Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sep 2014 - #67

[sleepinoz]

Yes, and if that is indeed the case then the Daily Telegraph's statement that "Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame has refused to allow media access to any of the documents tendered during the inquest" holds true to the extent that the DT believes that it cannot publish the material.

Come to think of it, I believe the only times that I have read pieces quoting the FGM's statement in the MSM were in articles published in thethe Daily Mail Online.

I really do not understand the rationale for things being released by police either. For instance, I don't know why video snippets of Jubelin giving Spedding and Savage 'the third degree' is out there in the public without similar video of the foster parents -- presumably with faces pixelated -- receiving the same treatment from him which he claims to have occurred.

BBM - it doesn't hold true - as you can see I have post examples of where 'the media have access to documents tendered during the inquest" It's their choice not to publish IMO.

It doesn't say that the Coroner has given Public access - so IMO the DT is incorrect.

 

[Sillybilly]

The Daily Telegraph article is behind a paywall. All that is visible on the Google hit summary (below) is the partial sentence. We don't know what comes before or after, so it isn't reliable for discussion purposes.

1 result (0.38 seconds)
Search Results
Web results
Detectives resuming interviewing witness in William Tyrrell case
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au › news-story
3 hours ago — ... while Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame has refused to allow media access to any of the documents tendered during the inquest, ...

 

[JBowie]

The Daily Telegraph article is behind a paywall. All that is visible on the Google hit summary (below) is the partial sentence. We don't know what comes before or after, so it isn't reliable for discussion purposes.

1 result (0.38 seconds)
Search Results
Web results
Detectives resuming interviewing witness in William Tyrrell case
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au › news-story
3 hours ago — ... while Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame has refused to allow media access to any of the documents tendered during the inquest, ...

No problem.

<modsnip: Referenced post was removed>

Happy to post entire contents, if that is desired.

 

[Sillybilly]

Happy to post entire contents, if that is desired.

<rsbm>

We can't do that. It's a violation of copyright law.

 

[Sillybilly]

Everyone, please review Websleuths Copyright Rules.

 

[Jaded325594]

BBM - it doesn't hold true - as you can see I have post examples of where 'the media have access to documents tendered during the inquest" It's their choice not to publish IMO.

It doesn't say that the Coroner has given Public access - so IMO the DT is incorrect.

Really? Who would that benefit? They literally exist to sell news.

 

[SouthAussie]

Really? Who would that benefit? They literally exist to sell news.

It would probably benefit the police. They have said numerous times that it is an ongoing investigation.

imo

 

[Blues Clues]

Really? Who would that benefit? They literally exist to sell news.

In July 2020 the Deputy Coroner released 48 documents. The number of documents published by media falls a long way short of 48.

William Tyrrell case: NSW Police doubted key witness evidence, documents reveal (brisbanetimes.com.au)

 

[SouthAussie]

In July 2020 the Deputy Coroner released 48 documents. The number of documents published by media falls a long way short of 48.

William Tyrrell case: NSW Police doubted key witness evidence, documents reveal (brisbanetimes.com.au)

Sounds to me that the media have been given access, so the documents are in the "public domain".
But they perhaps have been given limitations on what they can publish until the investigation is complete/the inquest is over.

imo

 

[JBowie]

In July 2020 the Deputy Coroner released 48 documents. The number of documents published by media falls a long way short of 48.

William Tyrrell case: NSW Police doubted key witness evidence, documents reveal (brisbanetimes.com.au)

Thank you for that very useful link.

My problem with this issue is with the word 'released'. Released to whom and under what -- if any -- conditions?

The media picks and chooses what it wants to publish from these 'released' documents. We don't get to see whole documents to be able to read them in context.

I guess I need to write to the coroner's office for clarification?

 

[JBowie]

Sounds to me that the media have been given access, so the documents are in the "public domain".
But they perhaps have been given limitations on what they can publish until the investigation is complete/the inquest is over.

imo

I understand your point but 'public domain' for me precludes limitations on use. If something is published in the public domain, then it's out there for all and sundry.

If there are provisos attached to these documents then I would call it limited release, or something similar.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Thank you for that very useful link.

My problem with this issue is with the word 'released'. Released to whom and under what -- if any -- conditions?

The media picks and chooses what it wants to publish from these 'released' documents. We don't get to see whole documents to be able to read them in context.

I guess I need to write to the coroner's office for clarification?

Yes, perhaps, and also WS mods, in relation to what can be published on WS

 

[they'll get you]

Officially available to Joe Public from where?

Most of this information has been posted throughout these threads.
A lot of information has been deleted from MSM so luckily most of us have these on file already.

 

[JBowie]

OK, I trawled the NSW Coroner's website and here are some extracts as regards accessing documents:

When a Coroner investigates a death or a fire or explosion, the court gathers a range of documents which make up the coronial file. The majority of Coroner's findings following an inquest are available to the public. However, individual documents in a coronial file are only available to persons or organisations with an appropriate interest in the coronial matter.

[... apart from next of kin or family ...] Documents may also be released to:

• a statutory body for a statutory function;
• a member of the police force for law enforcement;
• researchers, for research approved by an ethics committee; or
• anyone who can satisfy the Coroner that they have an appropriate interest to receive the information.

Who decides my application?

The Coroner managing the coronial case will decide whether to approve the application. In some cases the Coroner will impose a condition on release of a document.

If a Coroner refuses an application they will provide reasons, such as where it may hinder an ongoing criminal investigation or the person who applied has an insufficient interest.


Where can the media inspect court files and exhibits once an application has been
approved?

For matters in the Coroners Court on that day, media should access the exhibit or court file
through the court officer or counsel assisting in the courtroom. If this is not able to be
accommodated, media should attend the court registry on level one to enquire about access.

In these instances, access is usually given in the courtroom and can only be accommodated
during court breaks at morning tea, lunch or at the end of the day.

For access to finalised matters, media can attend the court registry on level one once
approval has been given. The date and time to attend should be pre-approved with the
court’s registrar.

Access to coronial documents

 

[JBowie]

Most of this information has been posted throughout these threads.
A lot of information has been deleted from MSM so luckily most of us have these on file already.

Deleted from MSM as in purged completely, or archived (i.e. available to researchers via archives)?

 

[SouthAussie]

A Sydney law firm (one of the 'Big 6') has written a piece about accessing Coronial files, and the considerations that go into the release of files. For those who may be interested.

IMO as the Coroner has allowed the 48 items to be released to the media, then the 48 items will be able to be spoken about by MSM at the appropriate time.

The protection of personal information in coronial proceedings - Knowledge - Clayton Utz

 

[purpleandgreen]

Deleted from MSM as in purged completely, or archived (i.e. available to researchers via archives)?

I guess the only way to find out is to research / sleuth. IMO

 

[they'll get you]

Sounds to me that the media have been given access, so the documents are in the "public domain".
But they perhaps have been given limitations on what they can publish until the investigation is complete/the inquest is over.

imo

It was in very early on when a frustrated journalist decided to speak up about William. It was obvious they were told not to.
We already knew but the majority of the public didn’t.

It’s the great unwashed that are treated like mushrooms, most journos know.

 

[they'll get you]

Deleted from MSM as in purged completely, or archived (i.e. available to researchers via archives)?

No, gone for good. some things that slipped through the cracks were quickly deleted.

Most of us have them.

 

[Detective Willy]

The 2 most frustrating things about this case to me are:

1) the 000 call from the FM when she clearly tells the operator that nobody else was around and there were no suspicious cars around. She does not hesitate with her response and is adamant nobody else was in the vicinity of this large open property when William went missing.

2) the FM failing to mention that she went for a "drive" in the FGM car in early interviews. Why was this not mentioned?

It will be interesting if the tests on the FGM vehicle show any of Williams DNA inside the boot or inside the car. How this vehicle was not tested when William first disappeared is a disgrace to the NSW Police and the detectives in charge of the investigation at the start.

Also IMO Jubelin should have picked up that the FGM was never tested and had this car tested at some stage when he was running this investigation. I am sure this would be a big regret to him.

It was only after the FM changed her story some time later about the 2 suspicious cars and it was then reported by the media for the Public to believe that William was snatched by a pedophile - this part has always troubled me.

Fingers crossed that the new evidence that will be presented at the Coronial Inquest can help solve this mystery.