Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #69

[seekingjustice**]

The first thing that came to my mind when reading that article was getting a defence ready.

Under the circumstances, your post definately holds merit.

moo

What I wonder is why would an accused person (FM), who is pleading 'not guilty' needs to use a mental disorder as a defense. If you didn't do anything wrong, surely the evidence will show that. It makes me think that there is a lot of evidence against her.

 

[LolaAngelina]

I don't think the child would be in their care with an AVO between them.

Wouldn't the order be: alleged assaults, child is removed, child is pursued (stalking), AVO.

Yes l was replying to someone who asked if the stalking was before AVO.

 

[JLZ]

Yes l was replying to someone who asked if the stalking was before AVO.

I don't see why the stalking couldn't have been before the AVO but after the removal of the child.

 

[JLZ]

This more detailed, more concise article says that the attack happened in April, that the medical records were made 'soon after'.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...s/news-story/6af1e4e9dfe5cc917e88dfe3d6f66702

Which could be an indication that the records were pretty clear about a time frame.

Mr O'Brien is very good with his words. imo

I tend to look at it the other way around, that since the records were unclear about a timeframe, the attacks were not so recent to the examination as police allege. But it's hard to comment without seeing the reports. There might be other reasons than clinical uncertainty for things not getting written down.

 

[k-mac]

What I wonder is why would an accused person (FM), who is pleading 'not guilty' needs to use a mental disorder as a defense. If you didn't do anything wrong, surely the evidence will show that. It makes me think that there is a lot of evidence against her.

Yes totally agree
Doesnt pass the sniff test .

 

[drsleuth]

Stalking has a terrible impact on victims. The psychological impacts of stalking are just as serious as the impacts caused from the fear of physical harm.

Considering the FM is claiming that she has a mental illness, I can't help but wonder whether there perhaps has been a pattern of abuse over the past few years.

BBM : I believe the same could also be said for the FF who have been stalked also , over many , many years . They are also victims IMO

 

[k-mac]

BBM : I believe the same could also be said for the FF who have been stalked also , over many , many years . They are also victims IMO

Being stalked would be quite terrifying I think we can all agree.

Can not imagine the trauma attached to being stalked by your alledged abuser and a child to boot who isn't equipped with the maturity or capacity to understand why.


moo

 

[Akai]

I don't see why the stalking couldn't have been before the AVO but after the removal of the child.

Yes, the stalking could have been what led to the AVO.

But also, just because someone has breached an AVO does not mean they are charged with that breach. That is really at the discretion of police, and given stalking and intimidation charges carry higher penalties than breaching an AVO, it may be that police simply decided to pursue stalking and intimidation rather than bother with breaches of the AVO IF one was already in existence at the time of the alleged stalking.

 

[Akai]

BBM : I believe the same could also be said for the FF who have been stalked also , over many , many years . They are also victims IMO

I would agree with you if they had courted privacy, but they have done the opposite. It's a bit hard to call yourself a victim of stalking when you invite attention by doing TV and podcast interviews.

 

[katydid23]

Being stalked would be quite terrifying I think we can all agree.

Can not imagine the trauma attached to being stalked by your alledged abuser and a child to boot who isn't equipped with the maturity or capacity to understand why.


moo

I am thinking of this situation in terms of many custody battles I have seen over the years. One side will accuse the other side of abusing the child, and then say they stalked the child against court orders.

But then when it gets to court, it sometimes turns out that one side greatly exaggerated those claims, and it was not actually stalking, in the way many envision that term.

I am going to be patient and wait for the facts before I jump to conclusions about the actual events.

 

[katydid23]

What I wonder is why would an accused person (FM), who is pleading 'not guilty' needs to use a mental disorder as a defense. If you didn't do anything wrong, surely the evidence will show that. It makes me think that there is a lot of evidence against her.

As an adoptive mom, I can kind of put myself in her place and I can see possible scenarios, perhaps.

If my children's bio-families accused me of abusing them, and I lost custody while awaiting the investigation, I would be very distressed, upset, and emotional. Especially if I had not abused anyone, but I felt I was being unfairly charged, etc.

I can see a possibility where I might be very tempted to go to my child's school, or sporting event in order to reach out to them, possibly out of concern for them, maybe because I missed them, or maybe I wanted to explain something to them that felt important to say?

If I was charged with stalking, would I then use a mental health explanation if I thought there was a proper one to use? What if I had PTSD from some trauma or a mental breakdown from pressure from false accusations coming from LE? [who may have been purposely trying to rattle me and my husband and to tear us apart?]

 

[k-mac]

I am thinking of this situation in terms of many custody battles I have seen over the years. One side will cali the other side abused the child, and then stalked the child against court orders.

But then when it gets to court, it sometimes turns out that one side greatly exaggerated those claims, and it was not actually stalking, in the way many envision that term.

I am going to be patient and wait for the facts before I jump to conclusions about the actual events.

Whats been put down into charges laid and out in the media are pretty serious.

<modsnip>

 

[Akai]

I am thinking of this situation in terms of many custody battles I have seen over the years. One side will accuse the other side of abusing the child, and then say they stalked the child against court orders.

But then when it gets to court, it sometimes turns out that one side greatly exaggerated those claims, and it was not actually stalking, in the way many envision that term.

I am going to be patient and wait for the facts before I jump to conclusions about the actual events.

I absolutely 100% agree with you about custody battles (and I would even extend this to other legal battles where a person uses accusations to further another agenda, such as what happened to BS). But this is not a family court issue or a matter involving another legal battle where there is any motive for the other party to make something up or even where there is a party that had motive to coach the child at the centre of the allegations. These are also not allegations by a private individual, but charges brought by police on the basis of surveillance and witnesses, according to latest articles, and come alongside assault charges, an AVO (which had to be issued by a Magistrate) and charges for giving false & misleading evidence. I don't think it is unrealistic to regard them as having genuine and serious foundation.

 

[katydid23]

I absolutely 100% agree with you about custody battles (and I would even extend this to other legal battles where a person uses accusations to further another agenda, such as what happened to BS). But this is not a family court issue or a matter involving another legal battle where there is any motive for the other party to make something up or even where there is a party that had motive to coach the child at the centre of the allegations. These are also not allegations by a private individual, but charges brought by police on the basis of surveillance and witnesses, according to latest articles, and come alongside assault charges, an AVO (which had to be issued by a Magistrate) and charges for giving false & misleading evidence. I don't think it is unrealistic to regard them as having genuine and serious foundation.

Normally I woulds agree with you, 100%

But as this is coinciding with the BS trial, which shows us clearly, how LE purposely went after their potential suspects, in order to shake them and scare them, I have to take a step back.

I want to wait for the actual charges and evidence to be brought forward before I assume that the foster parents are guilty.

The magistrate said at one point, that the charges were underwhelming, IIRC. It made me wonder if this was a stunt by LE rather than a true assault of any kind.

 

[Akai]

As an adoptive mom, I can kind of put myself in her place and I can see possible scenarios, perhaps.

If my children's bio-families accused me of abusing them, and I lost custody while awaiting the investigation, I would be very distressed, upset, and emotional. Especially if I had not abused anyone, but I felt I was being unfairly charged, etc.

I can see a possibility where I might be very tempted to go to my child's school, or sporting event in order to reach out to them, possibly out of concern for them, maybe because I missed them, or maybe I wanted to explain something to them that felt important to say?

If I was charged with stalking, would I then use a mental health explanation if I thought there was a proper one to use? What if I had PTSD from some trauma or a mental breakdown from pressure from false accusations coming from LE? [who may have been purposely trying to rattle me and my husband and to tear us apart?]

The Mental Health Act is being invoked by the FM for more than just the stalking and intimidation charges, but the assault charges as well. If someone's mental health is at a point that they are going to harm a child, they have a responsibility to get help before that happens, not use it as an excuse after the fact. Also, AFAIK the assault charges came first before the stalking and intimidation, so she couldn't use prior charges as a reason for being under pressure at the time they allegedly assaulted the child, even if it could theoretically stand for the subsequent stalking and intimidation charges.

Also, adoption is different to fostering. The FPs were NEVER the children's parents, but were long term carers, which means that they knew they were under the supervision of FACS ongoing. They had ongoing help at their fingertips if they needed it and they are obliged to notify FACS if they are struggling with any issues. From the information that came to light late last week with the court date, these accusations have not been made by a third party with any sort of apparent agenda. They were brought by police due to evidence they had.

 

[katydid23]

The Mental Health Act is being invoked by the FM for more than just the stalking and intimidation charges, but the assault charges as well. If someone's mental health is at a point that they are going to harm a child, they have a responsibility to get help before that happens, not use it as an excuse after the fact. Also, AFAIK the assault charges came first before the stalking and intimidation, so she couldn't use prior charges as a reason for being under pressure at the time they allegedly assaulted the child, even if it could theoretically stand for the subsequent stalking and intimidation charges.

Also, adoption is different to fostering. The FPs were NEVER the children's parents, but were long term carers, which means that they knew they were under the supervision of FACS ongoing. They had ongoing help at their fingertips if they needed it and they are obliged to notify FACS if they are struggling with any issues. From the information that came to light late last week with the court date, these accusations have not been made by a third party with any sort of apparent agenda. They were brought by police due to evidence they had.

The police that brought these accusations are the same police that are ramping up their pressure against their new found POI's. ALL OF THIS happened at the same time---the avo, the lying charges, the searches, the negative articles in the press, the secret interviews,, ALL of it is part of this ongoing pressure created by the police, to crack this case.

So I do not trust everything they are saying right now. It seems so much like what they did to BS, and another POI previously. And if so, then some of it is manufactured to rattle the family and force them to make a confession because there is not any other kind of evidence available.

 

[SouthAussie]

..... and given stalking and intimidation charges carry higher penalties than breaching an AVO, it may be that police simply decided to pursue stalking and intimidation rather than bother with breaches of the AVO IF one was already in existence at the time of the alleged stalking.

We found earlier that stalking and intimidation - if dealt with in the Local Court - carries the same penalty as breaching an AVO.

Yes, it has a higher penalty if dealt with in another (presumably higher) court.

The FP cases are being heard in the Local Court.

Australia - Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #69

 

[katydid23]

The FPs are not family. They were carers.

Also, the AVO had to be issued by a Magistrate, which means an independent party viewed evidence and determined there was reason to prevent the FPs having contact with the child in question. This means there was an independent determination of risk.

The Parents had the daughter in their care since she was a tiny infant. Reportedly, they were going to be long term carers, in essence, until she was 18. If so, I would see that as her family. She called them mom and dad and lived with them 24/7.

An AVO does not automatically equal GUILT. There still has to be a trial. It surprises me that so few are willing to wait for the evidence before asking for the FP's heads.

 

[SouthAussie]

The police that brought these accusations are the same police that are ramping up their pressure against their new found POI's. ALL OF THIS happened at the same time---the avo, the lying charges, the searches, the negative articles in the press, the secret interviews,, ALL of it is part of this ongoing pressure created by the police, to crack this case.

So I do not trust everything they are saying right now. It seems so much like what they did to BS, and another POI previously. And if so, then some of it is manufactured to rattle the family and force them to make a confession because there is not any other kind of evidence available.

Agreed. I feel that as the police cannot find William or any other hard evidence, pushing for a confession is the only avenue they have left.

No matter what anyone's suspicions may or may not be, I don't think this matter will ever get through any kind of criminal court without strong and plentiful circumstantial evidence ..... and/or hard evidence.

So far, I don't think the police have been able to gather enough of any kind of evidence to prove anything in a court of law.

imo

 

[LolaAngelina]

The FPs are not family. They were carers.

Also, the AVO had to be issued by a Magistrate, which means an independent party viewed evidence and determined there was reason to prevent the FPs having contact with the child in question. This means there was an independent determination of risk.

The are family to Williams sister. They are the only parents she has ever known. Being a family is not about sharing DNA.