Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #47

[SouthAussie]

It could be as simple as police identifying the vehicle and when told that it couldn’t have been Spedding’s car, Pollard doubted himself or back-pedalled. People can quite often be certain about something and, when confronted with evidence that what they saw or heard was not right, they don’t have an explanation for why they got it wrong, or their recollection was wrong.

Yes, I had thought about that. But then why even bother to have Dean Pollard testify? If it was a moot point.

Unless the Coroner had to justify to themselves the reason for the search of that area? Which seems a bit silly. She had the police brief in front of her.

I just find it a bit puzzling due to these aspects.

The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is ... whose van was it?

 

[they'll get you]

Yes, we understand Dean's attitude reflected someone who likely did not want to be there. And was upset about the challenge of his testimony.

He 100% believed it was Spedding's vehicle in his police statement. Then 100% believed it was a vehicle the same as Spedding's at the inquest.

So, did the police ever track down the vehicle that was 100% like Spedding's, I wonder.
As we have discussed before, people can 'not see' things that are right in front of them ... like the faded writing on the front of a vehicle. Though I am sure the Coroner would already know that. She is a smart person.

There is a sign written van that goes past my place every evening and if I were to see it elsewhere I would know that van. Only because it’s sign written it’s a stand out and one-of-a-kind.

 

[Loxoli]

Yes, I had thought about that. But then why even bother to have Dean Pollard testify? If it was a moot point.

Unless the Coroner had to justify to themselves the reason for the search of that area? Which seems a bit silly. She had the police brief in front of her.

I just find it a bit puzzling due to these aspects.

The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is ... whose van was it?

Maybe RD is a stronger lead than we think?

 

[they'll get you]

IMO I wasn't convinced he even saw a vehicle.

So he must be a crazy liar? Why would he go to those lengths to make it all up?

<modsnip>

 

[SouthAussie]

There is a sign written van that goes past my place every evening and if I were to see it elsewhere I would know that van. Only because it’s sign written it’s a stand out and one-of-a-kind.

Sometimes when I see one of my client's work vans from a distance, I realise when the van drives by me that it is someone else's van. It is signwritten, but not in their signwriting.

I wonder what kind of work vehicle Geoff Owen drove, and if he ever let Frank Abbott drive the van.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Yes, I had thought about that. But then why even bother to have Dean Pollard testify? If it was a moot point.

That’s a good point. I’m not sure why he testified. He may have been called by O’Brien who would likely have wanted all evidence implicating and excluding BS before the Coroner. A finding by the Coroner that BS was not fairly investigated or that he was no longer a POI would be very helpful for BS.

In some ways, this makes the most sense and possibly explains why BS wasn’t long on the stand. It may have all been part of O’Brien’s strategy to eliminate BS as a POI.

 

[they'll get you]

I think that the question that we were wondering is did the police ever identify whose vehicle it was.
And why did Dean Pollard change his story.

I don’t get it either SA. From 100% sure, taking the time of telling the cops, seeing a search happen and then.....fizzer.

Either he’s a or he’s been threatened. That’s it.

 

[SouthAussie]

That’s a good point. I’m not sure why he testified. He may have been called by O’Brien who would likely have wanted all evidence implicating and excluding BS before the Coroner. A finding by the Coroner that BS was not fairly investigated or that he was no longer a POI would be very helpful for BS.

In some ways, this makes the most sense and possibly explains why BS wasn’t long on the stand. It may have all been part of O’Brien’s strategy to eliminate BS as a POI.

Can another witness' lawyer call a witness to the inquest? I thought that only the Coroner could do that, as it is his/her investigation.

I am thinking that the van might be relevant. But in another way. Geoff Owen/Frank Abbott/someone else on the radar.

 

[SouthAussie]

I don’t get it either SA. From 100% sure, taking the time of telling the cops, seeing a search happen and then.....fizzer.

Either he’s a ****** or he’s been threatened. That’s it.

"The Crown alleged during the trial that Abbott had admitted to three people that he had murdered the girl but that they had not told anyone until years later because Abbott had threatened them."
Australia - Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #46

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Can another witness' lawyer call a witness to the inquest? I thought that only the Coroner could do that, as it is his/her investigation.

I am thinking that the van might be relevant. But in another way. Geoff Owen/Frank Abbott/someone else on the radar.

A lawyer, as the representative of an interested person, can call witnesses, although the Coroner would want to know the basis for it. The Coroner would normally be given the full police brief and would decide on what witnesses would be called. Interested parties (and BS was an interested party) would then make submissions on why they would want a particular witness called, if that witness wasn’t on the Coroner’ list of proposed witnesses.

If the police investigation was being examined, then evidence possibly eliminating a POI is very relevant.

 

[they'll get you]

Can another witness' lawyer call a witness to the inquest? I thought that only the Coroner could do that, as it is his/her investigation.

I am thinking that the van might be relevant. But in another way. Geoff Owen/Frank Abbott/someone else on the radar.

Like the Ristevski case they had to prove any other of the same vehicles were not there at the time.

IIRC BS’s van was a VW, not that many of them around.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Either he’s a ****** or he’s been threatened. That’s it.

There is a third option. That he was positive that he saw a car and it was BS car. Until there was evidence that it couldn’t have been that car. People react differently when told that what they saw couldn’t have happened. Some witnesses will say that they were certain of what they saw but they may have been wrong. Some will double down and insist that they are right. Some will doubt themselves so much they may say that they are not sure of anything anymore.

 

[SouthAussie]

A lawyer, as the representative of an interested person, can call witnesses, although the Coroner would want to know the basis for it. The Coroner would normally be given the full police brief and would decide on what witnesses would be called. Interested parties (and BS was an interested party) would then make submissions on why they would want a particular witness called, if that witness wasn’t on the Coroner’ list of proposed witnesses.

If the police investigation was being examined, then evidence possibly eliminating a POI is very relevant.

If that is what happened, I can see why Dean Pollard might have been irked from needing to attend the inquest. It would have seemed pointless to him - as it does to me.

Why an attending police officer could not have provided that information is beyond me. Verified that is what is in the police brief, what happened, it turned out not to be Spedding himself. In the same way that Laura Beacroft had to testify about Jubes thoughts in the investigation.

 

[sleepinoz]

That’s a good point. I’m not sure why he testified. He may have been called by O’Brien who would likely have wanted all evidence implicating and excluding BS before the Coroner. A finding by the Coroner that BS was not fairly investigated or that he was no longer a POI would be very helpful for BS.

In some ways, this makes the most sense and possibly explains why BS wasn’t long on the stand. It may have all been part of O’Brien’s strategy to eliminate BS as a POI.

Is it possible for O'Brien to call witnesses at this stage? Isn't the Crown still presenting the brief?

Sorry I see that has already been asked.

 

[Blues Clues]

"The search area can only be accessed by four-wheel drive vehicles along a bush track."

I don't know anything about vans and their 4wd capabilities, but possibly the search of the area gave investigators information that was useful in reference.

Police end William Tyrrell search in remote waterways empty-handed

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Is it possible for O'Brien to call witnesses at this stage? Isn't the Crown still presenting the brief?

Sorry I see that has already been asked.

An inquest runs differently to a trial. It’s not a case where the Crown presents witnesses and then defence presents witnesses. Think of it as one big investigation. There would be a lot of work behind the scenes where the Coroner and lawyers meet and work out the most efficient way to proceed. Witnesses may not appear in an easily understandable order. Certain facts may be agreed by all parties with just a few questions asked of at we think are highly relevant witnesses. What happens in court is usually just a small portion of the evidence the Coroner will consider.

My understanding is that O’Brien has withdrawn from the inquest, which means that there is nothing more for BS to present or cross examine witnesses on.

 

[SouthAussie]

My understanding is that O’Brien has withdrawn from the inquest, which means that there is nothing more for BS to present or cross examine witnesses on.

I think O'Brien is all about showiness. There was no need for him to withdraw from the inquest. He could have just not shown up any more. He is trying to make public points while he prepares for his next lawsuit.
Just like the prepared speech of Spedding's outside the courthouse where he finally threw in a comment about William's families grief (or whatever it was that he said about that).

imo

 

[Cleaver Greene]

If that is what happened, I can see why Dean Pollard might have been irked from needing to attend the inquest. It would have seemed pointless to him - as it does to me.

Why an attending police officer could not have provided that information is beyond me. Verified that is what is in the police brief, what happened, it turned out not to be Spedding himself. In the same way that Laura Beacroft had to testify about Jubes thoughts in the investigation.

I’m speculating here as to why he may have been called, but it ended up being a spectacularly effective strategy for BS to have Pollard there. It became headline news that evidence implicating BS was wrong. O’Brien made his point with a sledgehammer, to the extent that some media outlets are referring to BS as a “former POI”.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I think O'Brien is all about showiness. There was no need for him to withdraw from the inquest. He could have just not shown up any more. He is trying to make public points while he prepares for his next lawsuit.
Just like the prepared speech of Spedding's outside the courthouse where he finally threw in a comment about William's families grief (or whatever it was that he said about that).

imo

When a lawyer no longer needs or wants to be in court in ongoing proceedings, they need to seek leave of the court to withdraw from the matter. Without leave of the court, the lawyer must continue to attend.

When I no longer want to be involved in an ongoing matter for whatever reason, I am required to attend court and formally ask the presiding judge for leave to withdraw.

 

[katydid23]

What if DP wanted to be a 'helpful citizen' and decided to testify to something that would help police in this case?

If he saw all the police activity, and assumed BS was the guilty party, then maybe he could rationalise that he was doing a good thing, by reporting that work van?


And then OOPS---he finds out there is video showing BS is somewhere else at that time, having a beer with friends. So DP is forced to backtrack.