Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #49

[Karinna]

That's exactly why BS is suing for malicious prosecution. It will all come down to why these historical charges were laid and prosecuted.

Thanks Cleaver, yes i imagine so. That's why i said previously it's a shame they don't have Preliminary Hearings in Australia to see if there is enough evidence to take a case to Trial or not.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

BS said in his interview he knew the historical case would be hard to defend. If he felt there no case to answer, why would he have felt it would be hard to defend?

Does a case being dismissed - with no findings of guilt or conviction prove the defendant as factually innocent of the crime for which they were arrested?

I don't know why he thought it would be hard to defend. A judge finding "no case to answer" at the end of the prosecution case is very unusual, especially in "oath against oath" cases.

No-one is really proven "factually innocent" even if they are acquitted. We have a presumption of innocence in Australia. If charges do not proceed for whatever reason, that person maintains the presumption of innocence. I suppose if there is overwhelming evidence that the person did not commit an offence, you could say they were "factually innocent". But for the majority of defendants, if prosecution can't prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, they are either "not guilty" or acquitted.

Even if Jubelin is acquitted of his charges, it doesn't mean that he is "factually innocent". It just means that he will be found "not guilty" or charges dismissed/withdrawn.

 

[Truthsleuth99]

That's exactly why BS is suing for malicious prosecution. It will all come down to why these historical charges were laid and prosecuted.

If anything it’s a civil matter. Again the police were just doing there job. Remember the victims contacted the police with their allegations first. The police didn’t go out on a witch hunt searching for people to say, hey we find this guy suss. Can you say this about him. The police are just facilitators of justice at the end of the day!! They investigate claims made and gather the evidence
Nothing more. They then refer to the courts to make the end decision.

 

[Karinna]

And Justice Bellew did state it was a very weak case against BS, so who decided BS had a case to answer enough to take it to Trial when they didn't have anything 30 years ago? Because from what i have read there was no new evidence from what there was back then? How could they then ever hope for a conviction at all?

 

[Karinna]

If anything it’s a civil matter. Again the police were just doing there job. Remember the victims contacted the police with their allegations first. The police didn’t go out on a witch hunt searching for people to say, hey we find this guy suss. Can you say this about him. The police are just facilitators of justice at the end of the day!! They investigate claims made and gather the evidence
Nothing more. They then refer to the courts to make the end decision.

From what i have posted up before with a link in msm it was stated that someone called and stated BS was a paedophile and it went from there.

 

[peekinandy]

That article quotes a case note written by a FACS worker as to why charges were not proceeded with 30 years ago.

This article says that the charges were not laid 30 years ago because authorities investigated and "discredited and dismissed" the claims. Wrong target: Former Tyrrell case suspect speaks | The New Daily

I've read the case where the allegations were raised. The judge in that case didn't accept that the allegations were true.

IMO some judges are paedophiles (just as in all professions) & then they have the ultimate power - just saying. In no way am I suggesting this particular judge is, but there will be cases - unfortunately...

 

[Cleaver Greene]

And Justice Bellew did state it was a very weak case against BS, so who decided BS had a case to answer enough to take it to Trial when they didn't have anything 30 years ago? Because from what i have read there was no new evidence from what there was back then? How could they then ever hope for a conviction at all?

"Case to answer" is a very low threshold. Usually defendants concede a case to answer and then go straight to trial.

 

[SouthAussie]

Both alleged victims reported the abuse in 1987, the statement of facts allege. Their claims were also supported by medical evidence and case notes from the time, police allege.

The court documents also allege Mr Spedding threatened his two victims not to tell anyone about what had taken place.

“The above practices were usually preceded or reinforced after the fact with threats not to tell anyone what had occurred or the accused would tell the police and they would ‘take mum away’,” police allege.

“There were also threats made to one (victim) that if they disclosed what had taken place, the other (victim) would be harmed.”

In his reasons for refusing to grant Mr Spedding bail, magistrate Thomas Hodgson wrote “the accused has not shown cause why their detention is not justified,” the court documents show.
“The unacceptable risk/s identified cannot be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions,” he wrote.

Police stress the alleged offences are not related to William’s disappearance ......

NoCookies | The Australian

 

[Karinna]

"Case to answer" is a very low threshold. Usually defendants concede a case to answer and then go straight to trial.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Karinna]

So if my understanding is correct from what was stated at Trial that there was No evidence against BS. So how can police in Australia arrest someone and throw them in jail on absolutely No evidence? Yikes!

 

[purpleandgreen]

Anything is possible, he's over on 4 Corners FB page drumming up business

Probably quite a lucrative business too, sleep?

 

[purpleandgreen]

Wasn't so fond of this one-sided interview

I'd love to see what was edited out

What irks me - if historical allegations re-arise, it's damn right that BS be hauled away, whether he's a POI in the WT case or not. Who's fault is that? Not the polices surely.

Seems Gary didn't have a lot to work with when he came in.

BBM. Yes, I wonder who framed the questions? I wonder if Mr O'Brien was involved? I'm sure BS would have been very well prepared. IMO.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Its protocol for children to be removed while allegations are investigated. If they didn’t remove the children, everyone would’ve complained why are the kids staying with someone accused of sexual abuse. You can’t please everyone.
In regards to the historical case. It’s one thing for the case to get dismissed due to lack of evidence compared to being found not guilty!
We are all aware how hard it to prosecute historical cases especially with how young the victims were. I feel bad for the victims in this matter.

And especially when some of the original evidence / statements have gone missing, if I remember correctly. Will try to find a link, so in the interim, IMO.

 

[peekinandy]

BBM. Yes, I wonder who framed the questions? I wonder if Mr O'Brien was involved? I'm sure BS would have been very well prepared. IMO.

Given Peter O'Brien's agenda - it's no wonder BS went with him. Others might have eaten him alive?

 

[Cleaver Greene]

So if my understanding is correct from what was stated at Trial that there was No evidence against BS. So how can police in Australia arrest someone and throw them in jail on absolutely No evidence? Yikes!

There wasn't "No evidence". The Judge found that on the evidence presented by prosecution, there was no possibility of a conviction. It's a rare finding. And even rarer for a defendant to get costs.

 

[Karinna]

There wasn't "No evidence". The Judge found that on the evidence presented by prosecution, there was no possibility of a conviction. It's a rare finding. And even rarer for a defendant to get costs.

Again thanks for clarifying. I had read somewhere there was "no evidence" though. Could of been in an msm article. If i can find it again i will post it up.

 

[Karinna]

And especially when some of the original evidence / statements have gone missing, if I remember correctly. Will try to find a link, so in the interim, IMO.

Yes, transcripts were lost, and states that in a link i posted a few pages ago, probably on the previous thread.

 

[deugirtni]

Having a case dismissed due to insufficient evidence - after witnesses (grandmother, perhaps medical staff) die, and evidence is lost after 30 years - is a heck of a lot different to the general public than going through a full trial with intact evidence and being found not guilty. imo

It is a damn shame that he was never put on trial 30 years ago but, sadly, that didn't happen 'due to the young age' of the two girl victims. Not an unusual thing in that day and age.

“Police have been informed the offences … were not pursued formally by police at the time of disclosure due to concerns as to the welfare of the victims, given their tender age,” a fact sheet said.
Mother demands answers after Bill Spedding arrest

That article quotes a case note written by a FACS worker as to why charges were not proceeded with 30 years ago.

This article says that the charges were not laid 30 years ago because authorities investigated and "discredited and dismissed" the claims. Wrong target: Former Tyrrell case suspect speaks | The New Daily

I've read the case where the allegations were raised. The judge in that case didn't accept that the allegations were true.

Thank you for clarifying about that 'fact sheet'. I was going to say that I call BS on that article stating the allegations were not pursued due to the tender ages of the children - to me, that would be like telling all the Australian pedos and sexually abusive fathers/stepfathers/'weird' uncles, and such, that it is a free-for-all as long as they perform their repulsive acts while the child is of tender age. Evidence is evidence, and thankfully in Australia (and elsewhere in western civilization) we have to have evidence to convict, rather than going on someone's 'say-so', especially an ex-spouse in the midst of ugly custody/separation issues who happened to have a murderous pedophile brother.

I'm sure however, that even had there *been* some evidence to go to trial, with an outcome of a jury finding *not* guilty, some would still believe BS is guilty of those allegations, so either way, whether charges dropped, withdrawn, acquitted, or found not-guilty, once a person is subjected to such accusations and then to top it off, media coverage of the type BS endured, that person's life is forever ruined. jmo.

 

[Karinna]

Here is the article
(quote)
Justice Bellew pointed out further shortcomings in the crown case including that it had no transcript of an interview with Spedding from the investigation in the 1980s.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/william-spedding-granted-bail-in-supreme-court/6558628

 

[Karinna]

Thank you for clarifying about that 'fact sheet'. I was going to say that I call BS on that article stating the allegations were not pursued due to the tender ages of the children - to me, that would be like telling all the Australian pedos and sexually abusive fathers/stepfathers/'weird' uncles, and such, that it is a free-for-all as long as they perform their repulsive acts while the child is of tender age. Evidence is evidence, and thankfully in Australia (and elsewhere in western civilization) we have to have evidence to convict, rather than going on someone's 'say-so', especially an ex-spouse in the midst of ugly custody/separation issues who happened to have a murderous pedophile brother.

I'm sure however, that even had there *been* some evidence to go to trial, with an outcome of a jury finding *not* guilty, some would still believe BS is guilty of those allegations, so either way, whether charges dropped, withdrawn, acquitted, or found not-guilty, once a person is subjected to such accusations and then to top it off, media coverage of the type BS endured, that person's life is forever ruined. jmo.

Exactly.