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

[Bohemian]

Happy new year William, I hope 2019 brings you home to your loved ones no matter where you are & brings those responsible to justice.

Happy New Years to everyone still here for William, let’s hope that this year brings us the answers we all desperately want!

Exactly, Violet. And thank you. Happy New Year to you too x

 

[frogwell]

Interesting to me will be the fact that witnesses to anything involving a POI to be questioned at the inquest, have their statements supplied to the POI. I don't understand the protocol behind that in as much as who's statements can be kept anonymous and who's isn't. I watched this in the Belinda Peisley inquest.

 

[JLZ]

IMO that doesn't support his alibi because there is no proof that it was him that used the card, anyone on a joint account could have used the card.

Also it was a bank card statement not an actual receipt, times on statements aren't always true to time used.

Alibi means elsewhere. William disappeared certainly between 9:45 and 11, and probably between 10:15 and 10:45. If Spedding was at the cafe in Laurieton at 10 (was it 10:02?), he was a 12km drive from Benaroon 15 minutes from the start of the crucial half-hour. That's the reverse of an alibi. Furthermore, say he snatched William at 10:30 and was back at the school for the assembly at 12. That allows him an hour and a half to make some initial arrangements about William, following them up in the afternoon. Plenty of time. But Margaret would know.

 

[SouthAussie]

Alibi means elsewhere. William disappeared certainly between 9:45 and 11, and probably between 10:15 and 10:45. If Spedding was at the cafe in Laurieton at 10 (was it 10:02?), he was a 12km drive from Benaroon within 15 minutes of the start of the crucial half-hour. That's the reverse of an alibi. Furthermore, say he snatched William at 10:30 and was back at the school for the assembly at 12. That allows him an hour and a half to make some initial arrangements about William, following them up in the afternoon. Plenty of time. But Margaret would know.

I would think that Margaret would be a crucial witness at the inquest.

And as you noted, Kendall is about 10 mins away (according to DM). I wonder where Spedding's pings took him after Laurieton ... and when?


BBM
Mr Spedding told Channel 9, his arm around visibly upset wife, Margaret.
"We'll get through this, we'll stick together and get through this."
Spedding denies toddler involvement

His wife Margaret is critical to his alibi in the William Tyrrell case, claiming they were drinking coffee together at a café in Laurieton, 10-minutes from Kendall, at the time.
The persons of interest in missing William Tyrrell case | Daily Mail Online

 

[SouthAussie]

I was just wondering, if Spedding's wife is called as a witness at the inquest and she decides to engage a lawyer to support her, can it be the same lawyer as Spedding is using - or is that a potential conflict of interest?

 

[purpleandgreen]

It could be interesting when people are under oath. IMO.

 

[JLZ]

I was just wondering, if Spedding's wife is called as a witness at the inquest and she decides to engage a lawyer to support her, can it be the same lawyer as Spedding is using - or is that a potential conflict of interest?

He could act for both if it appeared that their interests did not conflict, but if it turned out that there was a conflict he would have to stop acting for both--that is, get rid of both clients, not just one or the other.
https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-03/conflict of interest - practical aspects.pdf

 

[JLZ]

deleted

 

[papertrail]

Interesting to me will be the fact that witnesses to anything involving a POI to be questioned at the inquest, have their statements supplied to the POI. I don't understand the protocol behind that in as much as who's statements can be kept anonymous and who's isn't. I watched this in the Belinda Peisley inquest.

There is no defense or prosecution in an inquest.

 

[purpleandgreen]

But people are required to tell the truth. Imo

 

[Bohemian]

He could act for both if it appeared that their interests did not conflict, but if it turned out that there was a conflict he would have to stop acting for both--that is, get rid of both clients, not just one or the other.
https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-03/conflict of interest - practical aspects.pdf

Could you give an example please JLZ?

ETA: In the context of an inquest, where there is a POI being called to give evidence and their partner is also called?

TIA x

 

[JLZ]

Could you give an example please JLZ?

ETA: In the context of an inquest, where there is a POI being called to give evidence and their partner is also called?

TIA x

I'm not making good progress with that question. You know I'm not a lawyer, right? The POI presumably has a lawyer to minimize the risk of being charged or if charged, convicted. What the partner's reason would be, I don't know. Perhaps she wants advice on whether she can claim exemption from testifying or avoid questions on a particular topic. But this has ramifications for the POI, and the lawyer shouldn't give the partner advice that would go against his other client's interest. Perhaps she tells the lawyer something that conceivably could be helpful for the POI but she doesn't want him to know. Perhaps her evidence changes under oath and the lawyer wants to walk her back, but how do you cross-examine your own client? The lawyer, knowing more about the case than we do, would be in a better position to think about what sorts of problems might come up, or whether it's clear there's no problem. It could be a long road ahead--not just the inquest. My feeling is that he might give MS a little "support" as part of his service to Spedding, but if she showed any sign of being needed to be treated as an independent client, it would be safer to refer her to someone else.

 

[Bohemian]

I'm not making good progress with that question. You know I'm not a lawyer, right? The POI presumably has a lawyer to minimize the risk of being charged or if charged, convicted. What the partner's reason would be, I don't know. Perhaps she wants advice on whether she can claim exemption from testifying or avoid questions on a particular topic. But this has ramifications for the POI, and the lawyer shouldn't give the partner advice that would go against his other client's interest. Perhaps she tells the lawyer something that conceivably could be helpful for the POI but she doesn't want him to know. Perhaps her evidence changes under oath and the lawyer wants to walk her back, but how do you cross-examine your own client? The lawyer, knowing more about the case than we do, would be in a better position to think about what sorts of problems might come up, or whether it's clear there's no problem. It could be a long road ahead--not just the inquest. My feeling is that he might give MS a little "support" as part of his service to Spedding, but if she showed any sign of being needed to be treated as an independent client, it would be safer to refer her to someone else.

I don’t know that you’re not a lawyer, JLZ Nevertheless, you’re much more knowlegeable about the law than I am IMO and I’m grateful for that. Thanks for the explanation. It’s thought provoking and makes the topic easier to understand.

 

[interested64]

I'm not making good progress with that question. You know I'm not a lawyer, right? The POI presumably has a lawyer to minimize the risk of being charged or if charged, convicted. What the partner's reason would be, I don't know. Perhaps she wants advice on whether she can claim exemption from testifying or avoid questions on a particular topic. But this has ramifications for the POI, and the lawyer shouldn't give the partner advice that would go against his other client's interest. Perhaps she tells the lawyer something that conceivably could be helpful for the POI but she doesn't want him to know. Perhaps her evidence changes under oath and the lawyer wants to walk her back, but how do you cross-examine your own client? The lawyer, knowing more about the case than we do, would be in a better position to think about what sorts of problems might come up, or whether it's clear there's no problem. It could be a long road ahead--not just the inquest. My feeling is that he might give MS a little "support" as part of his service to Spedding, but if she showed any sign of being needed to be treated as an independent client, it would be safer to refer her to someone else.

..imo she should be treated as an individual regardless..what if she under pressure to tell lies..somehow i doubt it as she is a very needy person imo

 

[kiwi50]

I guess if someone has been happy to lie to the police so far, why do they think this person will tell the truth to the Coroner.

 

[BreakingNews]

But people are required to tell the truth. Imo[/QUOTE


Of course people are required to tell the truth in any court. BUT many people do not tell the truth. Baden Clay and his family lied in court under oath. Happens in all courts. I have been a juror many times and lying under oath happens frequently.

 

[papertrail]

But people are required to tell the truth. Imo

Truth is an individual perspective.

 

[papertrail]

I guess if someone has been happy to lie to the police so far, why do they think this person will tell the truth to the Coroner.

Who are you referring to as lying?

 

[BreakingNews]

This is an inquest which is much more relaxed regarding rules than other courts ( they are in Qld, am assuming same in NSW) The Coronial can ask anything s/he wants and call anyone s/he wants that will enable a decision to be reached. Two inquests have concluded that Dawson murdered his wife many years ago, but he has only recently been arrested. So it is anyone's guess as to what happens after this inquest.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Asking this out of ignorance - if that’s the case, how did they escape being charged with perjury?
Also, I’ve always wondered if they (at least some of them) should have been charged with accessory after the fact.

Could be the same in this case, involving many people, perhaps different people depending on the scenario that occurred that terrible day.