Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #69

[JLZ]

The time on the CCTV at the tennis club was set 9 minutes earlier then the actual time. So if FFs car was on the CCTV at 8.45 (for example) it was actually 8.54.

"Richard Donoghue's BMW was still at the tennis club at 9.42am, which police say is the real time and the CCTV was set nine minutes early"

Did William Tyrrell disappear earlier than reported? Why CCTV could prove crucial | Daily Mail Online

Richard Donoghue is wrong about Wendy and the phone call, but could he be right about the time he left the tennis club? This would make the camera not nine but about thirty minutes out. Then MFC might have left FGM's about 9:10.

 

[JLZ]

JMO: Inquiry asks e.g.:-
MFC - were you in that vehicle (their 4WD) that was seen om tennis courts CCTV at 8.40am?
Answer: NO
FFC - were you in that vehicle (their 4WD) that was seen on tennis courts CCTV at 8.40am?
Answer: NO

Conclusion: Both are lying.

That conclusion is clearly invalid. It's perfectly possible that at least one of them is telling the truth.

 

[JBowie]

It's very hard to charge someone for saying something incorrect in just a statement, because people can amend their statements. Exactly as you said - they would put it to someone that they are lying, and run through the contradictory evidence with them - giving them the chance to change their story based on it. Even if the person stood fast, before the matter the statement is about actually gets to court, a charge is almost out of the question. Same with an open coronial matter: they'd have to call the witness first.

If a POI deliberately lies to police about a significant matter in a criminal investigation, then I would expect police to then proceed to charge them with the crime under investigation, either as a major actor or an accomplice.

Had Gary Jubelin decided by whatever means that the foster parents were lying to him, then I believe that he would have charged them pronto.

Giving evidence in the NSW Crime Commission carries greater obligations under oath, so if a person persists with the same apparent lie that it's in their statement it is easier to bring the charge. And they don't have to put alternative evidence to you, is my understanding.

Yes, I understand the weight of the CC process, but I'm not sure how being charged with giving false testimony will necessarily lead to other charges that could not have already been laid given that police apparently already knew the statements made were allegedly false.

I'm inclined to think that, under CC questioning, the FPs maybe made new claims that police then determined to be provably false, in their view.

I'd love to know what prompted a referral to the CC in the first place.

Edit: Unless police would then take the line that "OK, you have been charged and (subsequently) found guilty of lying to us about [whatever], so we (and the DPP) are now prepared to charge you with [whatever] in relation to WT."

All speculation, of course!

 

[iiiii's]

I was ferreting around for some more information on this conflicting CCTV and mobile phone records situation and I came across something I had no read before. The FF's police statement was not taken until a week after William's disappearance, which was criticised at the inquest.

William Tyrrell inquest: Foster mum told 'different stories'

I can only give my opinion that the FC's both gave statements on the 14/9/14. What is written in the article about when the MFC's 1st statement is surprising to me because it indicates that at the time of the inquest, the police seem to be under the impression that they had not taken a statement from the MFC on the date I indicated above.????!!!!????

 

[Akai]

Richard Donoghue is wrong about Wendy and the phone call, but could he be right about the time he left the tennis club? This would make the camera not nine but about thirty minutes out. Then MFC might have left FGM's about 9:10.

I was thinking about this and just researching it now. They had other footage in the tennis club itself that showed him going to his car at 9:42am and then his car pulling out of the parking area a minute later. Did William Tyrrell disappear earlier than reported? Why CCTV could prove crucial | Daily Mail Online

Could both sets of cameras have been wrong? Could the CCTV have actually been erratic in its timing? (I have absolutely zero idea of whether the latter is possible and would love to be enlightened.)

 

[JLZ]

I was thinking about this and just researching it now. They had other footage in the tennis club itself that showed him going to his car at 9:42am and then his car pulling out of the parking area a minute later. Did William Tyrrell disappear earlier than reported? Why CCTV could prove crucial | Daily Mail Online

Could both sets of cameras have been wrong? Could the CCTV have actually been erratic in its timing? (I have absolutely zero idea of whether the latter is possible and would love to be enlightened.)

I take it then that there's a ten minute difference between the two cameras and they assume an allowance of one minute for Richard's travel between them; leaving nine minutes. But are they quite sure, in retrospect, that the inside camera was correct?

 

[JBowie]

Could both sets of cameras have been wrong? Could the CCTV have actually been erratic in its timing? (I have absolutely zero idea of whether the latter is possible and would love to be enlightened.)

It depends on the setup used at the tennis club.

Ordinarily, in CCTV system all cameras are connected to a digital video recorder (DVR) whose computer clock is used for time-stamping the video files written to its disc archive.

A system that I am concerned with has 16 cameras connected that way. However, in our case the DVR is connected to the Internet to enable remote access and viewing, and accordingly its internal clock is regularly synchronized to Internet (i.e. correct) time.

DVRs without external clock sync will tend to drift over a period and unless regularly adjusted manually then that drift can be substantial. (A classic case of CCTV time error is failure to adjust for DST.)

 

[Couldbe]

That conclusion is clearly invalid. It's perfectly possible that at least one of them is telling the truth.

JLZ you have picked up where my reasoning in wrong ...... unless there is evidence that they were both together in the vehicle at that time; which may be unlikely unless they had a reason we are totally unaware of.

 

[Akai]

If a POI deliberately lies to police about a significant matter in a criminal investigation, then I would expect police to then proceed to charge them with the crime under investigation, either as a major actor or an accomplice.

Had Gary Jubelin decided by whatever means that the foster parents were lying to him, then I believe that he would have charged them pronto.

Yes, I understand the weight of the CC process, but I'm not sure how being charged with giving false testimony will necessarily lead to other charges that could not have already been laid given that police apparently already knew the statements made were allegedly false.

I'm inclined to think that, under CC questioning, the FPs maybe made new claims that police then determined to be provably false, in their view.

I'd love to know what prompted a referral to the CC in the first place.

Having evidence someone is lying about one thing doesn't necessarily provide the evidence to charge them with something else. In this case, the FM lying about what happened that morning doesn't necessarily mean there is any evidence she did anything to William, and it certainly doesn't automatically reach the level for a charge related to that. If a POI is lying about something and there is other evidence that they committed a crime that reaches the required threshold then I too would expect them to be charged with that other crime, but not simply because of the lie.

People lie in police statements all the time, and even when they are charged with a crime that they are potentially lying about, they don't get charged separately for the lie. People claim they did not steal something, are convicted of stealing it, and don't get charged for the lying. (Very very very very rarely anyway.)

This is about the alleged lie/s itself/themselves resulting in a charge, not that lie being direct evidence of something bigger. It may well be indicative of that but there is not yet (that we know of) the evidence to do that. It's very difficult to charge someone for lying on a statement alone. Lying in a statement falls under generalised banners such as "perverting the course of justice", and I don't know how they'd demonstrate that unless they have further evidence about what happened in this case (which they don't seem to). So in order to find a way to charge for the alleged lie, an option was to put them in front of the NSW Crime Commission and have them give that evidence under oath and with regard to the specific obligations at the NSW Crime Commission when giving evidence. It is a specific charge to give "false & misleading evidence" at the NSW Crime Commission.

As for GJ, he hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in this investigation. He was close to the FPs, obsessed with particular POIs, and clearly there were missteps, all of which are ample explanations for why he might not have spotted a lie.

 

[bfew]

I think the NSW Crime Commission was used to deliberately catch them out in relation to their evidence in the William Tyrrell matter

Similar to you, I think that the NSW Crime Commission was masterfully utilised to uncover (alleged) evidence of lying by the foster parents in relation to their evidence in the William Tyrrell case.

 

[JLZ]

JLZ you have picked up where my reasoning in wrong ...... unless there is evidence that they were both together in the vehicle at that time; which may be unlikely unless they had a reason we are totally unaware of.

I think there's a fair chance they haven't even got the right car. After all, he only drove past the club, he wasn't in the car park.

 

[Akai]

It depends on the setup used at the tennis club.

Ordinarily, in CCTV system all cameras are connected to a digital video recorder (DVR) whose computer clock is used for time-stamping the video files written to its disc archive.

A system that I am concerned with has 16 cameras connected that way. However, in our case the DVR is connected to the Internet to enable remote access and viewing, and accordingly its internal clock is regularly synchronized to Internet (i.e. correct) time.

DVRs without external clock sync will tend to drift over a period and unless regularly adjusted manually then that drift can be substantial. (A classic case of CCTV time error is failure to adjust for DST.)

Thanks. This is really helpful. So possibly the camera inside the tennis club was out as well, depending on what system they use. Do you have any idea how much of a drift a camera would get over a year?

ETA: The only way I can get the times to work is if the CCTV in the tennis club is around half an hour out and the CCTV outside the tennis club that minus 9 minutes out, like JLZ. Which means both would have to be severely out of whack. I'm wondering how likely that is and how likely not to have been noticed.

 

[JBowie]

This is about the alleged lie/s itself/themselves resulting in a charge, not that lie being direct evidence of something bigger. It may well be indicative of that but there is not yet (that we know of) the evidence to do that. It's very difficult to charge someone for lying on a statement alone. Lying in a statement falls under generalised banners such as "perverting the course of justice", and I don't know how they'd demonstrate that unless they have further evidence about what happened in this case (which they don't seem to). So in order to find a way to charge for the alleged lie, an option was to put them in front of the NSW Crime Commission and have them give that evidence under oath and with regard to the specific obligations at the NSW Crime Commission when giving evidence. It is a specific charge to give "false & misleading evidence" at the NSW Crime Commission.

I added a bit to my post about that.

Going such a serious route (via the CC) would tend to indicate to me that police are on more than just another fishing expedition. It's almost as if they have decided that FPs are in someway involved and are determined to get a confession from one or both of them.

As for GJ, he hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in this investigation. He was close to the FPs, obsessed with particular POIs, and clearly there were missteps, all of which are ample explanations for why he might not have spotted a lie.

He has many faults, that's for sure, but I believe that he would want to have been the one to have solved the WT case, regardless of who ended up being charged, if it turned out that William had met with foul play, or was killed accidentally.

 

[JBowie]

Thanks. This is really helpful. So possibly the camera inside the tennis club was out as well, depending on what system they use. Do you have any idea how much of a drift a camera would get over a year?

I don't think there is a standard measure for that.

My own private, inexpensive, 4 camera system can get behind actual time by as much as 10 minutes over 6 months. I usually catch that at DST reset time, if not earlier.

 

[Wexford]

Speaking of the Crime Commission, if as is suggested/asserted by some in the media that it is assisting police with the Tyrrell case, then I have to wonder who else, apart from the FPs, may have been called to appear before it.

Is it possible the Crime Commission was related to something else? The media have been wrong in their assumptions before.

 

[Inplainsight]

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news...d/news-story/c3b76e8d4fc18401ebc17df61f45a62d

Did Judy Wilson, the FGM neighbour, testify at the inquest? I have had a search through the Web, WS and Lia Harris's twitter account.

I always relied on her account of 'hearing children playing' as support for proof of life.

Thank you

 

[SleepyJoe]

What if WT's disappearance was couched in terms such as those responsible have commited an act of terror upon the public and upon govt. departments? Or if there was a skerick of evidence that WT's disappearance may have brought economic gain to this couple. Would that be considered organised crime?

I think you're right - I imagine millions of dollars ha e been spent on Strike Force Rosann over the last 7 years, not to mention the money raised through the Where's William Campaign. If there is evidence that they have deliberately and systematically misled the public and have profited from this in anyway (did they get paid for interviews such as 60 minutes and Lia Harris podcast???), then this would constitute a very serious crime that may warrant the involvement of the NSWCC IMO.

 

[Akai]

I added a bit to my post about that.

Going such a serious route (via the CC) would tend to indicate to me that police are on more than just another fishing expedition. It's almost as if they have decided that FPs are in someway involved and are determined to get a confession from one or both of them.

I see it now. I think my reply to this will cover both anyway.

I think police have a pretty solid theory involving the FPs and they're trying to gather evidence around that, but it is difficult because of the amount of time that has passed and the fact that certain crucial things were not done in the first place. They are very limited in what they can do. I think that, as you say subsequently, they really want to solve this, so they'll throw the kitchen sink at it if they have to.

So I think they did it for a combination of three things: to see what other evidence might come out of it (so yes, a fishing expedition, but because of the particular difficulty of obtaining new evidence in this case). to apply pressure, and also because they are pissed off. If the FPs have lied about something crucial that has thrown this entire investigation out of whack, that's 7 years of work down the drain. I'd be pissed, too.

He has many faults, that's for sure, but I believe that he would want to have been the one to have solved the WT case, regardless of who ended up being charged, if it turned out that William had met with foul play, or was killed accidentally.

Oh 100% I think GJ wanted to solve this. I actually think it was the case that broke him, and that's why he ended up going way too far. But people have blind spots, and he had such extreme tunnel vision I can believe he missed things. If the FPs were involved, let's not forget, they fooled most of the country at one point. GJ is an unbelievable police officer, but he's still human.

 

[Akai]

I don't think there is a standard measure for that.

My own private, inexpensive, 4 camera system can get behind actual time by as much as 10 minutes over 6 months. I usually catch that at DST reset time, if not earlier.

Thank you, again. So I suppose it's possible that both cameras were way out, depending on their set up. I would have thought police would have checked the accuracy beyond merely comparing the outside camera to the inside camera, but there seem to be some basic things they didn't do in this case so not impossible that they didn't.

I think do think the inconsistency of the two times are worth examining, though. It's a lot of things being out of whack and nobody noticing for them to add up.

 

[SleepyJoe]

I see it now. I think my reply to this will cover both anyway.

I think police have a pretty solid theory involving the FPs and they're trying to gather evidence around that, but it is difficult because of the amount of time that has passed and the fact that certain crucial things were not done in the first place. They are very limited in what they can do. I think that, as you say subsequently, they really want to solve this, so they'll throw the kitchen sink at it if they have to.

So I think they did it for a combination of three things: to see what other evidence might come out of it (so yes, a fishing expedition, but because of the particular difficulty of obtaining new evidence in this case). to apply pressure, and also because they are pissed off. If the FPs have lied about something crucial that has thrown this entire investigation out of whack, that's 7 years of work down the drain. I'd be pissed, too.


Oh 100% I think GJ wanted to solve this. I actually think it was the case that broke him, and that's why he ended up going way too far. But people have blind spots, and he had such extreme tunnel vision I can believe he missed things. If the FPs were involved, let's not forget, they fooled most of the country at one point. GJ is an unbelievable police officer, but he's still human.

Agree with everything you say. GJ was committed to solving the case BUT he got to close to the fosters IMO. He was won over by them IMO and did not keep a professional distance. This is evidenced by the fact that the former FFC reportedly went every day to his corruption trial and supported him throughout. He then defended her on 2gb radio last November IIRC. I think, personally, he lost his objectivity.