Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #53

[JWSleuth]

I don’t make a lot of sense either but why were they exposed to an open court , that anyone could attend if they were protecting them with pseudo names.

i would say a slip up by the reference provided by witness. Otherwise there is no connection.

edit... well not a slip up as she is stating what is said but in this exposing link.

 

[Thebottomline]

Yes I was addressing your post.

It seems what was said was said in open court, with FA listening, I imagine he is aware. I'm sure that Doc wasn't the only person in the room either.

Their privacy, as far as the court is concerned, is that they have been given pseudonyms and have not been identified, ensuring their safety and privacy. We don't know their situation, they could live on the other side of Australia at this point or even overseas. We don't know.

For the Journalists to be able to actually put a name to the person they were discussing, is obviously a choice/decision made by the court - how else would they know if they children where using pseudonyms? The women giving testimony, even with pseudonyms, were visible to FA.

All we know is what was said in Open Court, which Doc has so generously relayed to us.

And BTW, it's against TOS to tell posters how to and what they should post.

And visible to anyone else attending that day. I don’t understand this.

 

[Thebottomline]

Yes I was addressing your post.

It seems what was said was said in open court, with FA listening, I imagine he is aware. I'm sure that Doc wasn't the only person in the room either.

Their privacy, as far as the court is concerned, is that they have been given pseudonyms and have not been identified, ensuring their safety and privacy. We don't know their situation, they could live on the other side of Australia at this point or even overseas. We don't know.

For the Journalists to be able to actually put a name to the person they were discussing, is obviously a choice/decision made by the court - how else would they know if they children where using pseudonyms? The women giving testimony, even with pseudonyms, were visible to FA.

All we know is what was said in Open Court, which Doc has so generously relayed to us.

And BTW, it's against TOS to tell posters how to and what they should post.

And visible to anyone else attending that day. I don’t understand this.

 

[bearbear]

fa caravan, so creepy!
Two weeks ago, police searched a dam and the caravan off Logans Crossing where Abbott used to live, before he ended up behind bars.

Despite the new allegations, there has never been any evidence linking Abbott to the suspected murder of William Tyrrell.
Paedophile allegedly told scared brothers he killed William Tyrrell and buried him in a suitcase, inquest hears

 

[Thebottomline]

i would say a slip up by the reference provided by witness. Otherwise there is no connection.

Sorry I’m appearing a bit dim but what connection. Sorry

 

[Thebottomline]

fa caravan, so creepy!
Two weeks ago, police searched a dam and the caravan off Logans Crossing where Abbott used to live, before he ended up behind bars.

Despite the new allegations, there has never been any evidence linking Abbott to the suspected murder of William Tyrrell.
Paedophile allegedly told scared brothers he killed William Tyrrell and buried him in a suitcase, inquest hears

All these articles stating this as FA . Wouldn’t they face consequences if this was wrong ? BS was able to sue for misreporting in media.

 

[sleepinoz]

And visible to anyone else attending that day. I don’t understand this.

Should it have been in closed court, IMO yes - but it wasn't.

 

[JWSleuth]

I don’t make a lot of sense either but why were they exposed to an open court , that anyone could attend if they were protecting them with pseudo names.

i would say a slip up by the reference provided by witness. Otherwise there is no connection.

Yes I was addressing your post.

It seems what was said was said in open court, with FA listening, I imagine he is aware. I'm sure that Doc wasn't the only person in the room either.

Their privacy, as far as the court is concerned, is that they have been given pseudonyms and have not been identified, ensuring their safety and privacy. We don't know their situation, they could live on the other side of Australia at this point or even overseas. We don't know.

For the Journalists to be able to actually put a name to the person they were discussing, is obviously a choice/decision made by the court - how else would they know if they children where using pseudonyms? The women giving testimony, even with pseudonyms, were visible to FA.

All we know is what was said in Open Court, which Doc has so generously relayed to us.

And BTW, it's against TOS to tell posters how to and what they should post.

ETA: Doc is not the first person I have heard this from. So how do you propose to stop the truth?

I am also suggesting it be edited (and by no means attacking the poster Or trying to tell anyone what to post so sorry dr sleuth if you feel that) just feel it Is the duty of care as a websleuth. No disrespect. And I’ll leave there don’t want to cause any issues! My assumption is the reporters have looked at this and discussed what can be released potentially even with the coroner as best practice.

 

[stormyseas]

I don’t make a lot of sense either but why were they exposed to an open court , that anyone could attend if they were protecting them with pseudo names. When any Tom Dick or harry could attend and see them.

Because the boys themselves weren’t there in open court? And there is likely no ongoing connection between the boys and Tanya and Amy.. my best guess is that they were employed carers of some kind. IMO

 

[Thebottomline]

My confusion here is that all media outlets have reported the same thing. FA was the one named by the boys as per Tanyas recollection. If this is not the case as dr sleuth has reported here as what actually was said in their testimony then how does it be allowed as it misleads the public and gives FA an avenue to go along BS path and sue for defamation from the media if it was not said in court and misreported from the media.

 

[sleepinoz]

My confusion here is that all media outlets have reported the same thing. FA was the one named by the boys as per Tanyas recollection. If this is not the case as dr sleuth has reported here as what actually was said in their testimony then how does it be allowed as it misleads the public and gives FA an avenue to go along BS path and sue for defamation from the media if it was not said in court and misreported from the media.

I suppose if the Media has reported incorrectly the Coroner will have something to say on Monday.

 

[Thebottomline]

I just don’t get the need for pseudo names in an open court, if they need protecting by not releasing their names then keep it closed.

 

[Thebottomline]

I suppose if the Media has reported incorrectly the Coroner will have something to say on Monday.

All of the media ? Did they all hear wrongly

 

[Tinker Taylor]

Not aiming this at anyone but in my recent experience, there isn't much attention given to providing anonymity in court to people who are entitled by law to have it. My experience was in a sexual assault case where the complainant was supposedly anonymous, but the 100 or so people who turned up (from whom the 12 would be chosen) all saw the person, heard her name and were told where she worked and the nature of the charges. This was so they could be excused if they knew any of the parties. The details of the case were all around the town by lunch time.

 

[sosocurious]

All of the media ? Did they all hear wrongly

The video sums it up without giving a name - real or pseudonym

Inquest hears two boys knew William Tyrrell's killer | Sky News Australia

 

[Thebottomline]

Not aiming this at anyone but in my recent experience, there isn't much attention given to providing anonymity in court to people who are entitled by law to have it. My experience was in a sexual assault case where the complainant was supposedly anonymous, but the 100 or so people who turned up (from whom the 12 would be chosen) all saw the person, heard her name and were told where she worked and the nature of the charges. This was so they could be excused if they knew any of the parties. The details of the case were all around the town by lunch time.

exactly the point I’m trying to articulate

 

[sleepinoz]

All of the media ? Did they all hear wrongly

I don't think they heard wrong, but they've obviously changed it with the agreement of the Court, if not I think we'll hear about it from the Coroner.

I just don’t get the need for pseudo names in an open court, if they need protecting by not releasing their names then keep it closed.

The boys were not in Court and were give pseudo names understandably, the Mother Amy, I would think is a Foster Carer (maybe respite carer) and cannot be named by law. Hence Tanya can't be named.

 

[sleepinoz]

exactly the point I’m trying to articulate

Well really it's a bit like the Court giving Williams sister the pseudo name Lindsay - most following the case knows what her name is.

 

[Blues Clues]

I think you'll find as mentioned by the Coroner, the journalists had a copy of a document produced by Coroner Grahame and read in court by CA Craddock, outlining all the pseudonyms and the restrictions on media relating to publication.

I don't think it unreasonable to believe the media has made the decision to put the children's interests above the publics. It isn't the first time Lia Harris has held back something which she could have published. Unfortunately the example I'm after won't come to me at the moment.

I do agree with others, anyone could have been in the court and made the witnesses identities public.

Edit to add example; Lia Harris chose not to publish the post ladies name.

 

[Thebottomline]

I don't think they heard wrong, but they've obviously changed it with the agreement of the Court, if not I think we'll hear about it from the Coroner.



The boys were not in Court and were give pseudo names understandably, the Mother Amy, I would think is a Foster Carer (maybe respite carer) and cannot be named by law. Hence Tanya can't be named.

Yes and so they should but anyone could be an observer at the inquest and could further report their actual identity to anyone. My point is if they needed a pseudonym then it shouldn’t have had them exposed to anyone off the street who could sit in on the inquest. They are now not anonymous. That’s my opinion