Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #42

[drsleuth]

William's biological family secure legal aid funding to pay for own lawyer

I’m glad they have obtained their own legal representation, they should have had one from the start. However, I don’t believe that they were never notified that they could have one as IMO all interested parties are notified. Not only that but they have enough history with the court system to be aware that it would be available.

I understand that they will be able to pose their own questions to whoever is on the stand, but I’m not sure if they can recall witnesses. This seems, IMO, to be the purpose of their representation, they want to question the FCer’s and I’m not sure they can recall. Does anyone know?

“William’s biological family has questioned the official version of events which claim he had been playing at his foster grandmother's house with his sister in September 2014 when he vanished.”

This part of the article bothers me, where do they think he was?



The ‘New’ Podcast will be interesting, although IMO this is just a grab for cash. CO has reported from her POV and that not being an overall view IMO. Some would probably say that about the existing podcast, but at least that one is actually speaking to people that were present on the day and I'm not sure that the new one will, I can't imagine FCer's participating in 2 different podcasts.

In my view this will only start a ‘Class’ war of Bios v Foster and won’t be advantageous for William or the Inquest at all.

From memory, the FC's and BF have not been excused from giving evidence.......and could be re-called?

 

[Bohemian]

William's biological family secure legal aid funding to pay for own lawyer

I’m glad they have obtained their own legal representation, they should have had one from the start. However, I don’t believe that they were never notified that they could have one as IMO all interested parties are notified. Not only that but they have enough history with the court system to be aware that it would be available.

I understand that they will be able to pose their own questions to whoever is on the stand, but I’m not sure if they can recall witnesses. This seems, IMO, to be the purpose of their representation, they want to question the FCer’s and I’m not sure they can recall. Does anyone know?

“William’s biological family has questioned the official version of events which claim he had been playing at his foster grandmother's house with his sister in September 2014 when he vanished.”

This part of the article bothers me, where do they think he was?



The ‘New’ Podcast will be interesting, although IMO this is just a grab for cash. CO has reported from her POV and that not being an overall view IMO. Some would probably say that about the existing podcast, but at least that one is actually speaking to people that were present on the day and I'm not sure that the new one will, I can't imagine FCer's participating in 2 different podcasts.

In my view this will only start a ‘Class’ war of Bios v Foster and won’t be advantageous for William or the Inquest at all.

There was talk of recalling witnesses in the inquest into the Dreamworld tragedy, but only because there was new evidence:

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...-witnesses-coroner-hears-20181012-p5099c.html

I’m under the impression, from the DT’s article at least, the William’s BF want to ‘fight the NSWPF and the NSW Government’ at the inquest, not just question his FF. Hearing from those witnesses took almost all of the first week of William’s inquest. Is it seriously being suggested that it be reheard to allow questions from William’s BF’s legal representative who was not engaged from the start?

Like you, I’m wondering exactly where William’s BF think he was when he ‘vanished’ if not in his FGM’s yard?

I think the horse has bolted as far as a the idea of a class war between William’s BF and FF is concerned. Certain commentators have made it very clear that there is a yawning chasm between the two families. In fact, it’s my view they delight in espousing the supposed class divide. One day, I’d like to see William’s loved ones — his BF and his FF — sitting together. In a courtroom. To see his abductor jailed.

 

[Thebottomline]

No one has declared the foster carers innocent. Police have used the terminology 'cleared'.

What is CLEARED? definition of CLEARED (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[sleepinoz]

No one has declared the foster carers innocent. Police have used the terminology 'cleared'.

Police have used the term "cleared" because they have cleared them.

According to the last episode of the Podcast, next week covers a point in the investigation of when the FCer's were considered 'suspects'. So why don't we wait until then and see if they mention what actually 'cleared' them.

Innocent is only declared in a Trial by Jury or Judge, the Police don't say that.

I have always said in an Investigation like this, the Police consider EVERYONE guilty until proven innocent (my words) which is opposite of the Justice system where everyone is Innocent until proven Guilty. It can't be any other way, if it was nobody would ever be charged with a crime.

 

[they'll get you]

WS old timers might recall a little girl Chloe Campbell who went missing from inside her home at Childers Qld only months before William.
The man returned her 48 hours later close to where the police had set up a command post. Strange things happened to that little girl but ultimately she was returned alive, he was caught but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was out free now.

When William was taken we all prayed he would be returned like little Chloe was but alas he’s still missing.
.

Found Alive - Australia - CC, 3, Bundaberg QLD, 10 April 2014 - #2

 

[they'll get you]

A bit of background and mentality to the chucklehead who abducted Chloe.

His name is Eden James Kane and was jailed for 4 years.

Eden James Kane snatched the child while she was sleeping in April 2014, and kept her at his house for two days.
The court heard Kane did not know the child or her family and chose her "at random".

When the girl was found, her hair and toy dog had been washed.

The court heard the pair watched movies and the child slept twice in Kane's bed, but there was no evidence she had been assaulted
"However, later that night, she told her mother that a man that she didn't know took her to a house and she had fun there."

Kane's defence lawyer argued his client had "reduced moral culpability" because of his deteriorating mental health at the time of the abduction.

The court heard he had a volatile childhood and a background of alcohol and drug use

I send prayers for William and Maddie hoping against all hope they are alive & being looked after by some lonely halfwit who has no intention of harming them.
Man jailed for abducting 3yo girl through window while she was sleeping

 

[JLZ]

There was talk of recalling witnesses in the inquest into the Dreamworld tragedy, but only because there was new evidence:

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...-witnesses-coroner-hears-20181012-p5099c.html

I’m under the impression, from the DT’s article at least, the William’s BF want to ‘fight the NSWPF and the NSW Government’ at the inquest, not just question his FF. Hearing from those witnesses took almost all of the first week of William’s inquest. Is it seriously being suggested that it be reheard to allow questions from William’s BF’s legal representative who was not engaged from the start?

Like you, I’m wondering exactly where William’s BF think he was when he ‘vanished’ if not in his FGM’s yard?

I think the horse has bolted as far as a the idea of a class war between William’s BF and FF is concerned. Certain commentators have made it very clear that there is a yawning chasm between the two families. In fact, it’s my view they delight in espousing the supposed class divide. One day, I’d like to see William’s loved ones — his BF and his FF — sitting together. In a courtroom. To see his abductor jailed.

BBM. I don't think it would be necessary to rehear the evidence. IMO counsel would apply to the coroner to have witness/es recalled to answer a few additional questions. I think they would have access to transcripts of the previous evidence as well as the recollections and instructions of their clients.

Coroners Act, s58(1): A coroner in coronial proceedings is not bound to observe the rules of procedure and evidence that are applicable to proceedings before a court of law.

 

[Bohemian]

BBM. I don't think it would be necessary to rehear the evidence. IMO counsel would apply to the coroner to have witness/es recalled to answer a few additional questions. I think they would have access to transcripts of the previous evidence as well as the recollections and instructions of their clients.

Coroners Act, s58(1): A coroner in coronial proceedings is not bound to observe the rules of procedure and evidence that are applicable to proceedings before a court of law.

I think I used the wrong phrase. For ‘it be reheard’ read ‘they be recalled’.

 

[JLZ]

I think I used the wrong phrase. For ‘it be reheard’ read ‘they be recalled’.

I thought you were implying that it would be time-consuming, and I'm saying, not necessarily.

 

[Bohemian]

I thought you were implying that it would be time-consuming, and I'm saying, not necessarily.

More I suppose I don’t understand why witnesses who had already given evidence would be recalled because an interested party didn’t engage legal representation before an inquest.

 

[papertrail]

Do you mean they are cleared of causing his disappearance but guilty of neglecting to keep him safe?

I think cleared does sorta mean "not guilty" or "no fault found" though, doesn't it?

I wonder if the bio's are wanting to have some kind of "fault" placed on ff?? It appeared that way from the letter bio dad wrote.

I simply corrected terminology used. No inference should be drawn from that.

 

[papertrail]

Police have used the term "cleared" because they have cleared them.

According to the last episode of the Podcast, next week covers a point in the investigation of when the FCer's were considered 'suspects'. So why don't we wait until then and see if they mention what actually 'cleared' them.

Innocent is only declared in a Trial by Jury or Judge, the Police don't say that.

I have always said in an Investigation like this, the Police consider EVERYONE guilty until proven innocent (my words) which is opposite of the Justice system where everyone is Innocent until proven Guilty. It can't be any other way, if it was nobody would ever be charged with a crime.

When was it first announced officially the fcarers had been 'cleared' and who made the announcement?

 

[papertrail]

BBM. I don't think it would be necessary to rehear the evidence. IMO counsel would apply to the coroner to have witness/es recalled to answer a few additional questions. I think they would have access to transcripts of the previous evidence as well as the recollections and instructions of their clients.

Coroners Act, s58(1): A coroner in coronial proceedings is not bound to observe the rules of procedure and evidence that are applicable to proceedings before a court of law.

I do understand that now bioparent has legal counsel that counsel will be provided with a full copy of police brief handed up to the Coroner.

Timing of the announcement regarding legal counsel is very interesting...the day of GJ departure.

 

[papertrail]

Police have used the term "cleared" because they have cleared them.

According to the last episode of the Podcast, next week covers a point in the investigation of when the FCer's were considered 'suspects'. So why don't we wait until then and see if they mention what actually 'cleared' them.

Innocent is only declared in a Trial by Jury or Judge, the Police don't say that.

I have always said in an Investigation like this, the Police consider EVERYONE guilty until proven innocent (my words) which is opposite of the Justice system where everyone is Innocent until proven Guilty. It can't be any other way, if it was nobody would ever be charged with a crime.

Not necessarily 'guilty' but definitely person of interest. Who mag or mag not be suspected if the crime.

From my perspective the timeline of what (and that is everything relative to both children subjected to OHC orders) had occurred prior to 12 September 2014 and going way back to 2010 and possibly before then, is critical to this case.

 

[purpleandgreen]

I do understand that now bioparent has legal counsel that counsel will be provided with a full copy of police brief handed up to the Coroner.

Timing of the announcement regarding legal counsel is very interesting...the day of GJ departure.

BBM Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory?

General question for all readers / posters - Are conspiracy theories allowed on WS? TIA for your help.

 

[2cents2]

I do understand that now bioparent has legal counsel that counsel will be provided with a full copy of police brief handed up to the Coroner.

Timing of the announcement regarding legal counsel is very interesting...the day of GJ departure.

The full copy of the police brief would be very valuable and insightful for them I'm sure.

Pleased they will have counsel now and can fully participate in the process.

 

[2cents2]

There's also a new podcast due to be released soon by The Australian and Caroline Overington called Nowhere Child. Caroline announced it not long ago on her official Facebook page

Wow! Another one! Maybe that explains the timing of Ten's podcast release, they wanted to beat The Australian off the ranks?

Looking forward to hearing more evidence and perspectives on the case.

 

[sleepinoz]

Not necessarily 'guilty' but definitely person of interest. Who mag or mag not be suspected if the crime.

From my perspective the timeline of what (and that is everything relative to both children subjected to OHC orders) had occurred prior to 12 September 2014 and going way back to 2010 and possibly before then, is critical to this case.

Can you expand what you mean please. William wasn't born in 2010 so I'm a little confused as to what your saying.

What happened prior to 12th Sept 2014 and possibly back to 2010?

 

[JLZ]

Not necessarily 'guilty' but definitely person of interest. Who mag or mag not be suspected if the crime.

From my perspective the timeline of what (and that is everything relative to both children subjected to OHC orders) had occurred prior to 12 September 2014 and going way back to 2010 and possibly before then, is critical to this case.

Do you think William's sister's prior placement may have something to do with it?

 

[JLZ]

I do understand that now bioparent has legal counsel that counsel will be provided with a full copy of police brief handed up to the Coroner.

Timing of the announcement regarding legal counsel is very interesting...the day of GJ departure.

That too, although I'm not sure bio parents wouldn't already have had it. I meant a transcript of the inquest proceedings, what all the witnesses have said so far.