Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #37

[Karinna]

Is there a statute of limitation on these crimes? I know there isn't now, but I think there was back in the day.

If there was, I couldn't imagine a lawyer hanging onto them. If it was BS that had kept them.....why?

Don't know about the statute of limitation for back then?
BS might of just kept them for his own record, although it is probably unlikely that he did from 30 yrs. ago.
I have records of stuff from long ago, back in the 80's though in my filing cabinet.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM Local court is like going to the GP, they do a bit of everything and they are a lot more punitive in their decision making. Appealing a decision needs a higher level of court with more specialised knowledge around various laws. the appeal decision for bail was very fair to my mind on the information presented from both sides. And it seems it was wise, BS fronted up to what he had to, didn't skip bail or escape the country. Honestly, it is hard to hear about anyone who sees BS point of view as being some type of uncaring individual who must have something wrong with them, the judge, the wife, the defence lawyer, etc. Maybe he didn't do it. IMO

All I can say to that is .... the unluckiest washing machine repairman in the world, hey.
(attributed to Wexford, I always think of that comment when it comes to Spedding)

"Giles, there are two things that I don't believe in: coincidence and leprechauns."

 

[SouthAussie]

Is there a statute of limitation on these crimes? I know there isn't now, but I think there was back in the day.

If there was, I couldn't imagine a lawyer hanging onto them. If it was BS that had kept them.....why?

There used to be a statute of limitations, of 3 years after the incident or 3 years after the complainant turned 18 years old, in NSW.

But that has since been amended, due to recognition of the fact that it frequently takes a good 20 years or so for a complainant to come forward ... due to age, or embarrassment, or trauma. Their bravery in coming forward in recent years is said to be due to the people that have come forward in the various Royal Commissions into child sex abuse.

Figures released by the royal commission show the Catholic church paid $280 million in compensation to victims of alleged child sexual abuse between 1980-2015 and Anglican church dioceses have payments of just over $34 million in response to complaints over the same period.
Law firms swamped by historical child sexual abuse cases due to royal commisison

NSW to scrap time limits on civil action by survivors of child sexual abuse

 

[SouthAussie]

And even if Spedding did avoid conviction in the historical case(s), there is always the possibility of civil action by the girls. The threshold of proof is lower in civil cases. May be worth their while to persue, if he ever gains any monies from his defamation suits.

In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court).
Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

Yes by her own admission. If we believe what NC states? Has that information been verified by anyone else though?
I doubt very much any of the Bio's would of known WT was going to be in Kendall at that time though. I don't think the FP's would have to report to BP's or their family as to where they were taking the children every time they decide to go somewhere with them?

BBM: Hi Karinna. They (FP's) would have to let the BP's know (either directly or indirectly) if the weekend they wanted to go somewhere/anywhere was the weekend the BP's (due to visitation rights) had made arrangements to see the children. I'm thinking, the BP's would not take too kindly to being told the visit had to be cancelled, that's understandable too, in my opinion. I am wondering if this was the case--it was a weekend the BP's were scheduled to see the children? If it was, I can imagine there'd have been some very angry people out there (as in their *BP's* family and circle of friends). Others would have heard about it alright. All MOO

 

[purpleandgreen]

BBM

That gave me a chuckle considering one of the MSM being sued by BS is Daily Mail. reputable? Nuh 99% gossip rag IMO.

Unlike the Australian, to which many links have been posted in this thread. I think this topic has had its time. In the big picture of William, rebel wilson doesn't rate. IMO JMO IMOO

 

[CuriousCritter]

BBM: Hi Karinna. They (FP's) would have to let the BP's know (either directly or indirectly) if the weekend they wanted to go somewhere/anywhere was the weekend the BP's (due to visitation rights) had made arrangements to see the children. I'm thinking, the BP's would not take too kindly to being told the visit had to be cancelled, that's understandable too, in my opinion. I am wondering if this was the case--it was a weekend the BP's were scheduled to see the children? If it was, I can imagine there'd have been some very angry people out there (as in their *BP's* family and circle of friends). Others would have heard about it alright. All MOO

Even if it wasn't a scheduled visit with BP's, doesn't foster carers need to report either to an agency/FACS of their intention of going on holidays??

 

[Karinna]

BBM: Hi Karinna. They (FP's) would have to let the BP's know (either directly or indirectly) if the weekend they wanted to go somewhere/anywhere was the weekend the BP's (due to visitation rights) had made arrangements to see the children. I'm thinking, the BP's would not take too kindly to being told the visit had to be cancelled, that's understandable too, in my opinion. I am wondering if this was the case--it was a weekend the BP's were scheduled to see the children? If it was, I can imagine there'd have been some very angry people out there (as in their *BP's* family and circle of friends). Others would have heard about it alright. All MOO

Would the BP's have had direct contact with the FP's in a permanent placement situation?
I think from previous discussion of the topic that KT didn't have a lot of visitation with her children, and would of been court ordered as to how often she could visit with her children in such a situation?

 

[Karinna]

Even if it wasn't a scheduled visit with BP's, doesn't foster carers need to report either to an agency/FACS of their intention of going on holidays??

Considering the children were placed into permanent care, i really don't know if FP's have to report going a few hours down the road to visit FGM? It wasn't an overseas or interstate holiday, so i guess it depends on the care plan in place for those particular FP's?

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM: Hi Karinna. They (FP's) would have to let the BP's know (either directly or indirectly) if the weekend they wanted to go somewhere/anywhere was the weekend the BP's (due to visitation rights) had made arrangements to see the children. I'm thinking, the BP's would not take too kindly to being told the visit had to be cancelled, that's understandable too, in my opinion. I am wondering if this was the case--it was a weekend the BP's were scheduled to see the children? If it was, I can imagine there'd have been some very angry people out there (as in their *BP's* family and circle of friends). Others would have heard about it alright. All MOO

I think the foster parents need to inform FACS of their intentions to go away, but the bio parents do not need to know where ... if it was their visitation day/weekend. They would just need to reschedule the visitation.
If it was not their visitation day/weekend, they would not be told anything at all.

With Karlie and Brendan hiding William for several months in the past, I kinda doubt that FACS would give them any more information than was required.

There is a whole chart here about who makes the decisions for a foster child (starts at Page 100 of link) in many given situations. In a supervised-visit situation, like William's, it seems that FACS make the decisions in conjunction with the foster parents, with regard to his contact with his bio parents.

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/321330/Caring-for-Kids-combined.pdf

 

[Karinna]

And even if Spedding did avoid conviction in the historical case(s), there is always the possibility of civil action by the girls. The threshold of proof is lower in civil cases. May be worth their while to persue, if he ever gains any monies from his defamation suits.

In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court).
Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

Can it be deemed a civil case if it involves historic CSA?
It is a crime isn't it?
And would the criminal litigation previously pursued in court not impact on a civil case if it can be litigated in civil court?

 

[Karinna]

I think the foster parents need to inform FACS of their intentions to go away, but the bio parents do not need to know where ... if it was their visitation day/weekend. They would just need to reschedule the visitation.
If it was not their visitation day/weekend, they would not be told anything at all.

With Karlie and Brendan hiding William for several months in the past, I kinda doubt that FACS would give them any more information than was required.

There is a whole chart here about who makes the decisions for a foster child (starts at Page 100 of link) in many given situations. In a supervised-visit situation, like William's, it seems that FACS make the decisions in conjunction with the foster parents, with regard to his contact with his bio parents.

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/321330/Caring-for-Kids-combined.pdf

Thanks for posting up the link, and think you are probably right in what you say.
I am not taking it as a "fact" that KT & BC hid WT though, because i consider the source, and to me it is questionable.

 

[SouthAussie]

Can it be deemed a civil case if it involves historic CSA?
It is a crime isn't it?
And would the criminal litigation previously pursued in court not impact on a civil case if it can be litigated in civil court?

Yes, it absolutely can be deemed as a civil case. As well as a criminal case.
There are many links out there about it ... here is one.


The NSW Government has already implemented some of the civil litigation recommendations of Royal Commission by:
- removing limitations periods in civil claims for child abuse

NSW reviews child abuse civil laws

 

[sleepinoz]

I think the foster parents need to inform FACS of their intentions to go away, but the bio parents do not need to know where ... if it was their visitation day/weekend. They would just need to reschedule the visitation.
If it was not their visitation day/weekend, they would not be told anything at all.

With Karlie and Brendan hiding William for several months in the past, I kinda doubt that FACS would give them any more information than was required.

There is a whole chart here about who makes the decisions for a foster child (starts at Page 100 of link) in many given situations. In a supervised-visit situation, like William's, it seems that FACS make the decisions in conjunction with the foster parents, with regard to his contact with his bio parents.

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/321330/Caring-for-Kids-combined.pdf

From memory I think if they had previously been approved to visit Nana, they don't have to advise FACS. There was also a distance that FP can travel without advising FACS. If necessary FACS would advise BP's.

 

[SouthAussie]

Thanks for posting up the link, and think you are probably right in what you say.
I am not taking it as a "fact" that KT & BC hid WT though, because i consider the source, and to me it is questionable.

I agree, the source is unreliable. However, supervised visits were the go, and there was a reason for that ... whatever that reason may have been.


Before his disappearance in September 2014, William did have supervised visits with his mother, contrary to some media reports.
However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not “Tyrrell”.
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

 

[SouthAussie]

From memory I think if they had previously been approved to visit Nana, they don't have to advise FACS. There was also a distance that FP can travel without advising FACS. If necessary FACS would advise BP's.

Yes, I read in another link that only notification of "holidays" was required.
Presumably, there is a guideline also of what a holiday is, by FACS standards. A visit of several days with family, who are also in NSW, may not qualify for notification ... if it was not going to interfere with the infrequent visitation that Karlie was reported to have had with William.

 

[Karinna]

Yes, it absolutely can be deemed as a civil case. As well as a criminal case.
There are many links out there about it ... here is one.


The NSW Government has already implemented some of the civil litigation recommendations of Royal Commission by:
- removing limitations periods in civil claims for child abuse

NSW reviews child abuse civil laws

Thanks for posting the info. Well i guess they could go that route if they want to pursue it. Perhaps their legal representative will inform them.

 

[sleepinoz]

Thanks for posting up the link, and think you are probably right in what you say.
I am not taking it as a "fact" that KT & BC hid WT though, because i consider the source, and to me it is questionable.

In the Sunday Night program, at about 8:00 it explains that KT and BC were on the run with William for about 6 weeks. No mention of NC, but it does confirm that they did a runner.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SouthAussie]

Thanks for posting the info. Well i guess they could go that route if they want to pursue it. Perhaps their legal representative will inform them.

That route has been somewhat successful in O/S cases ... think of OJ Simpson who was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court, but was found liable for his wife's death in a civil court.

Not sure if there are equivalent Aussie examples, haven't looked.

 

[Karinna]

In the Sunday Night program, at about 8:00 it explains that KT and BC were on the run with William for about 6 weeks. No mention of NC, but it does confirm that they did a runner.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ok. thanks. It's been a while since i watched that interview. I guess it would of been a scary situation to the thought of having your 7 mnth. old baby removed. The mother/child bond broken, very sad.