Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard, Kendall (NSW), Sept 2014 #76

[k-mac]

I thought Detective Willy was speaking of William's disappearance when they said ... "I also wonder why Williams biological parents have not sued the Foster Parents?"

I did not relate that question to the alleged assault. Thanks for that.

side note.

With the mental health issues FM is claiming now and her resent proven violent behaviour, we do not know if William was or wasn't assaulted by this person and subsequently met his demise.

Am sure SFR are looking hard at this possibility too.

Speculative post.

 

[Couldbe]

side note.

With the mental health issues FM is claiming now and her resent proven violent behaviour, we do not know if William was or wasn't assaulted by this person and subsequently met his demise.

Am sure SFR are looking hard at this possibility too.

Speculative post.

JMO - quite a possible parallel could be drawn .... in the behaviour of the FM and her 'disciplining' style ... to which SFR could be alerted.

 

[Megnut]

If Wm thought the wooden spoon was after him, took the corner tight, raced to the high end of the veranda, he could've fallen over...

Cause. Effect.

Jmo

 

[FromGermany1]

Have never kicked a child in my lifetime.

Is that a reasonable thing to do??
Is it reasonable to make dismissive statements around this child's allegations.
When there is recorded evidence?
I don't think so , neither does NSW police thankfully.

The actions of the FPs before and after Williams disappearance are ugly.

William Tyrrell’s foster mother denied mental health application over alleged assault of young girl

Magistrate dismisses application for woman’s charges of assault and intimidation to be dealt with under Mental Health Act

www.theguardian.com

SD allegedly told a treating psychologist that she kicked the girl because she believed she was about to kick another child, but the alleged victim denied this.

The court heard SD allegedly verbally abused the child over a sustained period of time.

In a telephone conversation SD allegedly told her friend: “I need to break her.”

Then the... stalking and intimidation.

Malingering with a judge about your mental health status is shady.

NO, have to disagree there with your statement.....not actions of this "reasonable person". Or any reasonable person I know to be honest.



moo

Kicking is the worst, most humiliating thing, I can imagine.

 

[iiiii's]

What public interest means is not how much the public is interested in the case, if that is what you are saying.
It is more about if it is in the public interest (safety) to get the accused off the streets. imo


The public interest does not mean those things or cases in which the public are interested. Nor is it, necessarily, the public’s view or opinion on whether a prosecution should progress. Link

..... one’s decision cannot be driven by sympathy, prejudices, public sentiment or a talk show host’s opinion or a poll but by prosecutorial ethics, fairness and courage. DPP Public Interest


The public interest factors to be considered will vary from case to case, but may include:

• whether the offence is serious or trivial;
• any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
• the youth, age, intelligence, physical health, mental health or special vulnerability of the alleged offender, witness or victim;
• the alleged offender’s antecedents and background;
• the passage of time since the alleged offence;
• the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution;
• the prevalence of the alleged offence and the need for general and personal deterrence;
• the attitude of the victim;
• the need to give effect to regulatory or punitive imperatives; and
• the likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt.

CDPP Prosecution Policy

BBM

No. As in the justice who pointed out years ago in the FACS v APS case. A child going missing whilst in the care of the minister is in the public interest.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM

No. As in the justice who pointed out years ago in the FACS v APS case. A child going missing whilst in the care of the minister is in the public interest.

That still doesn't mean that public interest is about the public being interested in the case.

It would be about a child being safe (or not) in the care of the minister.

imo

As we can see by the criminal prosecution guidelines, the public being interested, talk show hosts being interested, polls being interested, does not amount to public interest (in prosecution). It is about the safety of the public. Is it a common dangerous thing? Does it need a deterrent? Those kinds of things.

 

[Doesitmakesense]

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle

This quote reminds me of this investigation. Working their way through the improbable and marking each one off as they go.

 

[SouthAussie]

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan DoyleFA,

This quote reminds me of this investigation. Working their way through the improbable and marking each one off as they go.

There seems to be a lot of things still remaining. William being lost in the bush, FA, PS, GO, FM. Unless they can clearly eliminate those things - other than FM - there will be reasonable doubt. imo

 

[JBowie]

Here’s what the NSW DPP has to say about Public Interest in the context of decision to prosecute:

1.4 Public interest

If the first test [Prospects of conviction] is satisfied, consideration must be given to whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

The following is not an exhaustive list. The weight to be given to any particular public interest factor will depend on the circumstances of the case.

Offence-related factors
1. the seriousness, or conversely, the triviality, of the offence
2. the prevalence of the offence in the community, whether it is of considerable public concern and the need to denounce and deter the offending behaviour
3. whether the offence is obsolete or obscure
4. the passage of time since the offence, having regard to its seriousness and the reasons for the delay

Accused-related factors
1. the accused’s degree of culpability
2. the accused’s criminal history and background
3. the accused’s age, physical health, mental health or cognitive impairment
4. whether the offence occurred while the accused was serving a sentence, on bail or remand
5. whether the accused is willing to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which the accused has done so

Victim-related factors
1. the victim’s attitude to a prosecution
2. the victim’s age, physical health, mental health or cognitive impairment and whether the prosecution may have an adverse physical or emotional impact on the victim
3. the protection of the victim and the victim’s family
Sentencing factors
1. the likely outcome if the accused is found guilty, having regard to the sentencing options available to the court
2. whether a sentence has already been imposed on the accused that adequately reflects the criminality of the conduct
3. whether the accused has already been sentenced for other offences and the likelihood of any additional penalty being imposed, having regard to the principle of totality in sentencing

Other factors
1. whether any resulting conviction would necessarily be regarded as unreasonable or a miscarriage of justice
2. any mitigating or aggravating circumstances of the offence
3. the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution, including disciplinary proceedings
4. the availability of compensation, restitution, reparation or forfeiture to any person or body following a successful prosecution, including any criminal compensation or confiscation
5. whether the prosecution would be perceived as counter-productive, for example, by bringing the law into disrepute
6. the need to maintain public confidence in basic constitutional institutions such as the Parliament and the courts
7. any special circumstances that would prevent a fair trial from being conducted
8. the likely length and expense of a trial if disproportionate to the seriousness of alleged offending
9. the age, physical health, mental health or special infirmity of an essential witness.

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines/chapter-1#guidelineanchor267

 

[k-mac]

There seems to be a lot of things still remaining. William being lost in the bush, FA, PS, GO, FM. Unless they can clearly eliminate those things - other than FM - there will be reasonable doubt. imo

'I was humiliated': When police accused this man of hurting William Tyrrell, his life changed forever

The pensioner says he was "humiliated" by detectives investigating the disappearance of William Tyrrell and is considering suing police over his treatment.

www.abc.net.au

Tick off PS from that list.
Clearly eliminated.

William Tyrrell search brings back painful memories for Paul Savage, who was cleared after being a person of interest​

 

[FromGermany1]

'I was humiliated': When police accused this man of hurting William Tyrrell, his life changed forever

The pensioner says he was "humiliated" by detectives investigating the disappearance of William Tyrrell and is considering suing police over his treatment.

www.abc.net.au

Tick off PS from that list.
Clearly eliminated.

William Tyrrell search brings back painful memories for Paul Savage, who was cleared after being a person of interest​

AT and PB perhaps instead of PS?
There were mannny .... doesn't exclude FFC.

 

[SouthAussie]

fc dv hearing august 11 parramatta court 9.30 am
no name suppression

Online Registry - Landing Page

onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw.gov.au

I think this is the dummy bid hearing, bearbear. Delayed from yesterday to 11th Aug.

The alleged assault case was scheduled for 4th September.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

AT and PB perhaps instead of PS?
There were mannny .... doesn't exclude FFC.

Some don't think PS can be excluded, based on this testimony in court.


"Detective Beacroft on Thursday said she believed Mr Savage was no longer an "active" person of interest, despite there being nothing which could rule him out."

'Don't tell anyone, love': Secret recordings of William Tyrrell suspect revealed in court

A Sydney court hears how police planted listening devices in the home of retiree Paul Savage after it was suggested he tried to cover up the accidental death of William Tyrrell and heard the suspect talking to his dead wife.

www.abc.net.au

 

[iiiii's]

"The state of NSW denied these allegations during the trial, saying police had not acted maliciously but that misunderstandings had occurred."

Bill Spedding: former suspect in William Tyrrell’s disappearance awarded $1.5m in damages

NSW ordered to pay damages after police maliciously pursued Spedding while investigating Tyrrell’s disappearance in September 2014

www.theguardian.com

And the judge found that defense by the state of NSW for the police actions to be malarky.

 

[JBowie]

Some don't think PS can be excluded, based on this testimony in court.


"Detective Beacroft on Thursday said she believed Mr Savage was no longer an "active" person of interest, despite there being nothing which could rule him out."

'Don't tell anyone, love': Secret recordings of William Tyrrell suspect revealed in court

A Sydney court hears how police planted listening devices in the home of retiree Paul Savage after it was suggested he tried to cover up the accidental death of William Tyrrell and heard the suspect talking to his dead wife.

www.abc.net.au

Savage is a very odd character. Some of the things he reportedly said and did made him a likely POI in my opinion.

When he says that he feels his reputation in the community wasn't damaged, I reckon that's because he was known to behave weirdly.

 

[bearbear]

I think this is the dummy bid hearing, bearbear. Delayed from yesterday to 11th Aug.

The alleged assault case was scheduled for 4th September.

imo

oh ok sorry everyone, my mistake, i assumed alleged dv

 

[Warshawski]

Here’s what the NSW DPP has to say about Public Interest in the context of decision to prosecute:

1.4 Public interest

If the first test [Prospects of conviction] is satisfied, consideration must be given to whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

The following is not an exhaustive list. The weight to be given to any particular public interest factor will depend on the circumstances of the case.

Offence-related factors
1. the seriousness, or conversely, the triviality, of the offence
2. the prevalence of the offence in the community, whether it is of considerable public concern and the need to denounce and deter the offending behaviour
3. whether the offence is obsolete or obscure
4. the passage of time since the offence, having regard to its seriousness and the reasons for the delay

Accused-related factors
1. the accused’s degree of culpability
2. the accused’s criminal history and background
3. the accused’s age, physical health, mental health or cognitive impairment
4. whether the offence occurred while the accused was serving a sentence, on bail or remand
5. whether the accused is willing to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which the accused has done so

Victim-related factors
1. the victim’s attitude to a prosecution
2. the victim’s age, physical health, mental health or cognitive impairment and whether the prosecution may have an adverse physical or emotional impact on the victim
3. the protection of the victim and the victim’s family
Sentencing factors
1. the likely outcome if the accused is found guilty, having regard to the sentencing options available to the court
2. whether a sentence has already been imposed on the accused that adequately reflects the criminality of the conduct
3. whether the accused has already been sentenced for other offences and the likelihood of any additional penalty being imposed, having regard to the principle of totality in sentencing

Other factors
1. whether any resulting conviction would necessarily be regarded as unreasonable or a miscarriage of justice
2. any mitigating or aggravating circumstances of the offence
3. the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution, including disciplinary proceedings
4. the availability of compensation, restitution, reparation or forfeiture to any person or body following a successful prosecution, including any criminal compensation or confiscation
5. whether the prosecution would be perceived as counter-productive, for example, by bringing the law into disrepute
6. the need to maintain public confidence in basic constitutional institutions such as the Parliament and the courts
7. any special circumstances that would prevent a fair trial from being conductedt
8. the likely length and expense of a trial if disproportionate to the seriousness of alleged offending
9. the age, physical health, mental health or special infirmity of an essential witness.

https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines/chapter-1#guidelineanchor267

Thanks for providing these details JB - as long as the Brief of Evidence stacks up I see no reason that DPP wouldn’t give the go-ahead.
eg. this says it all for me:
1. the seriousness, or conversely, the triviality, of the offence

then there’s these:

2. …… the need to denounce and deter the offending behaviour
the accused’s degree of culpability
whether the accused is willing to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which the accused has done so
the protection of the victim and the victim’s family
And even - the need to maintain public confidence in basic constitutional institutions

 

[FromGermany1]

2. …… the need to denounce and deter the offending behaviour
the accused’s degree of culpability
whether the accused is willing to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which the accused has done so
the protection of the victim and the victim’s family
And even - the need to maintain public confidence in basic constitutional institutions

bbm

^^ This perhaps (not exclusively, but also).

 

[Awakening]

Where are you William? Show us a sign.

 

[iiiii's]

I will always wonder about the Victorian charges. They involved multiple children, but only one of the children from the NSW case. But the case will probably never be heard due to the prosecution needing that tendency evidence.

My recollection was that when the NSW case collapsed, the Victorian case collapsed as the person who made the allegations was one and the same. There would have been an investigation by taskforce Sano of these other alleged child victims and I truly believe that if any of them had made statements or were willing to take the stand, the trial would have gone ahead. So what I am saying is that, I conclude, there was no other evidence except for the person who made the allegations in the NSW case. Victorian police, seeing the result in NSW, probably came to the conclusion they did not have a good basis to win the case and withdrew the charges, thus not finding themselves in an interstate malicious prosecution suit later on. MOO