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

[Hbayne]

Not guilty would be the verdict. Innocent is not what he is, in my opinion. Too much detail, recall, damage, personal choice of dicey friends, and historical records there for him to be deemed truly innocent. Historical cases are hard, we all know that.

Lawsuits would be a good way to make a few bucks, hey? If one was to succeed. And if one was to fail, and be made to pay all court costs, it could lead to a person's complete rack and ruin.

Maybe he is feeling cocky on beating the law once.

 

[louisepiglet]

Not guilty would be the verdict. Innocent is not what he is, in my opinion. Too much detail, recall, damage and historical records there for him to be deemed truly innocent. Historical cases are hard, we all know that.

Lawsuits would be a good way to make a few bucks, hey? If one was to succeed. And if one was to fail, and be made to pay all court costs, it could lead to a person's complete rack and ruin.

He was found not guilty in a court of law and we have to abide by that. The court would have heard more than we know so would have been in more of a position to make a decision. IMO the fact that he is suing MSM, to me, points more to the fact that he has nothing to do with William's abduction. If he was involved then he would be keeping his head down and staying out of the limelight. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Maybe he is feeling cocky on beating the law once.

Wouldn't surprise me. Ole Mags was acting pretty cocky outside the court.

The publications have a lot going for them. Police press conferences, lawyers, Press Council verdict after his first complaint, court records ......


.

 

[Hbayne]

He was found not guilty in a court of law and we have to abide by that. The court would have heard more than we know so would have been in more of a position to make a decision. IMO the fact that he is suing MSM, to me, points more to the fact that he has nothing to do with William's abduction. If he was involved then he would be keeping his head down and staying out of the limelight. IMO

Has it been established in msm that he was in fact found not guilty ? I know some here have knowledge but is it an actual fact ?

 

[SouthAussie]

He was found not guilty in a court of law and we have to abide by that. The court would have heard more than we know so would have been in more of a position to make a decision. IMO the fact that he is suing MSM, to me, points more to the fact that he has nothing to do with William's abduction. If he was involved then he would be keeping his head down and staying out of the limelight. IMO

Do you know he was found not guilty? I haven't read that at all. Just heard smatterings of FB rumour, which is not allowed here, anyway.

How is the Vic case going? No word on either case yet.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. It just means that there is not enough proof to convict. Matthew Leveson is a good example.

 

[iailwa]

What I was meaning is I wonder if the uniqueness of the case was/is the way in which it had to be handled in the media - due to William foster care status.
Is there any other cases known where someone presumably unknown to the family has sought an immediate inquest and removal of the lead detective.
imo

I think the psychiatrist was referring to a once in a decade case - wrt unsolved child abductions, which isn't quite true. There probably isn't another case where someone unknown to the family has sought what you point out, let alone once in a decade...? JMO

 

[iailwa]

And I don't think it is meant to be taken so literally either. Once in a decade does not mean precisely every ten years. It means unusual, well-spaced, doesn't occur like this often, unique.

I think once in a decade means once in a decade... quite literally

 

[sosocurious]

I think once in a decade means once in a decade... quite literally

This is a crime that, it's once in a generation type crime, it's once in a career type investigation ............

Maybe, maybe not...:dunno:

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/e...-disappearance-of-William-Tyrrell-(continued)

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder who his lawyer is? A pro-bono good one? Otherwise, where is he getting the cash from to fork out for someone decent? His son Rodney said how much Spedding was feeling the pinch after the POI status in William's case was revealed.

 

[SouthAussie]

Oh, I just had a thought. Some lawsuit lawyers take a cut (1/3?) of the 'winnings' of a lawsuit, as their payment.

 

[Hbayne]

This is a crime that, it's once in a generation type crime, it's once in a career type investigation ............

Maybe, maybe not...:dunno:

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/e...-disappearance-of-William-Tyrrell-(continued)

Once in a million years, once in a blue moon, crime of the century ,once in a lifetime !!!

 

[louisepiglet]

Oh, I just had a thought. Some lawsuit lawyers take a cut (1/3?) of the 'winnings' of a lawsuit, as their payment.

That was my thought as well. The lawyer must be feeling confident of a win if they are prepared to spend time on it.

 

[Hbayne]

He was found not guilty in a court of law and we have to abide by that. The court would have heard more than we know so would have been in more of a position to make a decision. IMO the fact that he is suing MSM, to me, points more to the fact that he has nothing to do with William's abduction. If he was involved then he would be keeping his head down and staying out of the limelight. IMO

Did you have a link to the “found not guilty” cannot find anything at all

 

[SouthAussie]

That was my thought as well. The lawyer must be feeling confident of a win if they are prepared to spend time on it.

There is the possibility that they think these major publications will settle out of court, rather than waste their time.

I hope that doesn't happen.

There are so many lawyers, like Slater & Gordon, who will take almost anything to court in a lawsuit.

https://www.slatergordon.com.au/firm/legal-costs/no-win-no-fee

 

[sosocurious]

Did you have a link to the “found not guilty” cannot find anything at all

Just weird if you were found not guilty of a crime. Why on earth would you have to keep that under wraps.
What part of the law could prevent you from declaring your found innocence to the world anyway you chose?

 

[Hbayne]

Just weird if you were found not guilty of a crime. Why on earth would you have to keep that under wraps.
Would part of the law could prevent you from declaring your found innocence to the world anyway you chose?

That’s what I thought. I would have thought another YouTube vid in honour of it

 

[SouthAussie]

Just weird if you were found not guilty of a crime. Why on earth would you have to keep that under wraps.
What part of the law could prevent you from declaring your found innocence to the world anyway you chose?

Well, if he is found not guilty, and is supposed to keep that under wraps ... he surely wouldn't be going to Supreme Court to sue over that matter, would he? What would he achieve? Oh ... maybe this .... $$$$$$$$$

 

[Hbayne]

Well, if he is found not guilty, and is supposed to keep that under wraps ... he surely wouldn't be going to Supreme Court to sue over that matter, would he? What would he achieve? Oh ... maybe this .... $$$$$$$$$

So maybe it’s not about the historical allegations after all. I agree, how could you publicly sue on a case that you aren’t allowed to talk about

 

[SouthAussie]

The thing that I find really interesting is the Supreme Court application. Why the Supreme Court? That is a pretty darn high court for a lawsuit, if that is what this is.

 

[Hbayne]

The thing that I find really interesting is the Supreme Court application. Why the Supreme Court? That is a pretty darn high court for a lawsuit, if that is what this is.

In the link Bo posted to case it says argument ? What does that mean ?