Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #68

[JBowie]

I am not sure that is the case, in this particular instance.

"The charges relate to evidence the foster mother gave at a hearing before the NSW Crime Commission, and are not related to the operations of NSW Police."
Tyrrell's foster mum charged with lying (AAP)

As regards that piece by AAP I would have to ask "Says who?" to the bit I have bolded above. In the AAP article it is not enclosed in quotes and is not directly attributed to a police spokesperson.

In fact I would like to read the original police statement as published by NSW Police, as opposed to a rehash by journalists.

Anyone have a link to that statement?

 

[Jaded325594]

As regards that piece by AAP I would have to ask "Says who?" to the bit I have bolded above. In the AAP article it is not enclosed in quotes and is not directly attributed to a police spokesperson.

In fact I would like to read the original police statement as published by NSW Police, as opposed to a rehash by journalists.

Anyone have a link to that statement?

Weird wording isn't it? This is what SMH says.

“On Tuesday, Strike Force Rosann detectives issued a Future Court Attendance Notice to a 56-year-old woman for knowingly [giving] false or misleading evidence at hearing,” police said in a statement on Thursday.

“She remains before the courts. Investigations under Strike Force Rosann continue.”

That charge relates to evidence she gave to the Crime Commission about William’s disappearance from a home in Kendall on the NSW Mid North Coast while the family were on holiday in September 2014.

The Crime Commission works alongside NSW Police to investigate homicides and other serious offences and has the power to compel people to give evidence.

https://amp-smh-com-au.cdn.ampproje...ng-evidence-intimidation-20220414-p5adgy.html

 

[Jaded325594]

Double post

 

[JBowie]

Weird wording isn't it? This is what SMH says.

“On Tuesday, Strike Force Rosann detectives issued a Future Court Attendance Notice to a 56-year-old woman for knowingly [giving] false or misleading evidence at hearing,” police said in a statement on Thursday.

“She remains before the courts. Investigations under Strike Force Rosann continue.”

That charge relates to evidence she gave to the Crime Commission about William’s disappearance from a home in Kendall on the NSW Mid North Coast while the family were on holiday in September 2014.

The Crime Commission works alongside NSW Police to investigate homicides and other serious offences and has the power to compel people to give evidence.

https://amp-smh-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/william-tyrrell-s-foster-mother-charged-with-giving-misleading-evidence-intimidation-20220414-p5adgy.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16499237938917&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/william-tyrrell-s-foster-mother-charged-with-giving-misleading-evidence-intimidation-20220414-p5adgy.html

Yep, another unquoted statement, this time by Sally Rawsthorne of the SMH.

Let's see exactly what NSW Police themselves said in relation to this matter. It must be published somewhere that journos access.

 

[bfew]

Yep, another unquoted statement, this time by Sally Rawsthorne of the SMH.

Let's see exactly what NSW Police said in relation to this matter. It must be published somewhere that journos access.

It's not at News - NSW Police Public Site
Or NSW Police FB/Twitter account.

So probably a media release (only to the media).

 

[Awakening]

“On Tuesday, Strike Force Rosann detectives issued a Future Court Attendance Notice to a 56-year-old woman for knowingly [giving] false or misleading evidence at hearing,” police said in a statement on Thursday.

That charge relates to evidence she gave to the Crime Commission about William’s disappearance from a home in Kendall on the NSW Mid North Coast while the family were on holiday in September 2014.

The Crime Commission works alongside NSW Police to investigate homicides and other serious offences and has the power to compel people to give evidence.

https://amp-smh-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/william-tyrrell-s-foster-mother-charged-with-giving-misleading-evidence-intimidation-20220414-p5adgy.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16499237938917&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/william-tyrrell-s-foster-mother-charged-with-giving-misleading-evidence-intimidation-20220414-p5adgy.html

BBM - so this means it is about William's case?

 

[JBowie]

BBM - so this means it is about William's case?

If we can believe this journalist, as opposed to another who asserts that it isn't. That's why I want to see the original, unvarnished Police statement on this matter.

 

[JBowie]

It's not at News - NSW Police Public Site
Or NSW Police FB/Twitter account.

So probably a media release (only to the media).

I looked on those sites, too.

Can't imagine why there should be a 'media only' site. After all, if a statement is released for publication, then it ought to be available to anyone who wants to hear it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

 

[SouthAussie]

If we can believe this journalist, as opposed to another who asserts that it isn't. That's why I want to see the original, unvarnished Police statement on this matter.

Apparently (in quotes) all that was said is .....

"On Tuesday 12 April, Strike Force Rosann detectives issued a future court attendance notice to a 56-year-old woman for knowingly giving false or misleading evidence at a hearing," NSW Police said in a statement.
"She remains before the courts.
"Investigations under Strike Force Rosann are continuing."

The article does say that it was before the Crime Commission and is not related to NSW police operations. But that part is not in quotes.

William Tyrrell's foster mum charged with lying

I imagine that the rest is 'Chinese Whispers'. Journos going to their police sources to see what they think and say, or don't say.

(I realise the article is probably paywalled, so I have only given the exact quoted police statement. Hope that's okay.)

 

[k-mac]

well well well.....
whats new this week.

STALKING....INTIMIDATION....NOW MISLEADING AN INVESTIGATION.....
why would one be charged with such offenses??

the truth is getting near......

boom boom boom!

MOO

 

[Underbelly]

...

No, they’re identity has been completely protected, I don’t know who they are or what they look like.

Legally their identity might be 'completely' protected but in reality it's common knowledge and easy to find out through legal means. I'd suggest that many members of WS know their names.

 

[JBowie]

I imagine that the rest is 'Chinese Whispers'. Journos going to their police sources to see what they think and say, or don't say.

Chinese Whispers or agenda-driven complete fabrication. Again, I don't know why the original NSW Police statement that AAP and the papers are quoting is not locatable online.

 

[Underbelly]

Agree that they deserve to be presumed innocent until proven guilty- but there’s just something about the current investigations and these little snippets of information being reported in the press, a charge bag growing and growing, names being left on the court listings, that leads me to believe the police are confident about a result and are just gathering more and more info. Plus applying pressure to do that.
If they’ve gone to this much trouble they’ve left themselves open to get into a lot of trouble and public backlash if it leads to nothing. I realise it has happened before, but you just about put money on it they won’t let it happen again. Fair chance someone high up, has said you better get a result or we’ll all look like fools. IMO

There’s nothing worse for a govt department than getting bad press, it always results in action

TBH I think LE will look a bit silly regardless of what happens - if the FFP's are finally charged and found guilty of the crime LE should have caught them sooner, if not guilty it's more people that LE harassed added to the pile.

 

[k-mac]

I understand, however, just a hypothetical, if it came out they were guilty of doing something to William, they have been protected for over 7 years & are continuing to be protected & I just don’t think it is fair, all imo

your right.
its not fair.
Ask bill spedding and co how they enjoyed their annonomity and innocent until proven guilty....

And he wasnt the last one to see the child alive or even be in proximity of the child that day.

It stinks to high heaven the protection of these covert suspect individuals.

Because the rules should apply to everyone...or no one.

Personally IMO everyone actually involved that day should be heavily and openly rightfully scrutinised.

MOO

 

[JBowie]

TBH I think LE will look a bit silly regardless of what happens - if the FFP's are finally charged and found guilty of the crime LE should have caught them sooner, if not guilty they're more people that LE harassed added to the pile.

NSW Police have certainly not covered themselves in glory in this case. As Jubelin (and maybe others) have said, it should have been referred to Homicide much earlier to bring in the big guns while the trail is still warm.

This is the sort or problem that can occur in quiet backwaters. The comparatively inexperienced first responders 'do their best' but next level experience and resources are required from the get-go.

 

[k-mac]

Chinese Whispers or agenda-driven complete fabrication. Again, I don't know why the original NSW Police statement that AAP and the papers are quoting is not locatable online.

Every major publication in the country is running the story.

Yep definately probably chinese whispers.

 

[k-mac]

Legally their identity might be 'completely' protected but in reality it's common knowledge and easy to find out through legal means. I'd suggest that many members of WS know their names.

But its not smeared all over the front page of the papers is it.
They enjoy relative annonomity.
All others connected to the case havent had the luxury of.

 

[JBowie]

I understand, however, just a hypothetical, if it came out they were guilty of doing something to William, they have been protected for over 7 years & are continuing to be protected & I just don’t think it is fair, all imo

The idea is to protect the child or children.

Frankly, if we assume the FPs have done nothing criminal, then (IMO) I don't think that the suppression orders are helping the FPs one bit; in fact just the opposite. By being masked it gives the impression -- rightly or wrongly -- that they have something to hide. And that invites nasty behavior from people such as has been reported, such as drive-bys of their house.

If it were me in that position, and I was not guilty of anything, then I'd want to go public and give interviews openly to state my case, and to complain openly of police harassment if I felt that is what was occurring to me. But that's me. I am not the FPs. They may think otherwise.

 

[SouthAussie]

If it were me in that position, and I was not guilty of anything, then I'd want to go public and give interviews openly to state my case, and to complain openly of police harassment if I felt that is what was occurring to me. But that's me. I am not the FPs. They may think otherwise.

I wonder what the penalty is for breaching FACS laws (by revealing yourself publicly to all and sundry)?

Do you lose your foster status? Do you get a slap on the hand? Something in between?
FACS seems to protect their laws vigorously - judging by the Supreme Court case where the court upheld the privacy, and deemed that William was likely deceased therefore he could be identified, according to FACS laws.

 

[JBowie]

I wonder what the penalty is for breaching FACS laws (by revealing yourself publicly to all and sundry)?

Do you lose your foster status? Do you get a slap on the hand? Something in between?
FACS seems to protect their laws vigorously - judging by the Supreme Court case where the court upheld the privacy, and deemed that William was likely deceased therefore he could be identified, according to FACS laws.

Good question. Given their circumstances now as regards foster parent status, I think the more compelling concern would be violating a court-imposed suppression order.