Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #38

[purpleandgreen]

Walk a mile in their shoes.

Why?

 

[RubyHill]

And yet another one https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...f-toddler-william-tyrell-20150123-12wpef.html
Colin said Mr Spedding then went to the Buzz Cafe in Laurieton for a coffee with his wife before he went to an awards ceremony for his grandson at a primary school across the road.

Col is only repeating what he has been told,unless he was there his words are useless,Im like most of us here....where is the rock solid alibi for that morning,they cant seem to keep their stories straight.

Police have investigated some alleged inconsistencies in what he told them about his movements on September 12
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

 

[Thebottomline]

Col is only repeating what he has been told,unless he was there his words are useless,Im like most of us here....where is the rock solid alibi for that morning,they cant seem to keep their stories straight.

Police have investigated some alleged inconsistencies in what he told them about his movements on September 12
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

I agree I don’t take what Col says as proof of anything it was more in response to a poster who stated the assembly was before the coffee shop

 

[RubyHill]

I agree I don’t take what Col says as proof of anything it was more in response to a poster who stated the assembly was before the coffee shop

Yeah,I got the point you were trying to make TBL,I just jumped off your post to have a say about what I think of Col,I think the Speddings should be grateful that he stopped being their spokesperson.

 

[Lemony]

As Colin was rather chatty with the media I’m curious as to why he didn’t elaborate on the calls deleted from Bill’s phone log. I’m assuming that Colin would have asked BS about those details, as surely he would want to know the facts. He offered up the information about the bank statement, so why not give a simple explanation about the phone log to help his mate out.

 

[Bohemian]

Yes, I’d LOVE to know why he made statements like he did.

Yeah, I think we’re all eager to know what Bill Spedding’s motive was. I await his future utterances with bated breath; most especially those made within the confines of the NSW Coroner’s Court.

 

[Thebottomline]

Is a coronial inquest private as in who can attend- media etc. sorry if I’ve asked this before !

 

[Bohemian]

Is a coronial inquest private as in who can attend- media etc

As I understand it, the public and the media can attend inquests but the Coroner may close certain sessions. Some sessions may also be subject to non-publication orders; which includes not only MSM but social media. I know FaCS already have orders in place. They were mentioned during the Directions Hearing.

(I’ll find some links if you’d like them.)

 

[Thebottomline]

As I understand it, the public and the media can attend inquests but the Coroner may close certain sessions. Some sessions may also be subject to non-publication orders; which includes not only MSM but social media. I know FaCS already have orders in place. They were mentioned during the Directions Hearing.

(I’ll find some links if you’d like them.)

Thankyou Bohemium, that’s ok, your answer was perfectly good enough ! I knew someone here would know . I could google it but I get too lost in the legal jargon !

 

[they'll get you]

Col is only repeating what he has been told,unless he was there his words are useless,Im like most of us here....where is the rock solid alibi for that morning,they cant seem to keep their stories straight.

Police have investigated some alleged inconsistencies in what he told them about his movements on September 12
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

Ruby you are spot on here.
If Ol’ Col wasn’t there then his words are just heresay.
Repeating what he has been told dosn’t make him a witness.

And this -
‘where is the rock solid alibi for that morning,they cant seem to keep their stories straight‘.

I’m loving your posts Ruby!

 

[Thebottomline]

Ruby you are spot on here.
If Ol’ Col wasn’t there then his words are just heresay.
Repeating what he has been told dosn’t make him a witness.

And this -
‘where is the rock solid alibi for that morning,they cant seem to keep their stories straight‘.

I’m loving your posts Ruby!

I agree, I’m enjoying Ruby’s input too .

 

[JLZ]

Well, there is a reason(s) why he is subpeonaed to the first sitting of the inquest. And I don't believe it is because he was up on child sex charges from 30 years ago, or because Margaret's grandchildren were removed from their home.

I think the Coroner would require direct links to the disappearance of William to subpeona him.

Where are you getting that Spedding is subpoenaed to the first sitting specifically?

I think the inquest will begin with the surrounding and uncontested circumstances of the disappearance. They have some general questions they need to answer if possible such as whether William is dead and if so whether the disappearance involved human intervention, also whether the FACS-related situation played a part. But if the coroner forms the opinion that a particular person abducted William, the inquest has to be suspended. So I am thinking that any grilling of suspects is going to come later in the proceedings.

I said earlier that Spedding has to be there in the capacity of a POI because he claims he wasn't in the street at the time of the disappearance (isn't an eyewitness). I now think that he could be called to give evidence about his interaction with the grandmother days before, and whether he told anyone the family would be arriving. So potentially he's a general witness as well as a POI.

 

[RubyHill]

Ruby you are spot on here.
If Ol’ Col wasn’t there then his words are just heresay.
Repeating what he has been told dosn’t make him a witness.

And this -
‘where is the rock solid alibi for that morning,they cant seem to keep their stories straight‘.

I’m loving your posts Ruby!

Thank you,

 

[RubyHill]

I agree, I’m enjoying Ruby’s input too .

Thanks,Im new to the forum but not new to the case,William has been missing for far too long,I dont understand why some want to defend the main POI,its about trying to find out what happened to William,not defending the main POI in just about every post that mentions his name.

 

[SouthAussie]

Where are you getting that Spedding is subpoenaed to the first sitting specifically?

I think the inquest will begin with the surrounding and uncontested circumstances of the disappearance. They have some general questions they need to answer if possible such as whether William is dead and if so whether the disappearance involved human intervention, also whether the FACS-related situation played a part. But if the coroner forms the opinion that a particular person abducted William, the inquest has to be suspended. So I am thinking that any grilling of suspects is going to come later in the proceedings.

I said earlier that Spedding has to be there in the capacity of a POI because he claims he wasn't in the street at the time of the disappearance (isn't an eyewitness). I now think that he could be called to give evidence about his interaction with the grandmother days before, and whether he told anyone the family would be arriving. So potentially he's a general witness as well as a POI.

I doubt very much that he would have already received a subpeona for an unspecified date when the inquest will/may continue at some point in August or whenever.
Subpeonas bear a specific date for court attendance.


Subpoena to give evidence
If the subpoena requires you to give evidence, you must attend court on the date specified on the subpoena.
Subpoena: Information for persons served with a subpoena or copy of a subpoena - Federal Circuit Court of Australia

The return of subpoena date, which is written on the subpoena, is the day the court has ordered the person or organisation in the subpoena to:
- bring the documents to court and/or
- attend to give evidence.
Subpoenas

 

[JLZ]

I doubt very much that he would have already received a subpeona for an unspecified date when the inquest will/may continue at some point in August or whenever.

As I see it, if his situation is such that he has the right to cross-examine through a representative, he'd need to have all that in place before the inquest began. At any time in the hearings something might come up that he needs to challenge. I don't know what's normal practice with subpoenaing--would somebody be told they have a role in the inquest and can have s57 leave to appear, but not get the subpoena or notice of the subpoena until close to the date they're to be examined? I don't really get the subpoena thing anyway; like, why weren't the Dawsons subpoenaed to Lyn's inquest, or if they were, why weren't they penalised for not going?

 

[JLZ]

Subpoena to give evidence
If the subpoena requires you to give evidence, you must attend court on the date specified on the subpoena.
Subpoena: Information for persons served with a subpoena or copy of a subpoena - Federal Circuit Court of Australia

The return of subpoena date, which is written on the subpoena, is the day the court has ordered the person or organisation in the subpoena to:
- bring the documents to court and/or
- attend to give evidence.
Subpoenas

(snipped)

Thanks. I think the dates that far ahead would be somewhat uncertain so it would probably make sense to withhold the subpoena until close to the second sitting if that's when Spedding's to feature. However he might have notice that he was going to be subpoenaed, dates to be confirmed. Didn't his lawyer say something like, "He's being summonsed to appear so of course . . . ." Or did he say "He's been summonsed"?

 

[SouthAussie]

As I see it, if his situation is such that he has the right to cross-examine through a representative, he'd need to have all that in place before the inquest began. At any time in the hearings something might come up that he needs to challenge. I don't know what's normal practice with subpoenaing--would somebody be told they have a role in the inquest and can have s57 leave to appear, but not get the subpoena or notice of the subpoena until close to the date they're to be examined? I don't really get the subpoena thing anyway; like, why weren't the Dawsons subpoenaed to Lyn's inquest, or if they were, why weren't they penalised for not going?

A subpeona and s57 leave are two different things entirely.

A Coroner will subpeona a person if ..
she or she believes that the person is likely to be able to give material evidence to the inquest.
If a subpoena to appear is not complied with, the coroner has the power to issue a warrant for that person's arrest.
Appearing as a witness in the coroners court

s57 is granted if ...
any person, who in the opinion of the coroner has a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings, to appear in person in the proceedings or to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner.
Any person granted such leave may examine and cross-examine any witnesses on matters relevant to the proceedings.
CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 57 Representation in coronial proceedings

 

[SouthAussie]

(snipped)

Thanks. I think the dates that far ahead would be somewhat uncertain so it would probably make sense to withhold the subpoena until close to the second sitting if that's when Spedding's to feature. However he might have notice that he was going to be subpoenaed, dates to be confirmed. Didn't his lawyer say something like, "He's being summonsed to appear so of course . . . ." Or did he say "He's been summonsed"?

Been summoned ... he will be at the first sitting of the inquest. Specific dates are on subpeonas, as per my previous links. If you don't show, you can be arrested.

"He’s been summoned to attend, so of course he is being represented," Mr O’Brien said when asked why Mr Spedding, who has always denied any involvement in William’s disappearance, had a solicitor.
Police pursue 'active leads' into William Tyrrell's disappearance


A summons is an official document which requires a person to give evidence at a Tribunal hearing or to produce documents or things to the Tribunal. The term once used to describe such a document was ‘subpoena’.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/pract...4796d99fab15d82bca2576410006051e?OpenDocument

 

[JLZ]

A subpeona and s57 leave are two different things entirely.

A Coroner will subpeona a person if ..
she or she believes that the person is likely to be able to give material evidence to the inquest.
If a subpoena to appear is not complied with, the coroner has the power to issue a warrant for that person's arrest.
Appearing as a witness in the coroners court

s57 is granted if ...
any person, who in the opinion of the coroner has a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings, to appear in person in the proceedings or to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner.
Any person granted such leave may examine and cross-examine any witnesses on matters relevant to the proceedings.
CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 57 Representation in coronial proceedings

We have his s57 status from private sources so I might have to leave it as rumour. As to the subpoena, I'm not sure whether it's actually been served or whether he's had notice that it will be served in due course. Or perhaps when his lawyer said spoke of summonsing, he didn't mean a subpoena necessarily, just that Spedding would be called to give evidence.