Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #33

[frogwell]

She also made it open slather on Karlie and Brendan. IMO

They let it happen to themselves it seems in the caselaw document. IMO

 

[sosocurious]

The hyperbole around the story and the words written about this ACA segment are very distracting, but if you listen to what APS says about why she was taken to court, what her interest is in this case and what she wanted to achieve, I think it's pretty straight forward. IMO

I have listened closely to APS.
The legal division of FACS called her and asked she remove some things she had said. Which she refused to do at the time.
FACS called her ??
I would have thought an official letter from the legal division would have been more appropriate. Maybe that came later and she then decide to remove whatever it was she had not removed at the time
of the call.
Anyways after tears and heartache .. they finally won.
I am yet to understand who the they were that won.
What it was they actually won? Because I cannot for the life of me see how their win has benefited anyone.
jmo

https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-af...ng-for-william

Natalie Collins told news.com.au that her son had been promised, on his eventual release, rehabilitation help from campaigners involved in raising awareness to find her grandson William.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/bd13defba733d0d3005eeefed23a07d7

Who are these campaigners?
Is there any updates on this?

 

[liltexans]

Please continue discussing William's case here, and bear the following in mind:

We do not and can not sit on any one thread to read posts in real time. We rely on members to let us know if there is a problem. If you see someone being rude or disrespectful, please use the Alert feature to lets us know so we can review it before it gets out of hand. If you perpetuate the dissension by responding on the thread, you may be subject to a loss of posting privileges.

Mods really don't like being heavy-handed in threads, but sadly it is necessary at times. From now on, there is a ZERO TOLERANCE policy in effect for bickering or disrespect towards other members in William's thread, and/or for making accusations or insinuations against William's bio or foster family. To do so will result in a minimum 1 week TO or possibly a ban from the thread itself. We love y'all, but we don't want to hear the excuse that "Aussies are different". WSers come from a variety of countries, so we're all different, and we can all make the choice to be rude OR to be respectful and post in accordance with Websleuths Terms of Service.

Thread is now open. Post accordingly. :tyou:

Sillybilly
WS Administrator

:bump:

 

[sleepinoz]

OK. That is not my understanding of the situation. My understanding is that KT applied herself to the Supreme Court for the suppression of her identity to be lifted. They were present in the court at the same time as APS had her matter dealt with. I took my understanding from the Caselaw notes and from actual explanations of the process by APS. My understanding is that she is being attributed with something she has not done. MOO

AFAIK - KT did not apply to the Supreme Court for the lifting, and she was not present in the court at the same time as APS.

If you read the Caselaw documents it says that KT's opinion had come from a conversations she had with a FACS officer.

"the mother’s evidence at the final hearing (such as it was – it was adduced as hearsay of a conversation between a FACS officer and her) was to the effect that it has always been her view that it should be known that Julian was in care."

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

IMO APS was completely in the wrong, S105 of the CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT 1998 states that a child in care can't be identified until they are 25yo or they have died.

She broke that law, because it was thought that William was alive by all involved, and that is the reason she was taken to court.

The Judge in this court hearing stated "the probabilities are that Julian is no longer alive". This statement IMO is why Williams care situation was allowed to be mentioned.

IMO the result would be different if the Judge came to the conclusion that William was still alive.


http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caypapa1998442/s105.html

.

 

[frogwell]

AFAIK - KT did not apply to the Supreme Court for the lifting, and she was not present in the court at the same time as APS.

If you read the Caselaw documents it says that KT's opinion had come from a conversations she had with a FACS officer.

"the mother’s evidence at the final hearing (such as it was – it was adduced as hearsay of a conversation between a FACS officer and her) was to the effect that it has always been her view that it should be known that Julian was in care."

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

IMO APS was completely in the wrong, S105 of the CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT 1998 states that a child in care can't be identified until they are 25yo or they have died.

She broke that law, because it was thought that William was alive by all involved, and that is the reason she was taken to court.

The Judge in this court hearing stated "the probabilities are that Julian is no longer alive". This statement IMO is why Williams care situation was allowed to be mentioned.

IMO the result would be different if the Judge came to the conclusion that William was still alive.


http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caypapa1998442/s105.html

.

If they thought he was alive why is the investigation a suspected homicide? Also the last time i posted a link to this document, I was reported by members as even though it is a public document, referred to a child still in care. Hardly seems fair to link to the same document when I wasn't allowed to and had my post wiped. Also, i cannot believe that after all the weighty evidence given, it came down to the judge's decision that he was of the impression that Wt is deceased and then 3 other Supreme Court judges upheld his decision making. IMO

 

[sleepinoz]

If they thought he was alive why is the investigation a suspected homicide?

Why were homicide there on the second day of the search?

AFAIK it has never been stated that William is being presumed deceased, by investigators or others involved. I've only ever heard that they believe he is still alive.

The only person to say that the probability of him being deceased is the Judge involved in the APS case.

 

[frogwell]

Why were homicide there on the second day of the search?

AFAIK it has never been stated that William is being presumed deceased, by investigators or others involved. I've only ever heard that they believe he is still alive.

The only person to say that the probability of him being deceased is the Judge involved in the APS case.

Why is it being investigated as a suspected homicide and not suspected abduction? GJ has stated in different pressers that apparently there is no evidence either way so they will continue on as though he is alive. Also, they can;t take hope away from the family and the investigation has to be realistic after 3 years. If you can't infer from his comments that he is all but saying he thinks WT is dead then that is very optimistic. The only person who has said that police still think William is alive is posts on the Where's William campaign after NC first voiced her opinion in MSM that she thought WT was dead. POlice have not stated they believe he is alive. IMO

 

[Lemony]

APS is being attributed with something she has not done?

Allana Smith single-handedly took on the Department of Family and Community Services to reveal the truth about William Tyrrell.
Now, she has spoken out about why she fought so hard for the little boy she never even met.

Statement from a Department of Family and Community Services spokesperson:

If William’s care status was relevant to his disappearance or the police investigation, FACS would have allowed it to be revealed.

https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/2017/extras/latest/170829/fighting-for-william

Thankyou for posting the link. I had forgotten about the statement made by the FACS spokesperson.



On a different note, this part of the ACA interview stood out to me...

Taylor Auerbach - ‘You’re not saying for a second that William was being abused or neglected by his carers'?

Allana Smith - 'Absolutely not’

It seems that APS has absolutely no issue with lying on camera. Since this ACA episode aired, Allana has continually targeted William's carers, accusing them of various crimes and weaving them into her conspiracy theories. It has been shocking to observe. It saddens me to think that in the future, William’s sister might read the vicious comments & accusations made by APS about her family. I don’t believe that APS is as concerned about William as she claims IMO

 

[Bohemian]

Just an aside, wouldn’t the Coroner be the one to decide if William is probably deceased and call an inquest? He hasn’t, so I assume he must be satisfied with the progress of the investigation to date.

 

[Bohemian]

Isn’t Karlie’s court appearance tomorrow?
__________

If you have William I beg of you to give him back to his mother. My mother lost her son (my next youngest brother) for 30+ years and was never the same. Please don’t tear another son away from his mother.

 

[Hbayne]

Just an aside, wouldn’t the Coroner be the one to decide if William is probably deceased and call an inquest? He hasn’t, so I assume he must be satisfied with the progress of the investigation to date.

I would think so Bo but with this case who knows , hopefully there is still a little speck of hope in the whole process that William is alive somewhere

 

[SouthAussie]

Just an aside, wouldn’t the Coroner be the one to decide if William is probably deceased and call an inquest? He hasn’t, so I assume he must be satisfied with the progress of the investigation to date.

No. That is not how it works.

If/when a police investigation has come to a standstill, an inquest will be called. Nothing to do with if the coroner feels a missing person is alive or deceased.

THEN the coroner will hear from all witnesses and make a decision of the greatest likelihood, or leave the result as 'open' if they cannot come to a decision. The coroner may also send the police back to investigate something(s) further, if the coroner feels that there is more there to be looked at.

 

[SouthAussie]

I have never heard the police say if they think William is alive or deceased. But I think Gary Jubelin has inferred the latter.

"The worst thing is never finding a body"

The police have always stated that as there is no evidence to say otherwise, they will proceed as if William is alive.

I believe the judge in the FACS/Smith court case was privy to police documents/info/evidence (we know Jubes gave an opinion), and then voiced the opinion that William is likely deceased, and made the relevant decision about revealing William's foster care status.

The judge didn't formulate the opinion that William is likely deceased in a baseless manner.

imo

 

[Bohemian]

No. That is not how it works.

If/when a police investigation has come to a standstill, an inquest will be called. Nothing to do with if the coroner feels a missing person is alive or deceased.

THEN the coroner will hear from all witnesses and make a decision of the greatest likelihood, or leave the result as 'open' if they cannot come to a decision. The coroner may also send the police back to investigate something(s) further, if the coroner feels that there is more there to be looked at.

Could you explain why using relevant sections/parts of the NSW Coroner’s Act 2009 No. 41 please, SA?

Here’s the link:

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2009/41/full

TIA.

 

[Hbayne]

Sadly Williams plight has been overcome with individuals who have there own gruntles with facs and are using him as a platform to push their own agenda. IMO Williams disappearence has nothing to do with his status as a foster child. He was with his parents from 7 months old. The water is so muddied because of his status. I believe he was purely a victim based upon where he was at the time and who was lurking ready to pounce.

 

[Bohemian]

I have never heard the police say if they think William is alive or deceased. But I think Gary Jubelin has inferred the latter.

"The worst thing is never finding a body"

The police have always stated that as there is no evidence to say otherwise, they will proceed as if William is alive.

I believe the judge in the FACS/Smith court case was privy to police documents/info/evidence (we know Jubes gave an opinion), and then voiced the opinion that William is likely deceased, and made the relevant decision about revealing William's foster care status.

The judge didn't formulate the opinion that William is likely deceased in a baseless manner.

imo

You’re absolutely correct, SA. Even in DCI Jubelin’s most recent presser, he didn’t say whether William was alive or deceased:

‘(06:32) GJ:

‘[...]

Be mindful that William is now six years of age, if he is still alive. Obviously we have concerns for his welfare but this is a unique investigation and we're keeping all possibilities open in regards to that.

[...]’

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/e...e-of-William-Tyrrell-7-News-12-September-2017

As for the NSW Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals judges, I couldn’t say if they formulated their decisions after having access to Coronial documents and/or knowledge of operational matters. Ah, the vagaries of the Law.

 

[Hbayne]

And if KT wants to blame the foster parents for him being in their care when it happened the maybe her interview should be reviewed when she said police knocked on her door whilst kids were playing in the yard. Her eyes were off them for probably same amount of time. Pot kettle ??

 

[SouthAussie]

Could you explain why using relevant sections/parts of the NSW Coroner’s Act 2009 No. 41 please, SA?

Here’s the link:

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2009/41/full

TIA.

No, I really cant go through all the legal docos at the moment. If William was confirmed as deceased, an inquest would be called at the coroner's convenience. As he is missing, the investigation must run its course first.


BBM
“an inquest will proceed in William’s case” after it was referred to Coroner Michael Barnes for consideration in Jan*uary 2015. The letters, which represent the first time such a commitment has been made public, caution that any such inquiry* will take place only after the current police investigation, which has identified hundreds of “persons of interest”, is complete.

“All coronial matters, not just this matter, take a significant amount of time and resources to proceed to inquest. Some matters can take a few years,” said one of the letters, written by Coroner’s Court registrar Ann Lambino.

“In William’s case it has not even been established if he is in fact deceased,” another said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...l/news-story/33ee25ca733a981ec54c7a091d1a7cb2

 

[sosocurious]

No, I really cant go through all the legal docos at the moment. If William was confirmed as deceased, an inquest would be called at the coroner's convenience. As he is missing, the investigation must run its course first.


BBM
“an inquest will proceed in William’s case” after it was referred to Coroner Michael Barnes for consideration in Jan*uary 2015. The letters, which represent the first time such a commitment has been made public, caution that any such inquiry* will take place only after the current police investigation, which has identified hundreds of “persons of interest”, is complete.

“All coronial matters, not just this matter, take a significant amount of time and resources to proceed to inquest. Some matters can take a few years,” said one of the letters, written by Coroner’s Court registrar Ann Lambino.

“In William’s case it has not even been established if he is in fact deceased,” another said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...l/news-story/33ee25ca733a981ec54c7a091d1a7cb2

This is an old article ...back in 2007.

Girl missing for 20 years dead: coroner
https://www.smh.com.au/news/nationa...rs-dead-coroner/2007/02/26/1172338528921.html

He told the family that it was "totally unacceptable" for him as a coroner to be holding an inquest 20 years after the disappearance.
He said under plans to deal with missing persons, any people still missing within six to 12 months should be brought to the coroner's attention.
"There are 9000 people each year in NSW who go missing, and about 40 are never found. I'm not worried about the 8960. I am worried about the 40 because often they are homicides never detected," he said.......................

In making a recommendation for the reward, and sending a file to the homicide squad for review, he said:

 

[SouthAussie]

This is an old article ...back in 2007.

Girl missing for 20 years dead: coroner
https://www.smh.com.au/news/nationa...rs-dead-coroner/2007/02/26/1172338528921.html

He told the family that it was "totally unacceptable" for him as a coroner to be holding an inquest 20 years after the disappearance.
He said under plans to deal with missing persons, any people still missing within six to 12 months should be brought to the coroner's attention.
"There are 9000 people each year in NSW who go missing, and about 40 are never found. I'm not worried about the 8960. I am worried about the 40 because often they are homicides never detected," he said.......................

In making a recommendation for the reward, and sending a file to the homicide squad for review, he said:

I am pretty sure, from the research we did in Gary Tweddle's case, that the police must report these types of disappearances to the coroner within at least 12 months (by law). The coroner has to be able to follow along, by then, and make sure that things are on track and proceeding.