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

[sleepinoz]

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

Wouldn't charges and prosecution be up to the DPP not the Police?

Another question In your experience (or knowledge of) are historical sexual abuse cases more difficult to prosecute?

 

[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.

Just re quoting your post about the No Evidence CG.
(quote)
Police investigated the allegations and charged him with historical child sex offences, but all of them were dropped or dismissed because there was no evidence.

Washing machine repairman demanding $1 million over Tyrrell investigation

 

[mussopossum]

Spedding was ‘delighted’ about Jubes job.

I was delighted to see and hear Jubes again.

Love that man

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Just re quoting your post about the No Evidence CG.
(quote)
Police investigated the allegations and charged him with historical child sex offences, but all of them were dropped or dismissed because there was no evidence.

Washing machine repairman demanding $1 million over Tyrrell investigation

This is the problem with relying on MSM (and I'm making no criticism of Websleuths because there have to be some tangible parameters for us to work with). This is just what MSM has stated and is likely not correct. For there to be NO evidence, prosecution would literally have to not presented ANY evidence at all.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Wouldn't charges and prosecution be up to the DPP not the Police?

Another question In your experience (or knowledge of) are historical sexual abuse cases more difficult to prosecute?

Yes, but they are also more difficult to defend. Memories fade for both victims and defendants.

20 years ago it was quite difficult to prosecute historical cases because of incorrect presumptions about how victims act. These days the courts have a pretty good understanding that just because someone didn't make an immediate complaint, doesn't mean that they are making it up. 20 years ago courts required some sort of independent corroboration of a victim. Today that isn't required. It's usually one person's word against another.

 

[peekinandy]

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.

BBM above. I think that's a given with pedos IMO - even those that don't read the news. It's inherently obvious - if that's what they are into. Not all can automatically change their "age" preference willy nilly. But crikey... if the child can't converse properly, it's obvious they have a better chance of getting off. These days less so, but 20 or 30 years ago? Without DNA evidence - too easy IMO

 

[peekinandy]

Have we heard from that guy that likes to go out bush collecting scrap metal yet? He is a convicted child molester, after-all. Lived not too far away. Tony? Did he go on the stand yet? He had a weird alibi. I know PS is a focus - but?

 

[Karinna]

BBM above. I think that's a given with pedos IMO - even those that don't read the news. It's inherently obvious - if that's what they are into. Not all can automatically change their "age" preference willy nilly. But crikey... if the child can't converse properly, it's obvious they have a better chance of getting off. These days less so, but 20 or 30 years ago? Without DNA evidence - too easy IMO

When did Australia first start using DNA profiling in Criminal cases?

 

[Karinna]

Have we heard from that guy that likes to go out bush collecting scrap metal yet? He is a convicted child molester, after-all. Lived not too far away. Tony? Did he go on the stand yet? He had a weird alibi. I know PS is a focus - but?

I have wondered about TJ as well.

 

[peekinandy]

When did Australia first start using DNA profiling in Criminal cases?

Not 30 years ago - that's for sure

 

[peekinandy]

When did Australia first start using DNA profiling in Criminal cases?

Also besides "Not 30 years ago" - As you probably know, DNA science has advanced so much since. It also relates to whether the victims were 'tested' within a specific timeframe - back then. And whether any evidence was stored (correctly -too). So, probably not in 20 years. I don't think there was anything like mitochondrial DNA 20 years ago - to replicate DNA chains - to be long enough to process. So, I think maybe 10-15 years or so IMO, maybe less

 

[Truthsleuth99]

Yes, but they are also more difficult to defend. Memories fade for both victims and defendants.

20 years ago it was quite difficult to prosecute historical cases because of incorrect presumptions about how victims act. These days the courts have a pretty good understanding that just because someone didn't make an immediate complaint, doesn't mean that they are making it up. 20 years ago courts required some sort of independent corroboration of a victim. Today that isn't required. It's usually one person's word against another.

I find that comment a bit insensitive. I think a victim would have quite a good recollection of events. Most victims can’t forget what they endured at the hands of a perpetrator. Hence why so many victims turn to drugs & commit suicide
To forget!

 

[Truthsleuth99]

I wonder if TJ or PS went on 4 corners discussing the case. Would GJ be as likely to attend ?
GJ only seem to turn up when things centre around this person. Just a observation.

 

[JLZ]

I find that comment a bit insensitive. I think a victim would have quite a good recollection of events. Most victims can’t forget what they endured at the hands of a perpetrator. Hence why so many victims turn to drugs & commit suicide
To forget!

It's one thing to retain the experience so as to be traumatized, but forensically the victim will be asked to remember all sorts of incidental things . . . the date, the offender's exact words, what everyone was wearing, where was such-and-such object. And if the victim's recollections don't match other witnesses', or what's otherwise shown to be possible or probable, it's potentially an opening for jury doubt.

 

[Karinna]

I find that comment a bit insensitive. I think a victim would have quite a good recollection of events. Most victims can’t forget what they endured at the hands of a perpetrator. Hence why so many victims turn to drugs & commit suicide
To forget!

In this case this is what was stated about the children.
(quote)
In granting bail, Justice Geoffrey Bellew said one of the girls, who was three at the time of the alleged offence, had no recollection of it and "vague memories of youth" despite a 21-page statement.

Bill Spedding granted bail over child sex charges

 

[Karinna]

Not 30 years ago - that's for sure

No idea that's why i asked. I did a google search and so far only found this article that i'm still reading, it's very in depth.
https://aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/proceedings/downloads/02-gidley.pdf

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I find that comment a bit insensitive. I think a victim would have quite a good recollection of events. Most victims can’t forget what they endured at the hands of a perpetrator. Hence why so many victims turn to drugs & commit suicide
To forget!

I'm not talking about the actual offence, but more the surrounding memories. I read a judgment recently where a person was acquitted because the victim's recollections of extraneous circumstances like which house had a pool, what clothing was worn by various people etc etc, was wrong.

 

[peekinandy]

No idea that's why i asked. I did a google search and so far only found this article that i'm still reading, it's very in depth.
https://aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/proceedings/downloads/02-gidley.pdf

Oh my, something less in-depth might suffice. I will try & find something

 

[Karinna]

Oh my, something less in-depth might suffice. I will try & find something

Yeah i know LOL, And thanks if you can find something.

 

[Karinna]

Here is an interesting article i found about Australian stats. in regard to child SA, even though it's from 2013. But perhaps still relevant today?
(quote)
Institutional child sex abuse is only the tip of the iceberg, and unless we realise that the vast majority of abuse occurs within the family home, we have little hope of removing it from our society, writes Sarah Dingle.
Some home truths about child abuse