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

[SLouTh]

Yes just before the very end., she was dismissed and then Coroner announced they were adjourning the inquest right there...
JMO

Sorry didn’t mean to imply that is why inquest was adjourned .. just stating when it occurred and answering your question that KC did give evidence ..,

I think I attached my reply to the wrong quote... iI was in answering this question from JWS
“Has Katrina cherry testified as yet?”

I Would also like to add that I fully support the closing of the court for strategic reasons, in aiding the Coroner to find out what happened to William ...

 

[purpleandgreen]

Could it have something to do with the time stamp on the photo? If there are questions over the timeframe that WT could have disappeared and a police officer has information that could be crucial but doesn’t match the time stamp on the photo, that would be a very good reason to call a sudden adjournment.

With all due respect, long term posters on this thread would know that this has been hashed and rehashed and rehashed and........

But whatever...... just hope other posters aren’t going to jump off that and start apportioning blame to the FF again, as we know that’s against TOS.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Sorry didn’t mean to imply that is why inquest was adjourned .. just stating when it occurred and answering your question that KC did give evidence ..,

Ah, my misunderstanding. I’ll delete my post.

 

[SLouTh]

I myself have been curious as to what is included in the “Brief to the Coroner” , and I have done some research into this.... but couldn’t find the answer to my exact question ....

Do the police have to include every lead they have received or is it at police discretion what they actually put into the brief??

It seems others on here are also interested in the actual process so thought I would ask you @Cleaver Greene

Many thanks

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I myself have been curious as to what is included in the “Brief to the Coroner” , and I have done some research into this.... but couldn’t find the answer to my exact question ....

Do the police have to include every lead they have received or is it at police discretion what they actually put into the brief??

It seems others on here are also interested in the actual process so thought I would ask you @Cleaver Greene

Many thanks

Depends on the subject of the inquest. In this case there would be a brief prepared by police. They would include what they think is relevant. But there could easily be relevant evidence not in the brief. If a line of questioning reveals that there may be further evidence not included, then the Coroner would issue a subpoena for that evidence. Police may have excluded a person from their enquiry but evidence may come up that may mean that person needs to be re-investigated. That’s exactly what happened in the Daniel Morcombe inquest. An inquest is a moving feast. It’s different to a trial where prosecutors have to disclose the entire brief proper to trial.

 

[Warshawski]

Until recently, Inquests were used to determine a cause of death when there wasn’t a crime so there couldn’t be a police investigation. The Coroner would really be looking at whether procedures could change to prevent similar deaths in the future. It’s only in recent years that the Coroner is almost taking on a role of overseeing a police investigation.

It sounds to me like a lot of the evidence is to do with operational issues, which police are reluctant to disclose, for obvious reasons. I would always thought it unlikely that witnesses could be called without it even being known that witnesses were being called. But given what I’ve read tonight, that’s what seems to be happening in the inquest.

There are others on the page that are following the ins and outs of the inquest far more closely than me. It’s fantastic sifting through what has happened at the inquest by having everyone chipping in bits of information.

IMO this is what is so valuable about this forum - I see it as a respectful & united community bringing diverse thoughts, opinions & expertise to the 'table', in the care & concern of others.

Thanks all for your input..

 

[JWSleuth]

Sorry didn’t mean to imply that is why inquest was adjourned .. just stating when it occurred and answering your question that KC did give evidence ..,

I think I attached my reply to the wrong quote... iI was in answering this question from JWS
“Has Katrina cherry testified as yet?”

I Would also like to add that I fully support the closing of the court for strategic reasons, in aiding the Coroner to find out what happened to William ...

Thank you, just rereading last day of inquest (what I should have done initially trying to work out with KC fits -the articles and relationships are strange and complex)

I wasn't meaning to highlight your statement or mine in that light.

I'm leaning towards prior days proceedings something has come up to suddenly pause.

Or in light of Jubes court case, perhaps needing to wait out parts of this, and avoid closures due to conflict with Jubes case.

But who knows!

Edit...

Also a handful of witnesses suppressed, perhaps something here prompted need for further investigation.


-

 

[JWSleuth]

Maybe RD timesheets came through...

 

[deugirtni]

Until recently, Inquests were used to determine a cause of death when there wasn’t a crime so there couldn’t be a police investigation. The Coroner would really be looking at whether procedures could change to prevent similar deaths in the future. It’s only in recent years that the Coroner is almost taking on a role of overseeing a police investigation. ....

RSBM
Thank you for your post, and also for joining us here, it is wonderful you are sharing your valued experience and professional input in this thread.

This post is very interesting. I am curious as to how a police investigation would have been overseen prior to when the Coroner more recently began to almost be taking on a role of overseeing a police investigation? Or would there have been no oversight? What makes a case become subject to this type of thing? ie does it happen in all unsolved missing/murder cases now, or just some, and how is it determined which ones would go to inquest, or not? TIA

 

[Cleaver Greene]

With all due respect, long term posters on this thread would know that this has been hashed and rehashed and rehashed and........

But whatever...... just hope other posters aren’t going to jump off that and start apportioning blame to the FF again, as we know that’s against TOS.

My earlier post had nothing to do with the FF! Perhaps it just occurred to everyone at the inquest that the time stamp may not be gospel. If the time stamp was even 10 minutes out, that makes an extra window of opportunity and the alibis of the POI would need to be re-examined. For all we know, several people could have been eliminated because of a rock solid alibi like being on the phone at 9.37. If it’s possible that the photo was taken at 9.27, their alibi isn’t so rock solid any more. If it was 9.47, that could exclude POI.

I don’t understand how my post can possibly be interpreted as implicating the FF, especially when I have stated on several of my posts that I know the TOS state that we can’t make allegations about the FF. You are reading a personal agenda into my post that simply isn’t there.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

RSBM
Thank you for your post, and also for joining us here, it is wonderful you are sharing your valued experience and professional input in this thread.

This post is very interesting. I am curious as to how a police investigation would have been overseen prior to when the Coroner more recently began to almost be taking on a role of overseeing a police investigation? Or would there have been no oversight? What makes a case become subject to this type of thing? ie does it happen in all unsolved missing/murder cases now, or just some, and how is it determined which ones would go to inquest, or not? TIA

Police oversee the investigation. The buck stops with them. Historically, if police chose to not follow up on a lead, that was that.

A family could push for an inquest. In the Levenson case we saw a Coroner force the suspect to answer questions. That ruling was upheld on appeal. Suddenly police now have an avenue to break through the right to silence. They could ask for an inquest too.

I think we will see more and more inquests, especially for Cold Cases. I recently read that some of our most notorious cases, like the Beaumont children, were never the subject of an inquest.

 

[purpleandgreen]

My earlier post had nothing to do with the FF! Perhaps it just occurred to everyone at the inquest that the time stamp may not be gospel. If the time stamp was even 10 minutes out, that makes an extra window of opportunity and the alibis of the POI would need to be re-examined. For all we know, several people could have been eliminated because of a rock solid alibi like being on the phone at 9.37. If it’s possible that the photo was taken at 9.27, their alibi isn’t so rock solid any more. If it was 9.47, that could exclude POI.

I don’t understand how my post can possibly be interpreted as implicating the FF, especially when I have stated on several of my posts that I know the TOS state that we can’t make allegations about the FF. You are reading a personal agenda into my post that simply isn’t there.

It’s all back in the threads. Some were using the time stamp to try to apportion blame to the ff. We know they’ve been cleared and we’ve also been told in no uncertain terms that it’s not up for discussion, by our Mods.

No mention was made in my post of you suggesting that at all, it was stated that I hoped people would NOT jump off the time stamp references and start questioning the ff action and statements again. That was stated quite clearly IMO.

 

[SLouTh]

If the time stamp was even 10 minutes out, that makes an extra window of opportunity and the alibis of the POI would need to be re-examined. For all we know, several people could have been eliminated because of a rock solid alibi like being on the phone at 9.37. If it’s possible that the photo was taken at 9.27, their alibi isn’t so rock solid any more. If it was 9.47, that could exclude POI.

I think this is an excellent analogy of why the Coroner agreed to have the photo checked .. the points raised here could definitely affect the investigation..,

 

[deugirtni]

Maybe RD timesheets came through...

I am not understanding how they were not available within the police brief issued to the coroner. Were they never requested until now?

 

[SLouTh]

Also it was closed again with Beacroft the day before that .. the 19th August ....
Just after this.....
“The court is being shown a questionnaire handed to residents by police in 2015, which included a question about who was present at their properties on the day William vanished. @10NewsFirst @10Daily”

Thanks to War’s reply earlier ...
I wonder if they closed the court after the questionnaire to discuss any POI Profiles that Laura Beaucroft - May have put together ??

"She then heard evidence from Det Sgt Laura Beacroft, who was with the Child Abuse and Sex Crimes Squad, before being seconded to the William Tyrrell case in late 2015, to set up a Person of Interest profile"
From here
Child In Spiderman Suit Seen In Car The Day William Disappeared

This is purely speculation on my part ... just a thought....

 

[JWSleuth]

I am not understanding how they were not available within the police brief issued to the coroner. Were they never requested until now?

Seems odd doesn't it- did he not mention his work at the service station maybe?

They had the timesheets for his other job which his superviser believed was forged.

 

[SLouTh]

Seems odd doesn't it- did he not mention his work at the service station maybe?

They had the timesheets for his other job which his superviser believed was forged.

A simple subpoena to Caltex HR and the NBN Company by the Police for them I would have thought....
Unless they do actually have them and are trying to catch him out?

JMO

 

[JWSleuth]

Can't view further due to paywall:

A witness at the coronial inquest into missing boy William Tyrrell has cast doubt over the authenticity of timesheets submitted by a convicted sex offender who was purporting to be at work the time of the toddler's disappearance. Bbm.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sm...-tyrrell-s-disappearance-20190816-p52htb.html

Would he have only needed to supply this being his alibi - but it's not proven giving his supervisor didn't sign it.

 

[SLouTh]

Can't view further due to paywall:

A witness at the coronial inquest into missing boy William Tyrrell has cast doubt over the authenticity of timesheets submitted by a convicted sex offender who was purporting to be at work the time of the toddler's disappearance. Bbm.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sm...-tyrrell-s-disappearance-20190816-p52htb.html

Would he have only needed to supply this being his alibi - but it's not proven giving his supervisor didn't sign it.

I would imagine the Police would have contacted HR of the firm to compare what he supplied as his timesheets VERSUS records the company have for the same period?? Surely??

JMO

 

[JWSleuth]

I would imagine the Police would have contacted HR of the firm to compare what he supplied as his timesheets VERSUS records the company have for the same period?? Surely??

JMO

Yes surely... one would hope.. as we were saying he was a busy man! Working on the NBN at caltex and assisting the SES search...

Maybe they are working on more in this respect.