Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #53

[Thebottomline]

Either the media knows something they shouldn't (ie the identity of the witnesses whose identities have been suppressed) or they have made a mistake (misheard or misunderstood the evidence).

I’m totally confused

 

[Thebottomline]

Either the media knows something they shouldn't (ie the identity of the witnesses whose identities have been suppressed) or they have made a mistake (misheard or misunderstood the evidence).

I’m totally confused. Sorry double again

 

[Thebottomline]

I wonder why after all the closed evidence we haven’t heard that Tanya and Amy’s was public when it’s such a huge statement. I hope they can retain their anonymity.
Also don’t get how so many media outlets have been able to report that boys said it was FA if it’s incorrect ? Totally baffling.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder why after all the closed evidence we haven’t heard that Tanya and Amy’s was public when it’s such a huge statement. I hope they can retain their anonymity.
Also don’t get how so many media outlets have been able to report that boys said it was FA if it’s incorrect ?

Interesting, isn't it? Considering they had closed court during the afternoon ... yet 'Tanya' and 'Amy' testified in open court.


Lia Harris@LiaJHarris·
Mar 13
The inquest will hear testimony in a closed court this afternoon, so the public hearings will resume on Monday.

 

[stormbird]

If the coroner asked that no identifying information be released about the children, and if Lia's tweet was delayed by 30 mins (maybe because she was checking what she could say?), I think we should respect the request.

 

[Tinker Taylor]

Interesting, isn't it? Considering they had closed court during the afternoon ... yet 'Tanya' and 'Amy' testified in open court.


Lia Harris@LiaJHarris·
Mar 13
The inquest will hear testimony in a closed court this afternoon, so the public hearings will resume on Monday.

Maybe someone was listening at the key hole?

 

[sleepinoz]

If the coroner asked that no identifying information be released about the children, and if Lia's tweet was delayed by 30 mins (maybe because she was checking what she could say?), I think we should respect the request.

Did the coroner ask that?

How did the Jurno's get Frank Abbott out of that?

 

[stormyseas]

I wonder why after all the closed evidence we haven’t heard that Tanya and Amy’s was public when it’s such a huge statement. I hope they can retain their anonymity.
Also don’t get how so many media outlets have been able to report that boys said it was FA if it’s incorrect ? Totally baffling.

I think FA’s name was quite deliberately disclosed in open court (or in instructions to media).. strategic and intended for certain people to hear. But the name of endearment used by the boys seems to have been avoided.. likely to minimise identification of the boys. IMO

 

[Thebottomline]

Interesting, isn't it? Considering they had closed court during the afternoon ... yet 'Tanya' and 'Amy' testified in open court.


Lia Harris@LiaJHarris·
Mar 13
The inquest will hear testimony in a closed court this afternoon, so the public hearings will resume on Monday.

Yes and under pseudonyms. Public court, what’s the point of it. Anyone can be in there watching. Only takes one person watching to identify them on Sm or verbally, as I’m sure we can all see the NPO Sm warning is ignored with no consequences that I can see.

 

[JWSleuth]

Dr you have completely missed the point being made.

I only hope people familiar with those involved are not here reading and putting two and two together for the sake of the boys.

Agree!
Dr sleuth 100 percent loving your information and thank you for sharing.

I think the later statements and questioning direct to FA which then draws the link. (So Lia has changed the wording to remove the link if that makes sense) Putting together exposes as well, but the link will be made by stating that endearment? with following statements?
Anyway the court may not have suppressed but if they are trying to protect the kids, this outlines who they are?

 

[JWSleuth]

Yes and under pseudonyms. Public court, what’s the point of it. Anyone can be in there watching. Only takes one person watching to identify them on Sm or verbally, as I’m sure we can all see the NPO Sm warning is ignored with no consequences that I can see.

It needs to be In public court - but I suppose they are lessening the threat. Maybe why they proceeded to closed court.

 

[stormbird]

Did the coroner ask that?

How did the Jurno's get Frank Abbott out of that?

sleepinoz,

I don't know whether you're addressing me specifically or talking to all. I don't know what the coroner said, but I take from Blues Clues' post that she did ask something along those lines. I figure that the privacy and safety of those children should be a primary consideration even if it turns out that the coroner did not in fact ask for information to be restricted.

And I'm guessing the reporters could tell a lot by the fact that FA was asked whether he wanted to question the witness: I think he would only be entitled to question evidence which is relevant to him.

 

[Thebottomline]

I’m just trying to understand. All news outlets that have reported on this inquest say FA was the one identified by the little boys. A poster here at the inquest says different . Totally confused

 

[Thebottomline]

It needs to be In public court - but I suppose they are lessening the threat. Maybe why they proceeded to closed court.

I don’t understand what you mean ? What’s the lessening threat, sorry but as I’ve said I’m really confused.

 

[JWSleuth]

I’m just trying to understand. All news outlets that have reported on this inquest say FA was the one identified by the little boys. A poster here at the inquest says different . Totally confused

assumption is they have changed to protect the identity. Questioning was around FA for Friday I think ? And further comments directing to him?

 

[JWSleuth]

I don’t understand what you mean ? What’s the lessening threat, sorry but as I’ve said I’m really confused.

I don’t make sense at the best of times ! Lol!

well it needs to be in public where possible.. the line of questioning needs to be public but they still need to protect the children (edit identities that are under pseudonyms). so they do what they can to lessen the threat of that. No doubt a hard task.

 

[Thebottomline]

assumption is they have changed to protect the identity. Questioning was around FA for Friday I think ? And further comments directing to him?

Still confused, if media are wrong and have released info that FA was the one named then where do they stand , I have seen no retractions anywhere of reports made yesterday.

 

[JWSleuth]

Still confused, if media are wrong and have released info that FA was the one named then where do they stand , I have seen no retractions anywhere of reports made yesterday.

FA’s name needs to be there - the link does not?

I don’t think news outlets have mentioned the link and have all gone with omitting and using his name instead?

 

[sleepinoz]

sleepinoz,

I don't know whether you're addressing me specifically or talking to all. I don't know what the coroner said, but I take from Blues Clues' post that she did ask something along those lines. I figure that the privacy and safety of those children should be a primary consideration even if it turns out that the coroner did not in fact ask for information to be restricted.

And I'm guessing the reporters could tell a lot by the fact that FA was asked whether he wanted to question the witness: I think he would only be entitled to question evidence which is relevant to him.

Yes I was addressing your post.

It seems what was said was said in open court, with FA listening, I imagine he is aware. I'm sure that Doc wasn't the only person in the room either.

Their privacy, as far as the court is concerned, is that they have been given pseudonyms and have not been identified, ensuring their safety and privacy. We don't know their situation, they could live on the other side of Australia at this point or even overseas. We don't know.

For the Journalists to be able to actually put a name to the person they were discussing, is obviously a choice/decision made by the court - how else would they know if they children where using pseudonyms? The women giving testimony, even with pseudonyms, were visible to FA.

All we know is what was said in Open Court, which Doc has so generously relayed to us.

And BTW, it's against TOS to tell posters how to and what they should post.

ETA: Doc is not the first person I have heard this from. So how do you propose to stop the truth?

 

[Thebottomline]

I don’t make sense at the best of times ! Lol!

well it needs to be in public where possible.. the line of questioning needs to be public but they still need to protect the children (edit identities that are under pseudonyms). so they do what they can to lessen the threat of that. No doubt a hard task.

I don’t make a lot of sense either but why were they exposed to an open court , that anyone could attend if they were protecting them with pseudo names. When any Tom Dick or harry could attend and see them.