Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) #77

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
They need separate legal representation to ensure no conflicts of interests arise in their defence. Moo
Costly yes but necessary.
Yes agree, but it is a bit unusual … to be heard together… (I also haven’t heard of that before …)

I wonder if they may have been better off having separate hearings??
But that is just my opinion …
 
Yes agree, but it is a bit unusual … to be heard together… (I also haven’t heard of that before …)

I wonder if they may have been better off having separate hearings??
But that is just my opinion …
There would be too many common facts and questions between the two trials to warrant holding them separately. In other words both FCs charges arise from the same set of facts.
Either FC could have made an application for a separate trial if they thought a joint hearing would be prejudicial. I’m not sure if that happened or not. Moo

ETA caveat that I’m not a legal expert :)
 
Last edited:
FF’s barrister was at last weeks hearing every day, and interjecting, but the media didn’t focus much on it …. (He is mentioned in multiple articles, but the media seemed to focus on Stratton)
It did appear that they ran out of time last week.


The following was published regarding December,

The magistrate ordered written submissions from the parties before returning to court in December with plans to deliver a judgment in February.

To me, it appears that the December date is for closing arguments and submissions….
IMO



FF is due to appear for the NSWCC Lying Charges in November.

New hearing dates of November 6 and 7 were confirmed, with the matter to be mentioned briefly in September.

It will be interesting to see if these proposed dates are changed yet again???
IMO


I think they possibly ran out of time last week, was the Victim Statement delivered ? Agree that the Dec dates will be the finalising of information & summations.

I do wonder though if Dec was chosen so that the outcome of FF‘s NSWCC Lying Charges are available.

IMO, FM got a lucky reprieve on her same charges, in so far as some complicated wording by the Magistrate seemed to deem her an answers to be acceptable.

However, that was THEN.

Before the dodgy auction dealings became apparent..
Before her latest court appearance & her Not Guilty plea to ‘intimidation’.
Before listening to the submitted taped recordings of her physical & verbal treatment of a vulnerable young girl had me, along with friends & colleagues, appalled & in tears - and questioning her ability to tell the truth !!

I was raised on the mantra ‘Tell a lie once and all your truths will be questioned’. As I grew older I realised that there were those who added ‘if you get caught’ so maybe that was at play here. ( but then Dad also said ‘Don’t play with Karma kiddo, she’s a !’ )

FM’s Legals knew of the recordings and yet it appears they’re so insensitive & inhumane that they present arguments to suggest that the child was not intimidated!
Please !

We heard L being told she had No Voice, FM was ‘stronger’ …. That her things will be thrown out, that she’s the reason why everything is so bad bla bla …. I just heard a constant barrage to L of her faults & I was reminded of Cinderella

We heard ‘I’ll come up & remove your dinner / words to that effect ‘ - an attempt to frighten the child into thinking she’ll have no food
(Did L have to eat in her room, was there no family dinner gathering, or just no inclusion for her )

She was accused of poor hygiene practices & soiled underwear - yet her washing wasn’t done for her !
Psychological stress (result of intimidation) is a known contributor to bowel dysfunction - was that ever investigated I wonder ?

All that said, I wonder if FF will retract his Not Guilty plea here & submit a Guilty to the Lying to NSWCC. .. . on the basis of Ignorance maybe.

All the above is just my own opinion.

for William & L.
 
i remember that too, we discussed it here and whether they were outside her school etc waiting to see her or intimidating her, not sure if that was reported in msm or just assumed here? cant find any msm articles but feel sure there were at the time?
Seperate charges to the assault charges, according to this:


No indication of when those charges will be heard tho.

For me it’s all so heartbreaking.
 
Yes agree, but it is a bit unusual … to be heard together… (I also haven’t heard of that before …)

I wonder if they may have been better off having separate hearings??
But that is just my opinion …
There would be too many common facts and questions between the two trials to warrant holding them separately. In other words both FCs charges arise from the same set of facts.
Either FC could have made an application for a separate trial if they thought a joint hearing would be prejudicial. I’m not sure if that happened or not. Moo

ETA caveat that I’m not a legal expert :)

chiming in as I do ( with all my non-legal expertise ) I wonder why they chose to have seperate legal reps at their joint trial / a joint trial with individual legal reps.

Given that fees for a Barrister is in the vicinity of $8 -$10 k per day, theres so many other ‘wonderings’ for me.
 
chiming in as I do ( with all my non-legal expertise ) I wonder why they chose to have seperate legal reps at their joint trial / a joint trial with individual legal reps.

Given that fees for a Barrister is in the vicinity of $8 -$10 k per day, theres so many other ‘wonderings’ for me.
Maybe because one is a Criminal law specialist (English) and the other is a Tendency specialist (Stratton) …. Both of which, are relevant to this hearing ….

And mainly to ensure no conflict of interest ..as they both had their own lawyers in attendance as well as the two barristers (seen in media footage) IMO

Yes agree Warsh, this last week would have added up to a pretty penny, and it is still not over… that must be very frustrating for the Fosters footing the legal bill.

But just a guess …. As no legal eagle here either …

IMO
 
Seperate charges to the assault charges, according to this:


No indication of when those charges will be heard tho.

For me it’s all so heartbreaking.

The charges are being heard now (last week and December '23), in conjunction with the assault charges.
The article you referenced (Apr '22) had the wrong end of the stick. It focused on the word stalking in the charges, it should have focused on the word intimidation.


As I explained before, the two charges are:

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 13

Stalking or intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm



The whole trial, pretty much, has focused on the two "Stalking or Intimidation" charges. Because FM already pled guilty to the two assault charges.
Though Phillip English is contesting FD's assault charge ... saying that his hands were flat on the child, not around her neck.

There would be absolutely no need to bring the intimidation into this trial if it was only about the assaults.

imo
 
Last edited:
There was an earlier article to say the prosecution had finished earlier than Friday afternoon, that I am trying to find… and I should have added IMO to my original post …(apologies for that)

For the prosecution to be cross- examining the witness, the witness must have been called by the defence ….IMO

One example:
During cross-examination by the prosecution, the support worker recounted what LT had told her in December 2022 during a break in a police interview with the girl.


I have also noted that the hearing has been adjourned until 4 December


I also don’t believe the prosecution would have been calling people to give glowing character references, like that of Adam McMahon, a foster care support worker with the Department of Communities and Justice.
But that is my opinion only.



The support worker can't be a defence witness because the DM article reporting it is Thursday and the prosecution didn't close its case until Friday. It does say prosecution cross-examined and then a few paragraphs below it says Phillip English (for MFC) cross-examined. I think prosecution examined its own witness and then defence cross-examined and DM can't tell the difference. The witnesses weren't called to give glowing character references, but said positive things under cross-examination (IMO).
 
Yes agree, but it is a bit unusual … to be heard together… (I also haven’t heard of that before …)

I wonder if they may have been better off having separate hearings??
But that is just my opinion …
Disagree that it's unusual.
 
Disagree that it's unusual.

Joint trials are not uncommon. For me, I just have never followed one (in Australia) closely before.

It makes sense that they would have a joint trial in this case, as the charges are about the same incidents.

This is the suggested direction, as per the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book Trial Instructions, for a joint trial.


As you are well aware by now this is a joint trial of [number] accused. I told you at the outset of the trial that this was simply a matter of administrative convenience. But I also told you that you have to consider the case against each accused person separately when considering your verdicts. You will be required to return a separate verdict in respect of each individual accused. You should not, in your deliberations, try to determine whether [both/all] of the accused are guilty without considering them as individuals and giving each separate consideration. Simply because the Crown allegation is that they are [each/all] guilty of the same offence, it does not follow that you approach your deliberations in the same way.

 
Didn‘t the defence call 5 Witnesses on Friday ?

As follows, in no particular order….
(There may have been more?? )

  • Megan Payne, a NSW Department of Communities and Justice official
  • Emma Ballard had counselling sessions
  • Child abuse unit detective Matthew Davis
  • Adam McMahon, a foster care support worker with the Department of Communities and Justice
  • Support Person - A woman who met the child around that time was also with the youth for support when they were interviewed by police in December 2022.

Tears as child taken from Tyrrell foster mum's care


Admission of an error ….
Apologies…

It appears these witnesses may have been for the prosecution …… (Although many articles last week were badly written and easy to misinterpret IMO )



The foster parents of William Tyrrell will face up to 10 prosecution witnesses and surveillance footage when a case unrelated to the missing Sydney boy goes to trial.

Evidence related to the prosecution of William’s foster parents over the alleged assault and stalking of another child, as well their identities, are not able to be published under a gag order seeking to protect the administration of justice.

The pair have entered not guilty pleas to charges of common assault and stalking.


 
Admission of an error ….
Apologies…

It appears these witnesses may have been for the prosecution …… (Although many articles last week were badly written and easy to misinterpret IMO )



The foster parents of William Tyrrell will face up to 10 prosecution witnesses and surveillance footage when a case unrelated to the missing Sydney boy goes to trial.

Evidence related to the prosecution of William’s foster parents over the alleged assault and stalking of another child, as well their identities, are not able to be published under a gag order seeking to protect the administration of justice.

The pair have entered not guilty pleas to charges of common assault and stalking.


Would this be everything to do with the child's testimony and any counselling/psychological/file notes and professionals attached to those notes? Would there be any other evidence other's could think of that might be under NPO? Wondering if there might be other evidence that goes to the offences committed?

BBM
 
A trial is a type of hearing as I understand it.

Called a trial in a higher court, called a hearing in a magistrates court.

Trial

A hearing in a court where all evidence is heard and a final decision is made. In higher courts a trial is conducted before a Judge and jury. In lower courts, a trial is usually called a “hearing” and is heard before a Magistrate.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
 
Would this be everything to do with the child's testimony and any counselling/psychological/file notes and professionals attached to those notes? Would there be any other evidence other's could think of that might be under NPO? Wondering if there might be other evidence that goes to the offences committed?

BBM
It was reported that the prosecution case closed on Friday. But, the reporting has been pretty bad so who knows.

On Friday, when prosecutors closed their case following the five-day hearing. . . .
 
Would this be everything to do with the child's testimony and any counselling/psychological/file notes and professionals attached to those notes? Would there be any other evidence other's could think of that might be under NPO? Wondering if there might be other evidence that goes to the offences committed?

BBM
Yes agree, and I would be certain that some evidence would be under suppression orders with a child involved.
The child’s evidence was tendered in a closed court I believe .
All my own opinion …
 
It was reported that the prosecution case closed on Friday. But, the reporting has been pretty bad so who knows.

On Friday, when prosecutors closed their case following the five-day hearing. . . .
Ah, topic changed and I didn't notice.
 
im wondering if gj stayed friendly with fm after she was named a poi and if he made her aware there may be listening devices?
also wondering if little L is able to spend time with her bio family now and if she will ever be able to live back at home or stay fostered until shes 18?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,451
Total visitors
2,566

Forum statistics

Threads
600,741
Messages
18,112,750
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top