Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #70

Status
Not open for further replies.

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
138,555
Great question. I’ve always wondered that. The MFC clearly stated that in the police walk through.

As stated in your previous post #750 ...

"Even though MFC was emphatic William wasn’t a wanderer, but there is a first time for everything As they say"


With no apparent evidence on the table, it is always one of the possibilities that any defence lawyer could latch onto to show reasonable doubt.

So far, I am not seeing the clear circumstantial evidence that includes the FM and (at the same time) excludes other scenarios.
Which, I think, is what would be needed for a police prosecutor to agree to charge/prosecute anyone for William's disappearance.

imo
 
Last edited:

T-dawg420

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
311
Reaction score
1,845
As stated in your previous post #750 ...

"Even though MFC was emphatic William wasn’t a wanderer, but there is a first time for everything As they say"


With no apparent evidence on the table, it is always one of the possibilities that any defence lawyer could latch onto to show reasonable doubt.

So far, I am not seeing the clear circumstantial evidence that includes the FM and (at the same time) excludes other scenarios.
Which, I think, is what would be needed for a police prosecutor to agree to charge/prosecute anyone for William's disappearance.

imo
I agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be any clear evidence, even circumstantial. Sure theres some actions by various people in this scenario that might seem strange to some, but who’s to say what’s strange under those circumstances?

many many years of statistics will show that people closest to a missing child turn out to be the guilty ones more often then it being a stranger. That is just simple fact. So it would be a dereliction of duty to not exhaustively investigate those closest to William.

edit to add: it seems everyone but the FC’s up until recently have been thought as POI’s (and proven innocent), after so many years of no answers why can’t the FC’s be POI’s? Statistics don’t lie imo

edit to further add: imo it’s when POi’s are automatically thought to be guilty that I personally have an issue with.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
138,555
<snipped for focus>

edit to add: it seems everyone but the FC’s up until recently have been thought as POI’s (and proven innocent), after so many years of no answers why can’t the FC’s be POI’s? Statistics don’t lie imo

No, I do not believe that is true.

I posted just days ago how PS wasn't on the active POI list, once Laidlaw took the case on, even though there was nothing to rule him out.

No-one knows where FA was that morning (not even FA knows, apparently). And there are many suspicious things about him and William's case. Not ruled out. imo

These two are just from quick recall. There are probably others.
 

T-dawg420

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
311
Reaction score
1,845
No, I do not believe that is true.

I posted just days ago how PS wasn't on the active POI list, once Laidlaw took the case on, even though there was nothing to rule him out.

No-one knows where FA was that morning (not even FA knows, apparently). And there are many suspicious things about him and William's case. Not ruled out. imo

These two are just from quick recall. There are probably others.
Yeah I remember you saying that actually, and you make very good points Imo
 

Couldbe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
915
Reaction score
2,425
I agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be any clear evidence, even circumstantial. Sure theres some actions by various people in this scenario that might seem strange to some, but who’s to say what’s strange under those circumstances?

many many years of statistics will show that people closest to a missing child turn out to be the guilty ones more often then it being a stranger. That is just simple fact. So it would be a dereliction of duty to not exhaustively investigate those closest to William.

edit to add: it seems everyone but the FC’s up until recently have been thought as POI’s (and proven innocent), after so many years of no answers why can’t the FC’s be POI’s? Statistics don’t lie imo

edit to further add: imo it’s when POi’s are automatically thought to be guilty that I personally have an issue with.
Process of elimination has taken time and a different focus ……. LE have no doubt looked at all of the ‘red flags’ and now investigated / investigating to the nth degree all of the possibilities imaginable (and under orders of the Coroner commenced a more recent search: Coroner demands Channel Ten hand over all William Tyrrell info).

We do not know for sure that LE have not been able to add evidence taken during the search and added it to the fresh evidence (not just speculative) that they said they had in their possession at the commencement of the search.

Innocent until proven guilty is the status quo before every Trial.

JMO, that LE are keeping quite a bit of information under wraps. If and when an arrest is made of someone for William’s disappearance and then committed for Trial, the majority of us Posters here on Websleuths will no doubt stop our theorizing about what may / may not have happened; and will no doubt be interested in following the Trial.

P.S. I imagine the Coroner will have to be briefed on what evidence exists that would precede an arrest, so the ‘wheels have to turn’ before the Coroner hands down her findings. Not holding my breath while waiting!
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
P.S. I imagine the Coroner will have to be briefed on what evidence exists that would precede an arrest,
From my understanding CB, the Coroner would have to re-open the inquest and hand the case to the DPP for an arrest to be made ...... That is how I think it works anyway..... as the inquest is already in "progress" at this stage ......

And the Inquest would remain "open" until after a trial is completed ....... and then finally, the Coroner would hand down her findings .... (Similar to the Daniel M Case)

IMO
 

drsleuth

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
4,917
Reaction score
27,432
From my understanding CB, the Coroner would have to re-open the inquest and hand the case to the DPP for an arrest to be made ...... That is how I think it works anyway..... as the inquest is already in "progress" at this stage ......

And the Inquest would remain "open" until after a trial is completed ....... and then finally, the Coroner would hand down her findings .... (Similar to the Daniel M Case)

IMO
Yep , I agree
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
I have been reading further about the FFC Mental Health Defence, before the courts in June..... and how the hearing actually works....???

Theses types of hearings are heard before a Judge Alone Trial ......


If a magistrate or judge accepts that there are genuine questions about whether a person charged with a serious offence is fit to be tried, a judge in the District or Supreme Court will hold what is called a ‘fitness inquiry’. These inquiries rarely take more than a day. The judge will look at relevant evidence, including psychological, psychiatric and other medical reports. In some matters, the experts who assessed the accused will be called to give evidence. The inquiry will consider whether the accused can understand a trial, instruct lawyers and decide on a defence, among other things. The judge will also consider whether the trial process can be modified, or assistance provided, to facilitate the accused’s understanding and effective participation in the trial. Questions about ‘fitness’ are usually raised when the accused is still before a magistrate in the Local Court but they can be raised at any time – by the prosecution, the accused’s lawyer, or the magistrate or judge

Great Article with Flow Charts here:



If the judge holding the fitness inquiry finds the accused is fit to be tried, the matter will go back to where it was in the criminal justice system and continue like any other criminal matter.

If not, then it becomes a lot more involved ....(see the above link)
 

Couldbe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
915
Reaction score
2,425
I have been reading further about the FFC Mental Health Defence, before the courts in June..... and how the hearing actually works....???

Theses types of hearings are heard before a Judge Alone Trial ......


If a magistrate or judge accepts that there are genuine questions about whether a person charged with a serious offence is fit to be tried, a judge in the District or Supreme Court will hold what is called a ‘fitness inquiry’. These inquiries rarely take more than a day. The judge will look at relevant evidence, including psychological, psychiatric and other medical reports. In some matters, the experts who assessed the accused will be called to give evidence. The inquiry will consider whether the accused can understand a trial, instruct lawyers and decide on a defence, among other things. The judge will also consider whether the trial process can be modified, or assistance provided, to facilitate the accused’s understanding and effective participation in the trial. Questions about ‘fitness’ are usually raised when the accused is still before a magistrate in the Local Court but they can be raised at any time – by the prosecution, the accused’s lawyer, or the magistrate or judge

Great Article with Flow Charts here:



If the judge holding the fitness inquiry finds the accused is fit to be tried, the matter will go back to where it was in the criminal justice system and continue like any other criminal matter.

If not, then it becomes a lot more involved ....(see the above link)
Just briefly glancing through the linked document (thank you) the conditions relating to having a mental health or cognitive impairment can be onerous, but a successful defence in that regard could no doubt be a necessary alternative to facing a Trial without that classification. JMO
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
138,555
I wonder how far this has to go, with regard to immediate legalities.

The police had yet to write their brief from the most recent search - and, presumably, anything else the police may have done since the first brief was presented.

The first police brief was submitted sometime prior to the start of the inquest on 25th March 2019 – more than 3 years ago.
(The inquest closed on 8th October 2020, 18 months later.)

The police would have had to wait for the results of all of the analysis from their most recent search, to finish the brief.

Do they have to wait for all the charges to be heard before they finish their brief?

The assault-charges magistrate said she didn’t want that matter linked to William’s disappearance (by the media).

If the Crime Commission hearing is related, they would likely have to wait for any result from that.
But if it is not related, I wonder if the police would still need to wait for that matter to be dealt with before they can finish the police brief.

And is the completed brief necessary if they feel they have enough evidence to arrest someone?
Or does the Coroner just review the evidence, re-open the inquest, and hand over to the DPP?


(Sorry, lots of thoughts there.)
 
Last edited:

JLZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
4,878
Reaction score
21,399
(snipped) There is a second factor though required for a section 14 application.

Your section 14 application will succeed if you are able to persuade the court that:
  1. You have a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, and
  2. It is more appropriate to deal with you under the section than otherwise in accordance with the law.

That "more appropriate" looks like a wide space for the judge's discretion.
Section 15 sets out what the judge may consider in assessing that second factor of appropriateness. MENTAL HEALTH AND COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT FORENSIC PROVISIONS ACT 2020 - SECT 15 Considerations of Magistrate when making order

It doesn't say, the wealth and status of the accused, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it falls out in practice. There must be so many people with mental health conditions who don't know what their problem is and also aren't in an economic position--stable and adequate housing would be a start--to comply with a treatment plan.
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
I wonder how far this has to go, with regard to immediate legalities.

The police had yet to write their brief from the most recent search - and, presumably, anything else the police may have done since the first brief was presented.

The first police brief was submitted sometime prior to the start of the inquest on 25th March 2019 – more than 3 years ago.
(The inquest closed on 8th October 2020, 18 months later.)

The police would have had to wait for the results of all of the analysis from their most recent search, to finish the brief.

Do they have to wait for all the charges to be heard before they finish their brief?

The assault-charges magistrate said she didn’t want that matter linked to William’s disappearance (by the media).

If the Crime Commission hearing is related, they would likely have to wait for any result from that.
But if it is not related, I wonder if the police would still need to wait for that matter to be dealt with before they can finish the police brief.

And is the completed brief necessary if they feel they have enough evidence to arrest someone?
Or does the Coroner just review the evidence, re-open the inquest, and hand over to the DPP?


(Sorry, lots of thoughts there.)
Lots of excellent questions there.......

I found this info regarding the Coroner and referring a case to the DPP.

The role of the Coroner in death cases​

A police investigation into a death may result in NSW Police laying charges or the Coroner holding an inquest.

In some cases, the Coroner may form the view that a known person may have contributed to the death, and there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Coroner forms this view during or at the end of an inquest, the Coroner may suspend the inquest and refer the inquest papers to the DPP. The DPP will then consider whether indictable charges should be laid against that person.

The Coroner must also suspend the inquest if he or she is advised that a person has been charged with an indictable offence connected with a death. In this case the Coroner will refer the coronial file to the DPP.


So yes I guess the new Brief of Evidence would have to be updated/completed to hand over.......
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
Just briefly glancing through the linked document (thank you) the conditions relating to having a mental health or cognitive impairment can be onerous, but a successful defence in that regard could no doubt be a necessary alternative to facing a Trial without that classification. JMO
Yes, agree ... and if FFC and her Lawyers are not successful in June, with the Mental Health Defence, this alleged assault case could drag on another 12months and more....

Or, even end up in the Supreme Court .....

 

JLZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
4,878
Reaction score
21,399
Lots of excellent questions there.......

I found this info regarding the Coroner and referring a case to the DPP.

The role of the Coroner in death cases​

A police investigation into a death may result in NSW Police laying charges or the Coroner holding an inquest.

In some cases, the Coroner may form the view that a known person may have contributed to the death, and there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Coroner forms this view during or at the end of an inquest, the Coroner may suspend the inquest and refer the inquest papers to the DPP. The DPP will then consider whether indictable charges should be laid against that person.

The Coroner must also suspend the inquest if he or she is advised that a person has been charged with an indictable offence connected with a death. In this case the Coroner will refer the coronial file to the DPP.


So yes I guess the new Brief of Evidence would have to be updated/completed to hand over.......
I'm not seeing anything here that would prevent the police from asking the DPP to lay charges without reference to the coroner. In general there could be a range of events that delay the coroner's report, staff being on leave for example, and it doesn't seem reasonable to me that if police suddenly encounter clear evidence of somebody's guilt the person should yet roam free until the coroner pleases. It's the coroner who can't wind up with a finding of guilt until the police have done everything they can, not the police who are in suspension waiting for the coroner. (I could be wrong, it happens all the time.)
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
I'm not seeing anything here that would prevent the police from asking the DPP to lay charges without reference to the coroner. In general there could be a range of events that delay the coroner's report, staff being on leave for example, and it doesn't seem reasonable to me that if police suddenly encounter clear evidence of somebody's guilt the person should yet roam free until the coroner pleases. It's the coroner who can't wind up with a finding of guilt until the police have done everything they can, not the police who are in suspension waiting for the coroner. (I could be wrong, it happens all the time.)
Yes I noticed that too, however as SFR keep saying they are acting upon "Orders from the Coroner", I think they would advise her of an impending arrest, before it is made .... IMO

The Coroner could simply release a "Statement" to advise the Inquest is Suspended, and being passed on to the DPP....although I think they would do this in a very brief hearing at the Coroners Court .......

This article is about another case that was referred to the DPP from the Coroner .....

The evidence at the inquest heard in June, 2019. And on March the 1st, 2020, "As a result of the above investigation and inquest, however, I will now refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider charges against Mr Knowles."

The wheels of justice are sometimes slow to turn......
imo
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
138,555
Lots of excellent questions there.......

I found this info regarding the Coroner and referring a case to the DPP.

The role of the Coroner in death cases​

A police investigation into a death may result in NSW Police laying charges or the Coroner holding an inquest.

In some cases, the Coroner may form the view that a known person may have contributed to the death, and there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Coroner forms this view during or at the end of an inquest, the Coroner may suspend the inquest and refer the inquest papers to the DPP. The DPP will then consider whether indictable charges should be laid against that person.

The Coroner must also suspend the inquest if he or she is advised that a person has been charged with an indictable offence connected with a death. In this case the Coroner will refer the coronial file to the DPP.


So yes I guess the new Brief of Evidence would have to be updated/completed to hand over.......

Thanks.

So that leaves me with the question of whether or not these charges all have to be resolved before the 'new' police brief can be finished and presented to the Coroner. Are they to be included in the brief, if the charges are not directly related to William's disappearance?

I know that some are theorising a link between the alleged assault behaviours and William's disappearance, here.

But in Coroners Court, can the Coroner include later unrelated matters in the deliberations? I don't think they could be considered if it was a Criminal Court case (and not an inquest).

(I hope I am making sense. I am not sure if I explained this question very well at all. And I don't know if anyone would know the answer.)
 
Last edited:

FromGermany1

Formerly FromGermany
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
1,263
Reaction score
11,389
As a layman I think, the assaulted, stalked and intimidated child has to say something to all these accusations. If she makes her statements, there may come something to the surface re William's disappearing in 2017, the coroner needs to know and is perhaps waiting for since the beginning of the inquest. So I think, as long as the charges against FM and FF are not brought to a judicial conclusion, the inquest will rest. Then the coroner has to decide, how to continue with proceeding (more investigation by LE or not). IMO
I imagine like that.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
138,555
As a layman I think, the assaulted, stalked and intimidated child has to say something to all these accusations. If she makes her statements, there may come something to the surface re William's disappearing in 2017, the coroner needs to know and is perhaps waiting for since the beginning of the inquest. So I think, as long as the charges against FM and FF are not brought to a judicial conclusion, the inquest will rest. Then the coroner has to decide, how to continue with proceeding (more investigation by LE or not). IMO
I imagine like that.

If the alleged assault happened due to accusations about William, then it would be a related matter. And they would know that right now. So, of course it would need to be included in the brief.

But if the alleged assault was not about William, I am not sure that it would have to (or be allowed to) be included in the brief. That is what my question is.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
138,555
I'm not seeing anything here that would prevent the police from asking the DPP to lay charges without reference to the coroner. In general there could be a range of events that delay the coroner's report, staff being on leave for example, and it doesn't seem reasonable to me that if police suddenly encounter clear evidence of somebody's guilt the person should yet roam free until the coroner pleases. It's the coroner who can't wind up with a finding of guilt until the police have done everything they can, not the police who are in suspension waiting for the coroner. (I could be wrong, it happens all the time.)

I was reading the Qld findings in the inquest for Daniel.
Sounds like the Qld police charged Cowan then told the Coroner. Could be different In other places.
It is really difficult to work out what the protocols are, when it comes to the finer details.


"The inquest was adjourned again after the former State Coroner became aware that Mr Cowan had been charged with Daniel’s murder, indecent treatment and interfering with a corpse"
 

JLZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
4,878
Reaction score
21,399
I was reading the Qld findings in the inquest for Daniel.
Sounds like the Qld police charged Cowan then told the Coroner. Could be different In other places.
It is really difficult to work out what the protocols are, when it comes to the finer details.


"The inquest was adjourned again after the former State Coroner became aware that Mr Cowan had been charged with Daniel’s murder, indecent treatment and interfering with a corpse"
To change the subject after a little browsing in that document: after Cowan's arrest, the inquest resumed for a few days, then after those hearings:

The inquest findings could not be finalised immediately after receipt of
submissions. In December 2016, the Crime and Corruption Commission
(CCC) received multiple allegations relevant to possible police
misconduct, corrupt conduct and criminal conduct, including perjury
relating to the QPS investigation into Daniel’s disappearance and
subsequent evidence given at the inquest.
(paragraph 39)

That started me thinking about whether the questioning of the foster carers by the crime commission and the lie that is alleged had to do with their relations with Jubelin, or rather his with them. Perhaps authorities have been aiming to charge him with further misconduct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top