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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
stormbird said:
sleepinoz,

Snip

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.
Click to expand...

BBM

Storm the process which takes place with each witness; CA Craddock asks questions derived from the witnesses statement to police. When he is finished the Coroner then asks each barrister and lawyer who is representing interested parties if they have questions for this witness. As FA is representing himself he is also asked if he has questions for this witness. After the witness has answered any questions which may have been asked the Coroner then asks CA Craddock if anything has arisen from answers given by the witness to those questions. The witness is then excused by the Coroner or told they could be recalled.
On the days I have been there FA has questioned every witness EXCEPT the two ladies with pseudonyms.
 
sleepinoz said:
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?
Click to expand...

"It seems what was said was said in open court, with FA listening, I imagine he is aware."
He would have already been questioned about this and would know who the boys were and doubtless who 'Tanya' and 'Amy' were also.

"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."
I think the pseudonyms are to protect them from the media, not from others potentially involved in WT's disappearance.

"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?"
This confuses me. I'm not sure how they could name someone who was not named in open court. If it was a decision or direction of the court, then Dr Sleuth would have heard it also. Obviously the person named would know who the children are, but the court (including the Journalists) were told the children were using pseudonyms.

"Doc is not the first person I have heard this from. So how do you propose to stop the truth?"
Exactly. The truth heard from one of our posters. -v- The truth according to the media. Which one to choose??? ;)

"And BTW, it's against TOS to tell posters how to and what they should post."
Is this true? I seem to recall several times posters are told what they have posted is against TOS. Maybe TOS is open to interpretation?
 
stormbird said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since he has no lawyer representing him, he was asked by the coroner if he had any questions. Any questions he asked would need to be within the scope of the inquest.
 
Last edited:
Tinker Taylor said:
Snipped.

"And BTW, it's against TOS to tell posters how to and what they should post."
Is this true? I seem to recall several times posters are told what they have posted is against TOS. Maybe TOS is open to interpretation?
Click to expand...

BBM - Of course posters are told if they post anything against TOS, which is totally different to telling members to delete posts or how to post because they don't think it should be allowed.

The only interpretation of TOS that can be made is by Mods. You should ask them if you have any questions in regards to TOS.
 
Tinker Taylor said:
"It seems what was said was said in open court, with FA listening, I imagine he is aware."
He would have already been questioned about this and would know who the boys were and doubtless who 'Tanya' and 'Amy' were also.

"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."
I think the pseudonyms are to protect them from the media, not from others potentially involved in WT's disappearance.

"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?"
This confuses me. I'm not sure how they could name someone who was not named in open court. If it was a decision or direction of the court, then Dr Sleuth would have heard it also. Obviously the person named would know who the children are, but the court (including the Journalists) were told the children were using pseudonyms.

"Doc is not the first person I have heard this from. So how do you propose to stop the truth?"
Exactly. The truth heard from one of our posters. -v- The truth according to the media. Which one to choose??? ;)

"And BTW, it's against TOS to tell posters how to and what they should post."
Is this true? I seem to recall several times posters are told what they have posted is against TOS. Maybe TOS is open to interpretation?
Click to expand...

Apparently other members have been there too. Perhaps you could ask Blues for example, and give the doc a well earned break. IMO.
 
InspectorGadget said:
Since he has no lawyer representing him, he was asked by the coroner if he had any questions. Any questions he asked would need to be within the scope of the inquest.
Click to expand...
InspectorGadget,

I think FA's questions would have to be within the scope of his own interest in the inquest. I don't have any legal training, though.

This is from the Local Court Bench Book - Coronial Matters:
[44-180] The inquest - preliminaries: What procedures are adopted in an inquest?

While counsel representing interested parties has rights of cross-examination, these are limited to protecting the interests of their clients. They do not have unfettered rights to cross-examine at large or to address the coroner.

Although the rules of evidence and procedure do not apply, procedural fairness is critical: interested persons are entitled to appear, to be legally represented, to examine witnesses — at least in relation to their own interests, to know what is alleged against them, to answer the allegations and argue against any finding or comment being made adverse to their interests: Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596; Musumeci v Attorney General of NSW (2003) 57 NSWLR 193.
 
Blues Clues said:
BBM

Storm the process which takes place with each witness; CA Craddock asks questions derived from the witnesses statement to police. When he is finished the Coroner then asks each barrister and lawyer who is representing interested parties if they have questions for this witness. As FA is representing himself he is also asked if he has questions for this witness. After the witness has answered any questions which may have been asked the Coroner then asks CA Craddock if anything has arisen from answers given by the witness to those questions. The witness is then excused by the Coroner or told they could be recalled.
On the days I have been there FA has questioned every witness EXCEPT the two ladies with pseudonyms.
Click to expand...
Blues Clues,

One of the MSM reports says that when asked by the coroner if he had any questions for Tanya, FA "removed his glasses and declined the opportunity".
- ABC News, 13 March 2020

Does he usually remove his glasses when replying to the coroner? If it was unusual, did it seem like some sort of comment or dramatic gesture by him? Thanks!
 
stormbird said:
Blues Clues,

One of the MSM reports says that when asked by the coroner if he had any questions for Tanya, FA "removed his glasses and declined the opportunity".
- ABC News, 13 March 2020

Does he usually remove his glasses when replying to the coroner? If it was unusual, did it seem like some sort of comment or dramatic gesture by him? Thanks!
Click to expand...


It's very difficult to see him from the back of the court room. He's in such a small corner of the screen, which means I'm unable to answer your question sorry. The media might have a clearer picture from the media room, I'm not sure.
 
drsleuth said:
I have asked a mod to edit my posts, to adhere to some members requests.

I won't be commenting any further. ............
Click to expand...
Dr sleuth your a legend... we all appreciate your input and I’m sorry that I am one of those that suggested this As well - it was at no means directed at you but a group friendly gesture that seemed to turn nasty.

That was hardly my intention. I think it’s for the best that it’s censored as this is the path the media have taken (right or wrong) you have not done anything wrong but I think we all have a responsibility together.

Anyway know that’s probably unpopular Opinion but big respect to you for doing this - even though you have not done anything wrong thank you!! and keep posting we love your opinions.
 
drsleuth said:
I have asked a mod to edit my posts, to adhere to some members requests.

I won't be commenting any further. ............
Click to expand...
Oh @drsleuth I do hope you reconsider... as I think it might be a cracking week at the inquest this week?! And you have a lot to contribute here! And I definitely appreciate your inquest updates....
Don't let people get to you .... its hard not to sometimes, I know...
It's very easy for some to sit behind a screen and type harsh words..... one of the failures of any type of social media... and its a shame the thread spiraled a bit out of control this week with unnecessary comments.... especially as it was such an important week for William.....
 
Last edited:
Doc, you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve put no one at risk, you’ve done nothing but clarify, inform, relay information based on facts and cared more than most people could imagine. Anything you’ve relayed is anything that anyone who was at the inquest would’ve seen and heard and answered questions you’ve been asked without divulging personal details or gossip! More than I can say for some people. o_O
You’ve been our eyes and ears and I personally feel so much better knowing there is someone like you who is there for William only and caring so deeply for him. A noisy minority doesn’t represent the quieter majority. You have my support :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 106 more.
Total: 3,378 (members: 107, guests: 3,271)

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
3,271
Total visitors
3,378
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,665
Messages
18,144,806
Members
231,476
Latest member
ceciliaesquivel2000@yahoo
Back
Top