Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) - #75

[Awakening]

from the article:

"William insisted on wearing his Spider-Man suit, which the foster mother helped him dress in along with - she later said - a pair of matching shoes because the yard had prickly bindi weeds and dog droppings.

This is allegedly problematic because William's final photo - taken by the foster mother - shows him barefoot on the verandah of the house.

Police also allege that there were no prickly weeds in the grass and the foster grandma's dog had already died..."

Some of those things police call problematic do not seem problematic to me at all.

How many times did I help one of my toddlers put on their shoes in the morning, only to see them barefoot next time I looked? Kids are always taking off shoes and clothes on a whim. So that does not seem like very strong evidence at all.

And just because Grandma's dog had died, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be dog droppings on their front lawn. I assume there were lots of dogs and cats in the neighborhood.

I don't know about bindi weeds, but there are a lot of prickly stickers in yards with a lot of trees and foliage. Toddlers have tender feet so it is not unusual to want your child to have shoes on when running in the yard.

None of those three LE statements sound problematic to me.

I’ve wracked my brains over why this might be problematic too Katy. Because like you I can’t see the issue. It’s not unusual for a parent to insist on shoes when playing on the grass because of prickles or dog poo.

Kids often take shoes on and off. Turn your back on a fully clothed toddler and the next minute they’re stark naked.

The only potential problem is if his shoes were found close to the house near the time of his disappearance but his body wasn’t. A toddler couldn’t get far in that terrain without shoes and I doubt a kidnapper is going to lose the shoes but not the spiderman suit.

 

[iiiii's]

In Caroline Overington’s book ….

William’s Sister told Deborah Nelson “ Um William was playing on the balcony then he went off and was finding Daddy’s car”

From a Police Statement I believe …. Chapter 4, Missing William Tyrrell.

Hope that helps….

I found a post where you quote a (paywalled) DT article that does say that sister saw William running towards daddy's car.

Australia - Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #71

Unfortunately, sister will probably make a poor witness. Any current changed recall - if there is any - will be questioned due to being 4 (or 5, depending what article you go by) years old at the time. While it is "only" 7½ years ago (to us), to her it is over half her lifetime ago. She may...

www.websleuths.com

I hope the link works because what appears in the caption is not the one.

Thanks to both of you, funnily enough, I don't trust either account, I have found Caroline so unreliable on so many points and know that a lot of the inquest she was not in attendance and not across some basics about the case. And the DT one I do not trust either as only "daddy's car" is quoted and the rest of the sentences can be an inference by the journalist. It'll just have to one of many things in this case that just sits on the fence for me. Does anyone remember if L used to call the back porch where they were, the balcony?
MOO

 

[ninjabynight]

Hello to all again, after a long time. I feel like things are finally going to resolve soon. Hope so!

I'd like to talk about the balcony fall and wonder what you all think. For some reason I have a very hard time seeing this as a realistic scenario. If there was an accidental death, it could have happened in all sorts of ways. Why are they focussing in on the balcony? Perhaps there is evidence of a fall - but if so, clearly this was not discovered at the time, and would there really be any evidence after so long by the time they went back to have another look? Or perhaps william's sister saw something. But I can't help wonder whether the evidence the police have is all to do with FFM disposing of william and nothing to do with how he died. And that the balcony theory is being put forward in lieu of any evidence of murder. Could they be hoping she takes this opportunity to own up to disposing of william (feels awful writing that) and lead them to his body? Do they think they will get a better outcome if they put forth a theory of william having died by accident and avoid mention of murder?

 

[JLZ]

Thanks to both of you, funnily enough, I don't trust either account, I have found Caroline so unreliable on so many points and know that a lot of the inquest she was not in attendance and not across some basics about the case. And the DT one I do not trust either as only "daddy's car" is quoted and the rest of the sentences can be an inference by the journalist. It'll just have to one of many things in this case that just sits on the fence for me. Does anyone remember if L used to call the back porch where they were, the balcony?
MOO

BBM. It says so in that audio I linked. Quite a lot of one of her statements quoted there (verbatim), listen from about two-thirds of the way through.

Edit: She agreed with the interviewer that by "balcony" she meant the low porch. I sort of wondered if the prompting reminded her of what she was supposed to be saying, and she switched versions.

 

[JBowie]

This from a legal firm's blog. I remain curious as to how a person could be charged with interfering with a corpse when -- as far as we know -- no corpse has been found.

(Note the frequent reference to prove beyond reasonable doubt.)

What are the offences now recommended by the police?

Perverting the course of justice

Perverting the course of justice is an offence under section 319 of the [NSW] Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

To establish this offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

The accused person engaged in an act or made an omission, and by that act or omission, intended to pervert the course of justice.

Perverting the course of justice is defined as ‘obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating the course of justice or the administration of law’.

Some examples of perverting the course of justice include:

• Attempting to bribe a police or judicial officer to avoid being prosecuted or punished,
• Falsely swearing or declaring that another person was responsible for an offence,
• Encouraging or bribing another person to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit, and
• to provide a false alibi, or give false testimony in court.

Misconduct with regard to a corpse

The act of interfering with a course is covered by an offence titled misconduct with regard to corpses in section 81C of the [NSW] Crimes Act 1900, and carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person indecently interfered with any dead human body, or improperly interfered with, or offered any indignity to, any dead human body or human remains.

William Tyrell’s Disappearance: What Are the Proposed New Charges and Will the DPP Prosecute?

The toddler’s foster mother could soon be charged with perverting the course of justice and interfering with a corpse.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

 

[centred]

DBL post

 

[centred]

It could be a long wait
considering the last paragrapth

William Tyrell’s Disappearance: What Are the Proposed New Charges and Will the DPP Prosecute?

The toddler’s foster mother could soon be charged with perverting the course of justice and interfering with a corpse.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

Oh already posted , great minds etc LOL

 

[JBowie]

It could be a long wait
considering the last paragrapth

William Tyrell’s Disappearance: What Are the Proposed New Charges and Will the DPP Prosecute?

The toddler’s foster mother could soon be charged with perverting the course of justice and interfering with a corpse.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

IMO, this whole business is bizarre. Could NSW Police really be shooting themselves in their collective foot yet again in the WT case?

 

[centred]

IMO, this whole business is bizarre. Could NSW Police really be shooting themselves in their collective foot yet again in the WT case?

" These decisions can take weeks or even months and, during the process, the DPP may send requisitions to police for further material, further investigations and/or clarification on the materials received."

This at the end , its open ended .....and can be re addressed as time passes

 

[SLouTh]

This is the full definition of Perverting the Course of Justice as per the NSW DPP.

Interfering with the course of Justice​

Public Justice offences under Part 7 of the Crimes Act 1900 capture a broad spectrum of criminal conduct that seeks to interfere with or jeopardise the proper investigation and prosecution of crime. Offences under the Part range from making false accusations to Police, hindering investigations, threatening and intimidating witnesses, concealing serious offences including child abuse offences, tampering with evidence, threatening and intimidating judicial officers and jury members, to perjury and doing any act with intent to pervert the course of justice.

Under section 319 of Part 7, the general offence of Doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice captures any act or omission committed with the intent to pervert the course of justice. The offence includes many of the criminal acts, separately or in combination, found in the specific offences within the Part. The offence can relate to events from the very start of a criminal investigation through to completion of criminal proceedings.

Under section 327, the offence of Perjury involves the giving of false evidence under oath or affirmation in a judicial proceeding. For the offence to be proved, the evidence must be material, or relevant to a fact in issue in the proceedings.

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/about-us/crimes-we-prosecute/corruption-and-public-justice

 

[JBowie]

" These decisions can take weeks or even months and, during the process, the DPP may send requisitions to police for further material, further investigations and/or clarification on the materials received."

This at the end , its open ended .....and can be re addressed as time passes

Sure, I comprehend the process, but I get the impression from what we read and hear in the MSM that the police have nothing but a theory now, and IMO won't have anything new later, either.

Seriously, unless police get a new credible witness or obtain a credible confession (from somebody) my feeling is that they are still as much in the dark as the rest of us.

I could well be wrong, but I really can't see the DPP finding anything worth launching a prosecution over at this juncture.

 

[SouthAussie]

I have worked in the past on prepping briefs for police submission to DPP including in NSW (not at all related to this case or any other death). In my limited experience - again not in serious crime - police won't lodge a brief of evidence with DPP unless they believe there is a case to answer - it's a massive investment of their time and energy to pull together a brief and DPP are not appreciative of time-wasters.

However once a case gets to the DPP, their considerations are broader than a simple crime being committed. From the NSW DPP Prosecution Guide: "In deciding whether to prosecute, the public interest is the paramount consideration. It has never been the rule that whenever sufficient evidence exists, a prosecution must take place" (emphasis mine). www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines

The above guidelines are quite short and written in plain English. It outlines the tests for deciding whether to prosecute, specific public interest considerations, including the impact of circumstantial evidence, and other considerations.

IMO I don't think police would have handed over an incomplete brief. A DPP decision to decline prosecution can even be made on a watertight brief if they believe those other considerations are paramount. - My team had multiple cases with admissions of guilt to serious white collar crime and solid briefs of evidence. In some states DPP would charge and court would ensuite. In other states DPP would decline to charge because the cost of prosecuting would exceed the value of the criminal activity. Because DPP did not think a successful prosecution would reduce similar crimes by the public, they said the public value test was not met. Those who had admitted to crimes received a police warning.

Thanks. Appreciate your input.

Yes, the experienced talking heads are giving many varying opinions.

I have heard a retired detective say that they must feel they have a case to submit it to the DPP. - Ch7 News
I have heard another say (what I originally quoted) that they are looking for an opinion, to see if they have enough. - Ch7 News
I have seen another (who works with this inquest) say that if the police had enough to form a reasonable case they would have charged the accused themselves. - in the SMH article linked today

I have been wondering if the police already have an answer from the DPP, and that is why the official police comment is "There are no updates in relation to this matter. The investigation is ongoing". Link

 

[JBowie]

This is the full definition of Perverting the Course of Justice as per the NSW DPP.

Interfering with the course of Justice​

Public Justice offences under Part 7 of the Crimes Act 1900 capture a broad spectrum of criminal conduct that seeks to interfere with or jeopardise the proper investigation and prosecution of crime. Offences under the Part range from making false accusations to Police, hindering investigations, threatening and intimidating witnesses, concealing serious offences including child abuse offences, tampering with evidence, threatening and intimidating judicial officers and jury members, to perjury and doing any act with intent to pervert the course of justice.

Under section 319 of Part 7, the general offence of Doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice captures any act or omission committed with the intent to pervert the course of justice. The offence includes many of the criminal acts, separately or in combination, found in the specific offences within the Part. The offence can relate to events from the very start of a criminal investigation through to completion of criminal proceedings.

Under section 327, the offence of Perjury involves the giving of false evidence under oath or affirmation in a judicial proceeding. For the offence to be proved, the evidence must be material, or relevant to a fact in issue in the proceedings.

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/about-us/crimes-we-prosecute/corruption-and-public-justice

So, my question is: which, if any, of those example offences apply to the FM and that the police are confident of being able convince the DPP are provable beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[SLouTh]

So, my question is: which, if any, of those example offences apply to the FM and that the police are confident of being able convince the DPP are provable beyond reasonable doubt?

We don’t know what “evidence“ the Police have ….???

This is from the NSWDPP site about the Brief of Evidence

Police send the evidence they gathered in their investigation, called a ‘brief’. A brief can include witness statements, the charges laid, bail documents, results of forensic pathology tests (for example, blood and hair samples), results of medical examinations, photographs of the crime scene, and other relevant material.


Police definitely don’t just send the DPP a “theory” …. I think that is just media talk …. IMO

Police have kept the evidence close to the vest since Laidlaw took over … IMO, Doherty and Bennet haven’t revealed very much info about the case .

IMO

Ooops edit to add link

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/steps-in-the-prosecution-process/committal-process

 

[Megnut]

Where was the clothesline? In relation to the house, balcony, etc.

 

[SLouTh]

Where was the clothesline? In relation to the house, balcony, etc.

On the back wall between the two verandahs ….

New owner of William Tyrrell's foster nan's home holed up inside

William's foster nana offloaded the three-bedroom home in Kendall, on the NSW mid north coast, within six weeks of the three-year-old in the Spider-Man suit disappearing.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[nightrider17]

Where was the clothesline? In relation to the house, balcony, etc.

I remember seeing the clothesline in photos of Foster GM walk through and it was just near the verandah they were all on that day - heading to the right but before the bend and before the entrance to the large verandah, if that makes any sense. MOO

 

[nightrider17]

Thanks SLouth when I see that photo it makes me think how easily it would be and tempting to go up those steps leading to the large back verandah. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

We don’t know what “evidence“ the Police have ….???

This is from the NSWDPP site about the Brief of Evidence

Police send the evidence they gathered in their investigation, called a ‘brief’. A brief can include witness statements, the charges laid, bail documents, results of forensic pathology tests (for example, blood and hair samples), results of medical examinations, photographs of the crime scene, and other relevant material.


Police definitely don’t just send the DPP a “theory” …. I think that is just media talk …. IMO

Police have kept the evidence close to the vest since Laidlaw took over … IMO, Doherty and Bennet haven’t revealed very much info about the case .

IMO

Ooops edit to add link

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/steps-in-the-prosecution-process/committal-process

We know that the police had to provide a (further) brief of evidence for the Coroner. It was stated after the Big Dig.
Probably the same brief they sent to the DPP. imo

 

[nightrider17]

Also I do recall seeing a photo of Foster GM, FFC and MFC with a police person on that back verandah and there was a seat there as well. It made me feel like there is a possibility that they did regularly sit there too. Which would make sense for nice breezes and the view. It makes me feel it's a possibility that W could have been on that back verandah and not realise the dangers of its height off the ground. MOO