Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #13

[Cleaver Greene]

Surely he wouldn't be allowed to be on 60 minutes for a profit.
I guess like Toni Mchugh he could profit later IF he was proven innocent but I really doubt the episode would rate. No real interest of a washed up washing machine repair man with an 'alleged' history of raping a 3year old and a 6year old in an old backyard caravan.

I doubt he would be strutting into the Port Macquarie police station every day with his head held high. I really doubt the locals would be treating him like a hero.

I doubt it.

But there would be huge interest in a story about a man whose name was released to the media by police (in breach of police policy) and police did nothing to stop the media speculation of his guilt, especially if the man was never charged. If BS life has been destroyed because of improper police procedures, when there was never any real evidence against him, then that's a story that needs to be told.

 

[tracecomp]

Hi all! Does anyone know if police can prevent media from reporting? The media have shown a lot of interest in him in the past, why not today?

No news as of yet - could there be a suppression or "gag order"? or am I just impatient?

 

[Wexford]

I agree. If it was used to lure WT how did he know Spider-Man was his favourite superhero? Unless the grandmother told him
I guess. But then did he go and buy one? And why would he leave it in the van? Bad coincidence yes and understand it rings alarm bells. But I'm not convinced on it being there due to Wt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed....but if it was put there later to flag him then it makes more sense. It could be a coincidence but really?? How many coincidences can we possibly have??

 

[Wexford]

But there would be huge interest in a story about a man whose name was released to the media by police (in breach of police policy) and police did nothing to stop the media speculation of his guilt, especially if the man was never charged. If BS life has been destroyed because of improper police procedures, when there was never any real evidence against him, then that's a story that needs to be told.

hmm Im thinking Lindy Chamberlain here....surely no one, police or media, would ever want to repeat that scenario. (for those who are not familiar, it was a case of a missing baby probably murdered and trial by media, the mother went to gaol for many years and was then found innocent and released and sued the lot of them). Im not interested in starting an argument about LC....just explaining the reference.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

No news as of yet - could there be a suppression or "gag order"? or am I just impatient?

This is how a typical mention plays out:

Prosecution: Your Honour, we have handed Defence some of the brief of evidence but you will appreciate that, because the alleged offences occurred so long ago, we have not been able to compile the remainder of the brief.

Defence: my client is entitled to see the full brief of evidence before he gives instructions on how he wants to proceed.

Prosecution: I anticipate we will need a further 8 weeks.

Judge: Very well then. Adjourned to ......... (8 weeks away). Bail to continue.

No facts would be discussed. Nothing to interesting would occur. The only thing to be reported would be the next court date. I sit in court for hours at a time and have no idea what charges defendants are facing. The only way I know it is something newsworthy is because I can see the journalists madly scribbling for some matters.

 

[tracecomp]

This is how a typical mention plays out:

Prosecution: Your Honour, we have handed Defence some of the brief of evidence but you will appreciate that, because the alleged offences occurred so long ago, we have not been able to compile the remainder of the brief.

Defence: my client is entitled to see the full brief of evidence before he gives instructions on how he wants to proceed.

Prosecution: I anticipate we will need a further 8 weeks.

Judge: Very well then. Adjourned to ......... (8 weeks away). Bail to continue.

No facts would be discussed. Nothing to interesting would occur. The only thing to be reported would be the next court date. I sit in court for hours at a time and have no idea what charges defendants are facing. The only way I know it is something newsworthy is because I can see the journalists madly scribbling for some matters.

Yes - they reported this (next court date etc) for the Stephanie Scott case today, just wondering why not for Spedding?

 

[Adrianna]

Peeking in my lunch break to see if there is any news of BS's court appearance.

 

[Karo]

According to the interview his parents gave, spiderman was a new interest, his main interests were firetrucks and Fireman Sam, so I don't believe the toy was related to William at all, BS couldn't have known that, if he did, perhaps he would have had a firetruck instead?

I agree. If it was used to lure WT how did he know Spider-Man was his favourite superhero? Unless the grandmother told him
I guess. But then did he go and buy one? And why would he leave it in the van? Bad coincidence yes and understand it rings alarm bells. But I'm not convinced on it being there due to Wt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Found]

I wonder if during the previous hearing with BS the media were told to lay off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[msadventure]

The silence is deafening!

Here's a link to goings on @ Campbelltown Court:
http://interceder.net/latest_news/Campbelltown-court

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I wonder if during the previous hearing with BS the media were told to lay off.

A judge cannot order media not to report on a case. It can order suppression of a defendant's name. However, if that was the case, his name would not have appeared on the Court List.

Its possible that the judge made an aside about the significant adverse publicity of BS and issues that it may raise further down the track. The media may well have been asked by police to lay off. Or the Crown may have put the media on notice regarding a possible defamation claim by BS if he is acquitted.

 

[L2L]

Surely it's for the public to know if his plea today was guilty or not guilty .. that much at least. Does anyone know which it was? Or could it be something else altogether?

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I wonder if during the previous hearing with BS the media were told to lay off.

A judge cannot order media not to report on a case. It can order suppression of a defendant's name. However, if that was the case, his name would not have appeared on the Court List.

Its possible that the judge made an aside about the significant adverse publicity of BS and issues that it may raise further down the track. The media may well have been asked by police to lay off. Or the Crown may have put the media on notice regarding a possible defamation claim by BS if he is acquitted.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Surely it's for the public to know if his plea today was guilty or not guilty .. that much at least. Does anyone know which it was? Or could it be something else altogether?

I doubt he would plead guilty. Credibility of witnesses is an issue for trial. It would be a very negligent lawyer who advised a client to plead guilty when another court has found a key witness' testimony on that exact same topic was not credible.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

sorry everyone for the double posting. Ipad is playing up.

 

[Scorpion31]

Perhaps the media were more interested in another case this week.....

 

[Scorpion31]

Or... If Bs is a witness, or informant..would protection be on offer, thus the media silence?... Moo.

 

[esmae]

Ksks if that is the case it wouldn't be defamatory to report that the mention took place and when and where he will next appear would it? Would it be that it didn't go ahead or something else came up about the case, it just seems strange that there's been no report at all. In my oppinion.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Ksks if that is the case it wouldn't be defamatory to report that the mention took place and when and where he will next appear would it? Would it be that it didn't go ahead or something else came up about the case, it just seems strange that there's been no report at all. In my oppinion.

I agree it's strange that there has been nothing in the media at all today. I would have expected at least the outcome to have been reported. That suggests that the media have backed off for whatever reason.

Something can only be defamatory if it affects your reputation (putting it very simply), so the mere reporting that he was in court today and his matter has been adjourned, would not be defamatory.

There aren't any suppression orders in place either. Even if there was, the media would have reported that "a xx year old man appeared in Campbelltown court today" in the knowledge that most people would know who it is.

My own view is that either:

A. BS has, through a lawyer, put the media on notice of a lawsuit if he is acquitted, and the media, knowing it has overstepped the mark, has agreed to a blanket silence on order to mitigate further damage, or

B. The police, knowing that they have overstepped the mark in the release of information to the media, have asked the media to stop reporting.

I cant help but wonder whether the judge at the bail hearing gave everyone, police, DPP, media, websites, a right royal serve about the publicity surrounding BS and the clear attempt to use a historical charge to further a current investigation, and a chastised media omitted reporting it.

 

[mmindymoo]

I am also wondering if a deal may have been done.