Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #41

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,881
I don't think the Podcast has mentioned BS in that sense as yet.

The only mention of BS's historical charges lately have been by Caroline Overington in the Australian article. But Not Guilty has never been mentioned AFAIK

All those charges have since been dismissed, or dropped

NoCookies | The Australian

Yes, you are right. I just listened to the whole first episode again, and its not there.

I did notice this couple of snippets though. Things we had wondered about before .....


LIA HARRIS: He (Jubes) will argue in court that he had a lawful reason for the recordings.

LIA HARRIS: So, Jane asked her mother about the broken washing machine again, and she was told that she called a repairman from an ad in the local paper …..
 
  • #1,882
There is also a type of dismissal where the court finds a person guilty but does not proceed to conviction. I hope that wouldn't apply to child rape.

BBM:
Apparently, it applies to a person caught with more than two million images and videos of adults abusing children .......


Judge Shanahan said Clancy's possession of child abuse material was not a victimless crime and that even the animated and CGI images and films resulted in real children being harmed down the line.
"It is fuelling the actual abuse of children," Judge Shanahan said.

He noted that Clancy had no criminal record and that his family and friends were standing by him despite the offending.

Clancy was given two years' probation during which he must attend behaviour change programs.
A conviction was not recorded.

Category: | The Courier Mail

The article can be accessed via this link: The RED HEART Campaign
 
Last edited:
  • #1,883
'Guilty' would be a verdict reached after a trial, which presumably said trial wouldn't have been dismissed, else no 'guilty' verdict would have been possible. Do you have an example of a court finding a person 'guilty', but yet without 'convicting' the person? Those things seem contradictory.

Guilty, with No Conviction – Here’s what it means
The NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act allows criminal Courts in NSW to make a finding of guilt against someone, however not record a conviction. This means that in this situation you would be found guilty with no conviction recorded.

The Criminal Court that finds you guilty may make one of the following three Orders under Section 10 of the NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act:

  1. Directing that the charge against the person be dismissed (Section 10(1)(a)).
  2. Discharging the person on the condition that that person enter into a good behaviour bond not exceeding two years (Section 10(1)(b)).
  3. Discharging the person on the condition that that person enters into an agreement to participate in an intervention program and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program (Section 10(1)(c)).

    Can You be Found Guilty With No Conviction Recorded?
 
  • #1,884
Well my thinking is that if it didn't go to trial, it was not deemed valid to begin with or if charges are dropped, then they weren't valid either. Could that not be one interpretation of dimissal and dropped? Another way of saying, there was nothing of substance in it to begin with when scutinised in a court setting?


I find all the legal terms and definitions difficult to understand, sometimes.

Just trying to establish what the difference between dismissed or dropped could be in legal terms.



Section 10 dismissals and Conditional Release orders

One of the most common ways that defendants are able to avoid a criminal conviction is by applying for and receiving a non conviction order from a magistrate.

Non conviction orders are generally easier to obtain for less severe charges, but a good defence lawyer may be able to help you receive a non conviction order for a more serious offence in certain circumstances.

To get a non conviction order you will need to plead guilty to the charges against you.

The magistrate then agrees to record a finding of guilt with no criminal conviction, which means that a conviction won’t be recorded against you and you won’t be penalised further for the offence.

Speak to a criminal lawyer to find out your chances of obtaining a non conviction order.

Some of the factors that may help your case include extenuating circumstances, having no history of previous offences, and proving that you are of good character.



If the charges are withdrawn or ‘dropped’ you will not receive a criminal record, or have to face legal proceedings for those particular charges.

There are very specific rules regarding when and how criminal charges can be withdrawn.


Charges Dismissed: Criminal Record Avoided
 
  • #1,885
'Guilty' would be a verdict reached after a trial, which presumably said trial wouldn't have been dismissed, else no 'guilty' verdict would have been possible. Do you have an example of a court finding a person 'guilty', but yet without 'convicting' the person? Those things seem contradictory.
Some discussion: Can You be Found Guilty With No Conviction Recorded?

And the law:

(1) Without proceeding to conviction, a court that finds a person guilty of an offence may make any one of the following orders: (a) an order directing that the relevant charge be dismissed, . . .
CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) ACT 1999 - SECT 10 Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender
 
  • #1,886
Just wondering.. if the charges against GJ get dropped or dismissed, will we be game to consider that perhaps he really must be still guilty and that perhaps there just wasn't enough evidence?
No. These are recent incidents which took place in police stations. There ought to be evidence. Besides I think the dispute won't be about the facts but about the legality of what was done.
 
  • #1,887
No. These are recent incidents which took place in police stations. There ought to be evidence. Besides I think the dispute won't be about the facts but about the legality of what was done.

I think Jubes defence might hinge around something like this.
Perhaps protecting himself by showing that there was no coercion, manipulation, bullying or harassment in the conversations.


In addition, it is not an offence to record a private conversation to which a person is a party if:
– is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party

The Law in NSW: Recording Conversations
 
  • #1,888
  • #1,889
well he had tried to use the other locked up man and that failed,im curious if BS and JJH were mates and then he met his wife..or the other way around

The connection was thru BS sister married JJH wasn't it? And BS once lived with a woman in Cambelltown who bears the 1st and 2nd name as his current wife's cousin.
 
  • #1,890
There is also a type of dismissal where the court finds a person guilty but does not proceed to conviction. I hope that wouldn't apply to child rape.

What child rape are you referring to?
 
  • #1,891
Regarding court matters regarding Spedding I have found this information. Unfortunately the remaining part of the article is paywalled.

https://amp-theaustralian-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nation/witness-against-bill-spedding-described-as-bizarre-obsessive/news-story/9b98d96a3dbc4a8101e74fce96668fc2?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nation/witness-against-bill-spedding-described-as-bizarre-obsessive/news-story/9b98d96a3dbc4a8101e74fce96668fc2



A key witness in the case against Bill Spedding has been described as “obsessive, compulsive and bizarre” by a judge, who said she had a history of making similar allegations against men, court documents reveal.

This article is dated 27 June 2015. I do not know which State's court this article is referring to.

Then there is this article 're Victorian court matter. Again paywalled. The below text that shows on Google search is different than text that shows on paywalled version.

dailytelegraph


10 Aug 2018 · ... child sex abuse charges against him dismissed in a Victorian court. ... “I will mark all charges as withdrawn,” Magistrate Ronald ...

I understand that when charges are withdrawn at times it means there was sufficient evidence to proceed, the charges are then withdrawn and that then leaves the possibility of further charges being instituted if further evidence becomes available.

Already a subscriber?

Unlock access to

In my last paragraph sufficient should read insufficient.
 
  • #1,892
Just wondering.. if the charges against GJ get dropped or dismissed, will we be game to consider that perhaps he really must be still guilty and that perhaps there just wasn't enough evidence?


Well said, why don't we all just say everyone is guilty of a crime they've allegedly committed, even if they've been to court and had charges dismissed or withdrawn.

Back in the thread everyone was saying GJ charges are only alleged at this stage and not to hang him until it's gone to court, so whatever the out come it is for him are we all saying we'll just call him guilty no matter what the outcome is....BS hasn't been found GUILTY of anything so as the saying goes innocent until proven guilty , just like the majority of you all think for GJ at the moment innocent until proven guilty.
 
  • #1,893
Well said, why don't we all just say everyone is guilty of a crime they've allegedly committed, even if they've been to court and had charges dismissed or withdrawn.

Back in the thread everyone was saying GJ charges are only alleged at this stage and not to hang him until it's gone to court, so whatever the out come it is for him are we all saying we'll just call him guilty no matter what the outcome is....BS hasn't been found GUILTY of anything so as the saying goes innocent until proven guilty , just like the majority of you all think for GJ at the moment innocent until proven guilty.

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.

However, we have all read the horrible details of Spedding's alleged crimes. I personally think that they are a lot worse than allegedly illegally recording some conversations.

I guess the measure is in a person's feelings about the alleged crime. For me, child abuse tops most everything.
How anyone can measure that against a police officer doing his job, and doing what many police officers do, is beyond my comprehension.

It is not a simple matter of innocent until proven guilty.
It is a matter of innocent of what, until proven guilty of what.

Some may think that all alleged crimes should be measured in the same way ... but I dont. Some crimes are horrific.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,894
In episode 1 of the podcast, they make a strong point of saying that it's hard to imagine that the abduction could have been planned which I’m not sure I agree with.

11:45 BELLING: “… a critical piece of this puzzle is the fact that they actually went up to Kendall early. They decided at the last minute to leave on Thursday night rather than go on Friday as initially planned.”

And then they go on, because of this critical “snap decision” to leave earlier,

12:50 HARRIS: “It makes it very difficult to imagine that someone could have planned the abduction knowing that they would be there.”

I think William’s abduction could still have been planned but just enacted earlier, opportunistically. It’s not like they weren’t expected that Friday. They were expected that Friday, they just arrived earlier on Thursday evening. Someone could have seen their car arrive at the house on Thursday evening. Someone could have seen their car at the house very early on Friday morning before they got up. We know the children were heard playing by neighbours on Friday morning:

“Judy Wilson, whose property was just metres from William's grandmother's yard, heard the two children playing before she took off to run errands in town.” (ref: The day William Tyrrell vanished)

We also know that they were probably seen by someone in a car when they were out riding their bicycles in the driveway on Friday morning:

“William and his sister were riding their bicycles in the property's driveway, when a car drove past, did a U-turn in a neighbour's driveway and drove off.” (ref: The day William Tyrrell vanished)

What’s more, they are known in the area.

PS had certainly seen them before:

“(PS) had seen the little boy named William and his sister, who came to stay with their grandmother directly across the road, only occasionally” (ref: The day William Tyrrell vanished)

They visited Kendall often enough for the kids to have their own toys at the house:

10:50 HARRIS: “…they had been to Kendall many times before with both of the kids. The kids had their own toys there, they knew the house so it was a pretty normal weekend.”

Specifically, they visited every few months, half a dozen times in total:

11:07 FF: “It might be once every three or four months especially Nanna’s birthday or an occasion or also, just a good time to catch up. So probably half a dozen times”

And they don't just stay indoors when they are there, they go outside to play. Plus, they have attended a Street Party:

11:21 FM: “We would go out, I mean they were young so quite limited in what you do with young children. And there was a street party so we went to the street party (inaudible), Christmas party. But it was more, family oriented rather than go out and engage with lots of people.”

So, a long post, basically just to say that I can imagine that the abduction was yes, enacted opportunistically (aren’t most?) but it could also have been planned. And I'm not sure arriving on Thursday is that "critical".

Podcast episode 1 ref: The Little Boy in the Spiderman Suit. Rough transcriptions above are my own.
 
  • #1,895
Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.

However, we have all read the horrible details of Spedding's alleged crimes. I personally think that they are a lot worse than allegedly illegally recording some conversations.

I guess the measure is in a person's feelings about the alleged crime. For me, child abuse tops most everything.
How anyone can measure that against a police officer doing his job, and doing what many police officers do, is beyond my comprehension.

It is not a simple matter of innocent until proven guilty.
It is a matter of innocent of what, until proven guilty of what.

Some may think that all alleged crimes should be measured in the same way ... but I dont. Some crimes are horrific.


Of course sexual abuse is way more horrific than illegal recordings, so is murder to minor assault, but still all comes back down to Innocent until proven guilty...just hate this thread going off track and turning nasty when BS is mentioned
 
  • #1,896
Of course sexual abuse is way more horrific than illegal recordings, so is murder to minor assault, but still all comes back down to Innocent until proven guilty...just hate this thread going off track and turning nasty when BS is mentioned

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion about that, too.
An admirable man VS a not-admirable man imo.
I cannot even begin to find any similarities in the stance about their alleged actions, and I cannot even begin to align with posts that do.
Nothing personal. I just cannot understand it at all.
 
  • #1,897
In episode 1 of the podcast, they make a strong point of saying that it's hard to imagine that the abduction could have been planned which I’m not sure I agree with.

11:45 BELLING: “… a critical piece of this puzzle is the fact that they actually went up to Kendall early. They decided at the last minute to leave on Thursday night rather than go on Friday as initially planned.”

And then they go on, because of this critical “snap decision” to leave earlier,

12:50 HARRIS: “It makes it very difficult to imagine that someone could have planned the abduction knowing that they would be there.”

I think William’s abduction could still have been planned but just enacted earlier, opportunistically. It’s not like they weren’t expected that Friday. They were expected that Friday, they just arrived earlier on Thursday evening. Someone could have seen their car arrive at the house on Thursday evening. Someone could have seen their car at the house very early on Friday morning before they got up. We know the children were heard playing by neighbours on Friday morning:

“Judy Wilson, whose property was just metres from William's grandmother's yard, heard the two children playing before she took off to run errands in town.” (ref: The day William Tyrrell vanished)

We also know that they were probably seen by someone in a car when they were out riding their bicycles in the driveway on Friday morning:

“William and his sister were riding their bicycles in the property's driveway, when a car drove past, did a U-turn in a neighbour's driveway and drove off.” (ref: The day William Tyrrell vanished)

What’s more, they are known in the area.

PS had certainly seen them before:

“(PS) had seen the little boy named William and his sister, who came to stay with their grandmother directly across the road, only occasionally” (ref: The day William Tyrrell vanished)

They visited Kendall often enough for the kids to have their own toys at the house:

10:50 HARRIS: “…they had been to Kendall many times before with both of the kids. The kids had their own toys there, they knew the house so it was a pretty normal weekend.”

Specifically, they visited every few months, half a dozen times in total:

11:07 FF: “It might be once every three or four months especially Nanna’s birthday or an occasion or also, just a good time to catch up. So probably half a dozen times”

And they don't just stay indoors when they are there, they go outside to play. Plus, they have attended a Street Party:

11:21 FM: “We would go out, I mean they were young so quite limited in what you do with young children. And there was a street party so we went to the street party (inaudible), Christmas party. But it was more, family oriented rather than go out and engage with lots of people.”

So, a long post, basically just to say that I can imagine that the abduction was yes, enacted opportunistically (aren’t most?) but it could also have been planned. And I'm not sure arriving on Thursday is that "critical".

Podcast episode 1 ref: The Little Boy in the Spiderman Suit. Rough transcriptions above are my own.

For that to happen it would've been someone that knew the ins and outs of WT's life and that they were due to visit Kendall regardless of arriving a day earlier.
 
  • #1,898
For whoever asked about why the FP did the podcast, this is why:


LIA HARRIS: So, there’s been some recent developments in the police investigation that has sort of changed things for them, and we’ll explain more about that as we go along. .......

Really interested to see what specific "recent developments in the police investigation" they are referring to here.

Also, the new information the Foster Family are going to reveal:

5:57 HARRIS: “..they’ll talk about a lot of things they haven’t spoken about before and there will be some very compelling new information that they are going to reveal” (ref: The Little Boy in the Spiderman Suit).

Overall, I'm enjoying the podcast.
 
  • #1,899
Really interested to see what specific "recent developments in the police investigation" they are referring to here.

Also, the new information the Foster Family are going to reveal:

5:57 HARRIS: “..they’ll talk about a lot of things they haven’t spoken about before and there will be some very compelling new information that they are going to reveal” (ref: The Little Boy in the Spiderman Suit).

Overall, I'm enjoying the podcast.

I'm enjoying it, too.

I was wondering today if the recent developments are that Jubes is not on the case any more, and the FP confidence has flagged because of that. So they felt the need to get the podcast done and have people really get to know William's story.

Lia said in her 'on the couch' interview that the charges happened during the making of the podcast, but I think Jubes may have been taken off the case prior to the podcast. Not sure.
 
  • #1,900
For that to happen it would've been someone that knew the ins and outs of WT's life and that they were due to visit Kendall regardless of arriving a day earlier.

Yes, they wouldn’t have had to know the ins and outs of WT’s life, just that they were coming that Friday.

OR it could also have been planned in more of a fantasy type way for the next time they visit, ‘I know they come here every few months, next time they come, if the situation allows, I’ll….’.

Long stretch, yes, but a possibility nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
2,176
Total visitors
2,287

Forum statistics

Threads
632,725
Messages
18,630,968
Members
243,274
Latest member
WickedGlow
Back
Top