Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #34

[JLZ]

I wonder what happpens if he was to win the defamation case and then is later convicted of Williams disappearence. If he was proved to actually be a paedophile ?

Yeah, I don't know. If he'd made false sworn statements in the course of the case then the other party might have grounds to sue him back.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder what happpens if he was to win the defamation case and then is later convicted of Williams disappearence. If he was proved to actually be a paedophile ?

I don't know that anything would happen. He is probably trying to sue for defamation due to income loss since he was named as a POI in the case of a little, missing boy. He and his lawyer have likely seen some holes in the articles he is suing about, imo, so decided to choose them for the defamation action.

His aim, I think, would be to try to silence the media (hahahaha) and to be awarded damages for what is considered his loss of income since that photo was published.

I have linked a pretty good article here, by the University of Wollongong, offering examples. Defamation actions take years and years. In one case, the media was able to string the case out for over 10 years. The article also says that defamation actions against the media can spur even more talk and articles - due to the matter being reported in the media - as we have already seen today.

If a resolution to William's disappearance comes somewhat soonish (criminal charges or inquest), the defamation case may not even be decided yet. The case will now go on the defamation list, from what I can tell, and be heard when the court opportunity arises.

Defamation law and free speech

 

[iailwa]

I don't know that anything would happen. He is probably trying to sue for defamation due to income loss since he was named as a POI in the case of a little, missing boy. He and his lawyer have likely seen some holes in the articles he is suing about, imo, so decided to choose them for the defamation action.

His aim, I think, would be to try to silence the media (hahahaha) and to be awarded damages for what is considered his loss of income since that photo was published.

I have linked a pretty good article here, by the University of Wollongong, offering examples. Defamation actions take years and years. In one case, the media was able to string the case out for over 10 years. The article also says that defamation actions against the media can spur even more talk and articles - due to the matter being reported in the media - as we have already seen today.

If a resolution to William's disappearance comes somewhat soonish (criminal charges or inquest), the defamation case may not even be decided yet. The case will now go on the defamation list, from what I can tell, and be heard when the court opportunity arises.

Defamation law and free speech

great article... thanks SA

I noticed this --

'The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court'

I wonder whether this one will make it to court - being so 'public' , perhaps it will? Will we hear the results if it does? Can anyone sit in, on any case? My feeling is no. But i'd love to know...

 

[SouthAussie]

great article... thanks SA

I noticed this --

'The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court'

I wonder whether this one will make it to court - being so 'public' , perhaps it will? Will we hear the results if it does? Can anyone sit in, on any case? My feeling is no. But i'd love to know...

The article also says how hard it is to take on the media giants, as they have lawyers on staff and deep pockets. A person's funds can run out far before the case makes it to court. And we learned earlier, that you cannot get free Legal Aid for defamation cases.

I also noticed how 'the dead can't sue', in Australia.

 

[iailwa]

Ok... so he has an employed lawyer & his funds will likely run out. This happens even if your pockets are fairly deep (akin to an aussie comedic actress lately). As for the 'dead can't sue' that's one legality i am probably sure of - even if i'm lame in this area. So, BS's pockets are not deep enough to support his case - or he will be paid out early? I guess time will tell...

 

[SouthAussie]

Ok... so he has an employed lawyer & his funds will likely run out. This happens even if your pockets are fairly deep (akin to an aussie comedic actress lately). As for the 'dead can't sue' that's one legality i am probably sure of - even if i'm lame in this area. So, BS's pockets are not deep enough to support his case - or he will be paid out early? I guess time will tell...

All I meant by the dead can't sue is that, in Australia, the estate of a deceased person cannot continue a lawsuit on behalf of the deceased person. We do not consider a deceased person to have a reputation.

In some other countries, this can be done, apparently.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Last time I went to Wellington, a year or so ago, the Speddo's business sign was still there.
I was down the next block at a hot bread shop/cafe with a friend and we had to get the next train back so I didn't get to go and have a look.

 

[iailwa]

All I meant by the dead can't sue is that, in Australia, the estate of a deceased person cannot continue a lawsuit on behalf of the deceased person. We do not consider a deceased person to have a reputation.

In some other countries, this can be done, apparently.

oh ok. Are we relating this to this case specifically, or in general? I'm honestly just wondering? I'm a bit stumped... Are we just speaking about 'deceased persons' in general wrt aussie legal stuff? Or am i missing something wrt to William & someone deceased in his case...? I can't make out why this was made a point unless its related... but maybe we are just going over different legalities in different countries yes? sorry - have no idea! it's no you, it's me... i just have no idea.

 

[SouthAussie]

oh ok. Are we relating this to this case specifically, or in general? I'm honestly just wondering? I'm a bit stumped... Are we just speaking about 'deceased persons' in general wrt aussie legal stuff? Or am i missing something wrt to William & someone deceased in his case...? I can't make out why this was made a point unless its related... but maybe we are just going over different legalities in different countries yes? sorry - have no idea! it's no you, it's me... i just have no idea.

No-one in particular. Just information. Sometimes these little tidbits of knowledge are handy to know.

For example, the point that was made about the houses on Benaroon Drive being numbered by the distance they are from the start of the road. Insignificant to the case, but interesting. Someone told me later on that this is done so that emergency services can find the homes more quickly.

 

[Josie2014]

From the photos which are currently still available to view, the only photos with the missing S are all taken in Spedding's yard, at his home; not driving around. There is a photo of the rear of a van driving past the search where it is impossible to know what is or isn't on the front of the van.

As such it can't be said with certainty Spedding was driving the van around with Peddo's Hire on the front.

It's possible he was in the process of having new signage work done when he was asked the question, no-one knows for sure. He may have been keeping the van off the road as much as possible while waiting on an order for new lettering to arrive.

Asked yesterday why he had not repaired his work truck after the 'S' went missing from 'SPEDDO'S', he said simply: 'Please leave'.

 

[they'll get you]

What if the media has something on him and turns around and proves he’s a peddo?
Now that would be fun.

 

[they'll get you]

The fool should have removed the sign IMO. It might have been a hilarious pub laugh or a town giggle but it was his company van.

 

[deugirtni]

nevermind, someone beat me to it!

 

[deugirtni]

From the photos which are currently still available to view, the only photos with the missing S are all taken in Spedding's yard, at his home; not driving around. There is a photo of the rear of a van driving past the search where it is impossible to know what is or isn't on the front of the van.

As such it can't be said with certainty Spedding was driving the van around with Peddo's Hire on the front.

It's possible he was in the process of having new signage work done when he was asked the question, no-one knows for sure. He may have been keeping the van off the road as much as possible while waiting on an order for new lettering to arrive.

Asked yesterday why he had not repaired his work truck after the 'S' went missing from 'SPEDDO'S', he said simply: 'Please leave'.

I think the thing is that BS is saying MSM screwed with his ability to earn an income and continue with his livelihood. This missing 'S' was evidence for at least a time.

 

[InFocus]

I found this article by Sydney Morning Herald in Jan 2015

William Harrie Spedding the focus of William Tyrell investigation

Now has this disclaimer at the top of the article
NOTE: The Australian Press Council found this article did not breach its Standards of Practice. Read the full adjudication here:

Adjudication 1651: Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald (August 2015) - Australian Press Council

..... "After receiving a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether such prominent treatment focusing on a single “person of interest” had breached the Standards of Practice relating to privacy and fairness, as Mr Spedding had not been arrested or charged and police said at the time it was “not a major breakthrough”, “no person had been charged” and “a number of persons had been spoken to as part of this phase of the investigation”.

Interesting reading that a complaint had been made as far back as 2015

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

He dodged the "is this a result of a tip off" question, didn't he? Well, did not even dodge it ... simply stated that he was not going to answer that question.

"Letting go is just not an option. We have made a committment to William's family that we would do everything genuinely possible, and we will continue on to do that. And I think a crime of this nature, I am confident I am not just speaking for myself but speaking for the police in general, it is just not something that we can let go.
The family deserve answers and that is what we intend to do. Give them answers."

He certainly did dodge that question. I took that as a Yes there was a tip off myself, just from the instant hesitation in his reply. I think he said something to the effect ...
Whether I’m legally ALLOWED to answer or not, I won’t be providing a comment. Or something along those lines

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

Australian Crime News
dan box/bearup article

This is an absolutely brilliant article. Well worth a re-read. In doing so I found this little tidbit. Possibly the culprit who removed the ‘S’ from the van.

Initially I thought Youngberry was referring to an ex business partner but then put two and two together with the subsequent allegations. Youngberry was at that point telling Journalists to look into the ex-partner.

For some reason I couldn’t copy and paste from the article so I’ve screen shot the part I’m referencing

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

I found this article by Sydney Morning Herald in Jan 2015

William Harrie Spedding the focus of William Tyrell investigation

Now has this disclaimer at the top of the article
NOTE: The Australian Press Council found this article did not breach its Standards of Practice. Read the full adjudication here:

Adjudication 1651: Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald (August 2015) - Australian Press Council

..... "After receiving a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether such prominent treatment focusing on a single “person of interest” had breached the Standards of Practice relating to privacy and fairness, as Mr Spedding had not been arrested or charged and police said at the time it was “not a major breakthrough”, “no person had been charged” and “a number of persons had been spoken to as part of this phase of the investigation”.

Interesting reading that a complaint had been made as far back as 2015

In the Article Bear posted from 2015 Spedding confirmed that at that stage he had engaged lawyers and considering legal action regarding the media’s coverage of him.

So this legal action by Spedding has been in the pipeline for over 3 years.

 

[Hbayne]

What if the media has something on him and turns around and proves he’s a peddo?
Now that would be fun.

That’s what I wondered from my previous post

 

[SouthAussie]

The fool should have removed the sign IMO. It might have been a hilarious pub laugh or a town giggle but it was his company van.

I'm with you there. I mean seriously! The first thing he should have done, after reporting the vandalism to the police and taking proof photos, is peel off the rest of the letters.

Instead, he decides to take on the media giants in a defamation suit.
Which makes me wonder if he was bound and determined to 'get' the media, if he could. For publishing all the POI stuff, the search, the FACS inquiry, the removed grandchildren .. because Col and Rodney's public comments didn't seem to have helped him.
Something that the defence may ask in the defamation trial. He can expect a gruelling time on the stand, I would think.

When my daughter had her entire car vandalised with black spray paint squiggles all over the red duco - while she was busy at the hospital, nursing sick people - the first thing that we did was work for several hours removing the huge black squiggles. (Safely removed with WD40 and a soft cloth, then rinsed .... in case it ever happens to anyone else.)