Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #36

[Bohemian]

Hey Bo...

I can't remember exactly ...

I think I may have simply made mention that one of the few suspects for "Mr Cruel" resided in Lake Cathie ...maybe just to add info...like a "no stone unturned" type comment.

I definitely don't there is any link between the cases though..

If anything .....

Peeling back... reflecting back to the start..

I'm thinking of a strange early morning post (The day he went missing)... a pic of william posted ... arrghh was it around 6.40am.... by a bio...it seemed strange.

Can't seem to locate that person anymore..

Hope that helps...where my heads at.

Thanks for replying, Puggs. (Good to see you!)

 

[SouthAussie]

It may be time now for those people involved in this case to start thinking about the upcoming inquest. The inquest could go on for a couple of years, with involved persons spending many, many hours being questioned by the Coroner and legal teams.

A few of the words published by Bruce and Denise Morcombe upon the resumption of the inquest into Daniel's disappearance .....


"This is a unique opportunity and a valuable one. To let it pass helps nobody, because rarely, if ever before, has an Inquest commenced with 33 Persons of Interest and a missing child; and this process elevates one person, dismisses 32 and a family are provided the opportunity to lay that loved one to rest.

As tragic as Daniel's case is, there will be another, and another; they will walk in our shoes.

If we help one family's tragic case reach a conclusion and not have it destined to become a cold case then the resumption has a purpose and is worth it."

Bruce Morcombe
Denise Morcombe
CORONIAL INQUEST RESUMPTION: DANIEL MORCOMBE

 

[SouthAussie]

And Matthew Leveson's parents ....


Deputy State Coroner Elaine Truscott's findings came two years after the inquest began ....

"There's some relief, there's some frustration, there's some anger, so there's lots of emotions going through us but relief's one of the ones right now," Mr Leveson told reporters outside Glebe Coroners Court.

The Levesons don't believe Atkins' latest version of events and still allege he's responsible for their son's death.
But although they want justice, they say they achieved their main goal from the inquest - to find Matthew and bring him home.

"Our son was the most precious thing to us and to his brothers, why would we worry about Atkins," Faye Leveson said on Tuesday.
"We would have loved both but we were forced in this corner, and Matty comes first every time."

'Relief, anger': Matthew Leveson's parents respond to coroner's inquest open finding

 

[Bohemian]

It may be time now for those people involved in this case to start thinking about the upcoming inquest. The inquest could go on for a couple of years, with involved persons spending many, many hours being questioned by the Coroner and legal teams.

A few of the words published by Bruce and Denise Morcombe upon the resumption of the inquest into Daniel's disappearance .....


"This is a unique opportunity and a valuable one. To let it pass helps nobody, because rarely, if ever before, has an Inquest commenced with 33 Persons of Interest and a missing child; and this process elevates one person, dismisses 32 and a family are provided the opportunity to lay that loved one to rest.

As tragic as Daniel's case is, there will be another, and another; they will walk in our shoes.

If we help one family's tragic case reach a conclusion and not have it destined to become a cold case then the resumption has a purpose and is worth it."

Bruce Morcombe
Denise Morcombe
CORONIAL INQUEST RESUMPTION: DANIEL MORCOMBE

And Matthew Leveson's parents ....


Deputy State Coroner Elaine Truscott's findings came two years after the inquest began ....

"There's some relief, there's some frustration, there's some anger, so there's lots of emotions going through us but relief's one of the ones right now," Mr Leveson told reporters outside Glebe Coroners Court.

The Levesons don't believe Atkins' latest version of events and still allege he's responsible for their son's death.
But although they want justice, they say they achieved their main goal from the inquest - to find Matthew and bring him home.

"Our son was the most precious thing to us and to his brothers, why would we worry about Atkins," Faye Leveson said on Tuesday.
"We would have loved both but we were forced in this corner, and Matty comes first every time."

'Relief, anger': Matthew Leveson's parents respond to coroner's inquest open finding

Yes, as DCI Jubelin said, ‘It will be sooner rather than later that we hand this case to the Coroner.’

@ 5 min 11 sec:

The town at the centre of the William Tyrrell mystery

I think an inquest will be a long, hard slog for everyone involved and, hopefully, it will lead to the discovery of the smoking gun that will allow William’s abductor, and possible murderer, to be brought to long-awaited justice.

 

[SouthAussie]

Powers of the Coroner during an inquest

The Coroner may summon witnesses to give evidence of their knowledge of the circumstances of the case under investigation. The Coroner has the power to administer oaths and any witnesses not telling the truth face charges of perjury.

The Coroner cannot find someone guilty of a crime. If, at any time during the course of an inquest or inquiry, the Coroner forms an opinion that a known person has committed an indictable offence in connection with the death, the Coroner is required to suspend the inquest or inquiry and refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Coroners also have the power of arrest but it is entirely a matter for the DPP to determine whether charges should be laid against the person, and a matter for the criminal courts to determine whether the person is guilty.

Captcha
Coronial Inquests - NSW

 

[SouthAussie]

In NSW, Perjury carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Perjury involves making a false statement on oath about something material in connection with any judicial proceedings.

Perjury - Penalties, Charges and Sentencing in NSW

 

[Bohemian]

In NSW, Perjury carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Perjury involves making a false statement on oath about something material in connection with any judicial proceedings.

Perjury - Penalties, Charges and Sentencing in NSW

From your link, SA:

Perjury - Penalties, Charges and Sentencing in NSW

WHAT ACTIONS MIGHT CONSTITUTE "PERJURY"?

1. Lying in Court when giving evidence against your partner when they are being prosecuted for a domestic violence offence because you do not want them to be convicted or punished;
2. Providing a false alibi for someone when giving evidence at a hearing;
3. Filing a sworn affidavit in proceedings stating that you earn $1000 per week when you really earn $1500 per week.

 

[SouthAussie]

From your link, SA:

Perjury - Penalties, Charges and Sentencing in NSW

WHAT ACTIONS MIGHT CONSTITUTE "PERJURY"?

1. Lying in Court when giving evidence against your partner when they are being prosecuted for a domestic violence offence because you do not want them to be convicted or punished;
2. Providing a false alibi for someone when giving evidence at a hearing;
3. Filing a sworn affidavit in proceedings stating that you earn $1000 per week when you really earn $1500 per week.

When I was reading about the Matthew Leveson inquest last night, I learned that the Coroner found that Atkins had lied 72 times.

Though, as we know, they made a deal not to prosecute Atkins for perjury if he gave up the location of Matthew's remains ... which he did.

Will be interesting to see what happens to anyone who lies during William's inquest. I would imagine that if they don't know exactly where William is, they will go down hard for perjury. I think Strike Force Rosann's patience has run out after a kabillion requests, over the years, for that 'person who knows something to come forward, don't wait till we come after you'.


The inquest was so replete with falsehoods from Mr Atkins that Magistrate Truscott's findings included 72 references to him lying.
In November 2016, police gained permission from the NSW Attorney-General to offer Mr Atkins immunity from perjury offences, after it became clear he lied to the inquest. He was never given immunity for murder.

The coroner acknowledged the Leveson family's painful decision to agree to Mr Atkins receiving legal indemnity, in exchange for information leading to the recovery of their son's body.
"It must have been a hideous decision," Magistrate Truscott said.
He buried the body and lied to police, but Michael Atkins won't go to jail — here's why

 

[sosocurious]

But Mark Leveson believes the public, however well intentioned, have no right trying to force an inquest upon William’s biological and foster families.


"It’s well and good the public being interested, and in some cases voyeuristic, in wanting to know what is going on," Leveson told nine.com.au.


"I’m not saying that an inquest is good or bad. I’m saying the decision should be up to Tyrrell’s parents not the public.

"It’s their son and their foster son and they should have all the say of what transpires."

Matthew Leveson's dad cautions pushing 'voyeuristic' petition on William Tyrrell's families

Difficult situation.
Who does have all the say? When William was under the care of the minister.

 

[SouthAussie]

But Mark Leveson believes the public, however well intentioned, have no right trying to force an inquest upon William’s biological and foster families.


"It’s well and good the public being interested, and in some cases voyeuristic, in wanting to know what is going on," Leveson told nine.com.au.


"I’m not saying that an inquest is good or bad. I’m saying the decision should be up to Tyrrell’s parents not the public.

"It’s their son and their foster son and they should have all the say of what transpires."

Matthew Leveson's dad cautions pushing 'voyeuristic' petition on William Tyrrell's families

Difficult situation.
Who does have all the say? When William was under the care of the minister.

It seems that the families cannot decide on an inquest ..... (not that we know if William is deceased or not, but I imagine this rule applies, regardless).


In New South Wales, a deceased’s family no longer has the right to request the Coroner conduct an inquest. They may request in writing that an inquest be held and their reasons why, however the Coroner will only take this into account when deciding whether to hold an inquest.

Captcha
Who can initiate an inquest?

 

[frogwell]

But Mark Leveson believes the public, however well intentioned, have no right trying to force an inquest upon William’s biological and foster families.


"It’s well and good the public being interested, and in some cases voyeuristic, in wanting to know what is going on," Leveson told nine.com.au.


"I’m not saying that an inquest is good or bad. I’m saying the decision should be up to Tyrrell’s parents not the public.

"It’s their son and their foster son and they should have all the say of what transpires."

Matthew Leveson's dad cautions pushing 'voyeuristic' petition on William Tyrrell's families

Difficult situation.
Who does have all the say? When William was under the care of the minister.

I disagree with Mr Leveson's view. The public are not forcing an inquest upon either families. The public are pressing the process of finding out what has happened to the victim as they have waited some time to find out if there is a danger somewhere in their community and to their own children. The public have skin in this situation as well. The feelings of the families are raw, however many other people have been impacted by WT's disappearance e.g. Kendall community, and to put this down to the motivations of the public being voyeuristic is shortsighted IMO.

Coroners have made some great recommendations that have been adopted in the last decade in NSW. Things that have benefitted WT's investigation. In Belinda Peisley's case, the coroner recommended that in the case of all suspicious disapearances the homicide squad be informed to take over the investigation. Can you imagine the Local Area Command having to run this investigation? Also another recommendation was given in another case that after a substantially less time of an investigation lapsing without a result that a report be prepared for the coroner which has also happened in WT's case. I read of another coroner being infuriated at looking at a 20 year cold case and lamenting that so much time was lost, in that case there may have been a serial killer still at large. There is much to risk with perjury on the stand in a coronial inquiry.

 

[CuriousCritter]

But Mark Leveson believes the public, however well intentioned, have no right trying to force an inquest upon William’s biological and foster families.


"It’s well and good the public being interested, and in some cases voyeuristic, in wanting to know what is going on," Leveson told nine.com.au.


"I’m not saying that an inquest is good or bad. I’m saying the decision should be up to Tyrrell’s parents not the public.

"It’s their son and their foster son and they should have all the say of what transpires."

Matthew Leveson's dad cautions pushing 'voyeuristic' petition on William Tyrrell's families

Difficult situation.
Who does have all the say? When William was under the care of the minister.

My understanding from the link SA posted it doesn't matter whether the public or fp or bios request an inquest, one must take place because WT was in care.

Mandatory inquests

There is a limited set of circumstances set out in the Coroners Act 2009 in which the Coroner must hold an inquest. These include but are not limited to the death of:

1. An individual in (or escaping from) police custody or whose death occurs during police operations.
2. A child who is in care or whose death may be due to abuse or neglect.
3. A person living in residential care or receiving assistance under the Disability Services Act 1992.

These three categories also give rise to the requirement of mandatory reporting to the Police and a prohibition from doctors issuing a death certificate as to the cause of death.

 

[SouthAussie]

I disagree with Mr Leveson's view. The public are not forcing an inquest upon either families. The public are pressing the process of finding out what has happened to the victim as they have waited some time to find out if there is a danger somewhere in their community and to their own children. The public have skin in this situation as well. The feelings of the families are raw, however many other people have been impacted by WT's disappearance e.g. Kendall community .....

I am guessing that none of those public persons with skin in the game have officially requested an inquest.

When I looked at the petition for an inquest on change.org, none of those dangers to the community or their children were specifically mentioned as reasons for the petition.

The only reasons that were mentioned seemed to be ones that were potentially meddling with the investigation. imo

• his birth family gagged
• others remaining anonymous
• misinformation being published intentionally
• changes in the lead investigator
• suppression orders withholding relevant details that could hold the key

This is the first time I have looked at that petition, and I was a little surprised at the reasons for it, as I would think those reasons would have no impact at all on a Coroner's decision.

As we are aware, the Coroner has been following the investigation closely. The Coroner would already know the reasons for anything substantive within the petition's reasons.

 

[frogwell]

I am guessing that none of those public persons with skin in the game have officially requested an inquest.

When I looked at the petition for an inquest on change.org, none of those dangers to the community or their children were specifically mentioned as reasons for the petition.

The only reasons that were mentioned seemed to be ones that were potentially meddling with the investigation. imo

• his birth family gagged
• others remaining anonymous
• misinformation being published intentionally
• changes in the lead investigator
• suppression orders withholding relevant details that could hold the key

This is the first time I have looked at that petition, and I was a little surprised at the reasons for it, as I would think those reasons would have no impact at all on a Coroner's decision.

Actually, what you have supplied is on the front page blurb of the petition, many have given their reasons and quite a variety for signing the petition. Your guess of not one in 20 something thousand of the people's motivations of having skin in this situation is staggering to me. Many in the community, Sydney community, Mid North Coast community, NSW community and Australian community do feel emotionally involved in this case and want closure.

 

[Bohemian]

When I was reading about the Matthew Leveson inquest last night, I learned that the Coroner found that Atkins had lied 72 times.

Though, as we know, they made a deal not to prosecute Atkins for perjury if he gave up the location of Matthew's remains ... which he did.

Will be interesting to see what happens to anyone who lies during William's inquest. I would imagine that if they don't know exactly where William is, they will go down hard for perjury. I think Strike Force Rosann's patience has run out after a kabillion requests, over the years, for that 'person who knows something to come forward, don't wait till we come after you'.


The inquest was so replete with falsehoods from Mr Atkins that Magistrate Truscott's findings included 72 references to him lying.
In November 2016, police gained permission from the NSW Attorney-General to offer Mr Atkins immunity from perjury offences, after it became clear he lied to the inquest. He was never given immunity for murder.

The coroner acknowledged the Leveson family's painful decision to agree to Mr Atkins receiving legal indemnity, in exchange for information leading to the recovery of their son's body.
"It must have been a hideous decision," Magistrate Truscott said.
He buried the body and lied to police, but Michael Atkins won't go to jail — here's why

BBM.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Personally, I hope any magistrate comes down hard on the ‘someone [who] knows something’ regarding the person or persons unknown who are responsible for William’s disappearance; whether they commit perjury or not.

There is the no small matter of concealing a serious crime on the table as well and, if someone is found to have done that for what, even now, is a significant period of time, they deserve to have the book thrown at them in return for causing William’s loved ones so much pain and suffering. They will get no sympathy from me — regardless of the circumstances — and I hope the magistrate doesn’t show any sympathy toward them either. After William’s abduction, to me at least, concealing that crime comes a close second as far as ‘seriousness’ is concerned.

As you can imagine, I’ve also lost patience with the ‘someone [who] knows something’. Long ago, in fact.

 

[SouthAussie]

Actually, what you have supplied is on the front page blurb of the petition, many have given their reasons and quite a variety for signing the petition. Your guess of not one in 20 something thousand of the people's motivations of having skin in this situation is staggering to me. Many in the community, Sydney community, Mid North Coast community, NSW community and Australian community do feel emotionally involved in this case and want closure.

Of course they want closure. No need to be staggered. We all want closure. William's families want it more than anyone, I am sure.
But the blurb requesting that the public was given confidential information, while an investigation was ongoing, seems quite out of line to me.

The Coroner was following the case. That is all that matters. The Coroner knows what is/was going on and why.

The Coroner has always stated that when it is time for an inquest, an inquest will happen. And now one has been said to be starting before this year's end.

 

[iailwa]

But Mark Leveson believes the public, however well intentioned, have no right trying to force an inquest upon William’s biological and foster families.


"It’s well and good the public being interested, and in some cases voyeuristic, in wanting to know what is going on," Leveson told nine.com.au.


"I’m not saying that an inquest is good or bad. I’m saying the decision should be up to Tyrrell’s parents not the public.

"It’s their son and their foster son and they should have all the say of what transpires."

Matthew Leveson's dad cautions pushing 'voyeuristic' petition on William Tyrrell's families

Difficult situation.
Who does have all the say? When William was under the care of the minister.

With all due respect to Mark Leveson, and all the pain and anguish he & his family/friends/ & police went through to discover what happened to Mathew, IMO it is def in the public's interest to demand -- or at least request, an inquest, whether under the care of the minister or not. It's our community, and if we don't want a psycho remaining on the streets, we should be able to stand up for that. If there was no inquest in Daniel M's case, then BPC would probably be free to commit his disgusting crimes, perhaps many times over... it's in everyones interest that inquests proceed - MOO. I'm very sorry for Mathew and his family in saying this ...what a horrible outcome

 

[Bohemian]

With all due respect to Mark Leveson, and all the pain and anguish he & his family/friends/ & police went through to discover what happened to Mathew, IMO it is def in the public's interest to demand -- or at least request, an inquest, whether under the care of the minister or not. It's our community, and if we don't want a psycho remaining on the streets, we should be able to stand up for that. If there was no inquest in Daniel M's case, then BPC would probably be free to commit his disgusting crimes, perhaps many times over... it's in everyones interest that inquests proceed - MOO. I'm very sorry for Mathew and his family in saying this ...what a horrible outcome

I can’t agree. The only people who come close to having any ‘interests’, or rights for that matter, as far as an inquest goes are William’s loved ones IMO.

As for there being a ‘psycho [remaining] on our streets’, we don’t know who committed this crime against William. As DCI Jubelin said, in response to a reporter’s question at his last media presser:

(11:53) Reporter:

'Are the majority of those suspects sex offenders?'

(11:58) DCI Gary Jubelin:

'I think we need to keep an open mind in regards to this. There's an assumption right from the start, that a three year old child's been abducted that may, or may not, be the sexual predator. We're keeping an open mind to that. I can't break down specifically how many persons of interest are on the basis of suspicion attached to their sexual interests in children but I do want to stress this is a unique investigation. I'm very mindful that we've looked at all possibilities and I keep an open mind to it.

I hear stories from overseas of situations where children have disappeared for decades and the turned up in circumstances. I also hear stories of incidents have occurred that are by accident and been covered up and then revealed. So, we are keeping an open mind to it and our focus is not just on sex offenders or, let's break it down; paedophiles. We're not just looking at that aspect of it.

And we're also mindful that our research tells us that the child, at the age of three, doesn't necessarily fit into the parameters of childless couples where young babies have been abducted. It's that unique nature of this investigation that's making this particularly trying.’
​

I wouldn’t be jumping on the perpetrator being akin to someone like BPC in Daniel’s case just yet. Sure, it’s a possibility, but not a given. And I’m also sure, at this late stage of the investigation, members of SFR have a very good idea who their prime suspect is and would be surveilling them; either overtly or covertly, as we speak.

​

 

[sosocurious]

I disagree with Mr Leveson's view. The public are not forcing an inquest upon either families. The public are pressing the process of finding out what has happened to the victim as they have waited some time to find out if there is a danger somewhere in their community and to their own children. The public have skin in this situation as well. The feelings of the families are raw, however many other people have been impacted by WT's disappearance e.g. Kendall community, and to put this down to the motivations of the public being voyeuristic is shortsighted IMO.

Coroners have made some great recommendations that have been adopted in the last decade in NSW. Things that have benefitted WT's investigation. In Belinda Peisley's case, the coroner recommended that in the case of all suspicious disapearances the homicide squad be informed to take over the investigation. Can you imagine the Local Area Command having to run this investigation? Also another recommendation was given in another case that after a substantially less time of an investigation lapsing without a result that a report be prepared for the coroner which has also happened in WT's case. I read of another coroner being infuriated at looking at a 20 year cold case and lamenting that so much time was lost, in that case there may have been a serial killer still at large. There is much to risk with perjury on the stand in a coronial inquiry.

I agree with Mr Leveson view. We the public have very little understand of the complicated history and the family dynamics. Nor, do we know what the team investigating William's disappearance know or what evidence they may have.
We can have opinions but we really know squat....in the scheme of things.

While an inquest was always going to be the result if William was not found. Given he is a missing child who was under the care of the minister.

I do feel that the timing of the inquest is not up to us the public to determine or try and force.

The family/families can push for the inquest at any time. Just as the Morcombe's did.

The Leveson's on the other hand had to make a deal with the devil so as their son could be returned home to them.
After having sat through a court case. Only to see the person that had dumped their son like a piece of rubbish be acquitted.

jmo

 

[iailwa]

I can’t agree. The only people who come close to having any ‘rights’ as far as an inquest goes are William’s loved ones IMO.

As for there being a ‘psycho [remaining] on our streets’, we don’t know who committed this crime against William. As DCI Jubelin said, in response to a reporter’s question at his last media presser:

(11:53) Reporter:

'Are the majority of those suspects sex offenders?'

(11:58) DCI Gary Jubelin:

'I think we need to keep an open mind in regards to this. There's an assumption right from the start, that a three year old child's been abducted that may, or may not, be the sexual predator. We're keeping an open mind to that. I can't break down specifically how many persons of interest are on the basis of suspicion attached to their sexual interests in children but I do want to stress this is a unique investigation. I'm very mindful that we've looked at all possibilities and I keep an open mind to it.

I hear stories from overseas of situations where children have disappeared for decades and the turned up in circumstances. I also hear stories of incidents have occurred that are by accident and been covered up and then revealed. So, we are keeping an open mind to it and our focus is not just on sex offenders or, let's break it down; paedophiles. We're not just looking at that aspect of it.

And we're also mindful that our research tells us that the child, at the age of three, doesn't necessarily fit into the parameters of childless couples where young babies have been abducted. It's that unique nature of this investigation that's making this particularly trying.’
​

I wouldn’t be jumping on the perpetrator being akin to someone like BPC in Daniel’s case just yet. Sure, it’s a possibility, but not a given. And I’m also sure, at this late stage of the investigation, members of SFR have a very good idea who their prime suspect is and would be surveilling them; either overtly or covertly, as we speak.

​

that's Ok to disagree BO, but given no-one knows what happened to little WT yet, or evidence is lacking wrt to what, then it's possible there is a killer out there. And for that reason, then it's in the best interest of the community to hold an inquest IMO