn't feel like going to work that day, I was dealing with things and underlying issues'.

Ms Stevens then asked if William's dad recalled having any phone conversations. He didn't remember making a call 'at all'.

Ms Stevens then read out a police statement made by William's grandmother in the days after the child vanished.

The grandmother said: 'I woke up around 4.30am as I usually left around that time to go to work.

'(William's father) rang me around 5am which was his usual time to leave for work.

'He rang me and told me something doesn't feel right and he wasn't going to work.

'He kept saying something wasn't right and he wasn't going to work.'

Ms Stevens then asked William's dad: 'Are you saying you don't remember?'

'Not really, not that particular detail,' he replied.

 

[JayWill]

The arrangements for contact aren't necessarily the same for each family though

That is true. I once supervised custody visitation for an ex tenant of mine. Her husband would come to my house and at first, parked in my driveway until I requested he leave, but then parked across the road and walked up and down on the grass verge outside my house. It scared both the mother and I.

 

[Awakening]

Is there anyone who knows more about polygraphs and feelings of guilt?

I could be completely wrong but I thought there was a risk of failing a polygraph if you felt anxious or responsible in some way.

If my child went missing then I would feel very guilty, so would I fail a polygraph?

If I was asked something like "are you responsible for your child's disappearance" I would feel responsible even if I hadn't been involved in his disappearance.

 

[katydid23]

Sure, and I'd say it's a common issue in many situations, even just visiting extended family.

I'm not sure who did what in this case at all.

I can say, it's part and parcel of being a carer in the system that you smile and roll your eyes and deal with the behaviour patiently as per usual.

Also knowing food is very important in bonding and the bio parents have choices too.

I would feel like it could be an indication of being unreasonable like not understanding your role, or indications of poor character, if there was much fuss or force around things that are to be expected imo.

JMO

Another common issue in this triad of family components is that both side--foster and birth---may tend to see things differently and even in a distorted way.

These interactions are very emotionally charged and the BF may have thought or felt that she was interfering, jumping in etc, from his POV. But maybe from her point of view, she was waiting for pick up, was walking to the meeting place and saw them as it was ending? We don't know how it really went down.

His version doesn't make much sense to me if it is true that TWO supervisors were there to monitor the visit. How would they let her pop in and interfere if there are two workers in charge?

as an example of differing points of view during visitation---

when our daughter was just about to turn one, we invited her birth father to meet up at the beach for the 4th of July. It was a beautiful hot day and we all had a good time, as far as I knew..

A few days later our social worker told me that he had reported to her that he felt that we were 'worried' about her skin getting darker because I kept putting sun block on her at the beach...He thought it was disrespectful of us to worry about if she got more tan or not...

Ok, our daughter is half Jamaican and half Swedish. He , being Jamaican, had no idea that someone might need to put lotion on an 11 month old child, on a very hot beach day. Although she does have darker skin than many babies, she is also half Swedish, and she does burn.

So from his point of view, we were acting one way that he saw as being disrespectful. But it was not at all what my actions were about. I didn't want her to be sun burned as she had never been in a swim suit under the hot sun before that day.

So I have to take the BF's complaint with a slight grain of salt. Did it really happen in the exact way he felt it did?