Unpublished letter to the Editor re Bill D'Arcy and the impossibility of his guilt on the main charge of paedophilia especially.

	November 2000 (Letter sent to all the main National Newspapers from Dally Messenger) The Editor Bill D'Arcy (The Australian2/11/00) had about as much chance of getting a fair trial in Queensland as Lindy Chamberlain would in a dingo camp. He was trialled by media many times in the last few years and found guilty many times. No presumption of innocence there. But was he? There are some very disturbing features. Bill D'Arcy was the most successful Labor politician Queensland ever had with the largest electorate majority. He had a productive and impeccable record of public service. While he was weakened with a serious heart attack, accusations of sexual misconduct concerning the time he was the lone teacher in his early twenties in country schools, emerged from nowhere. We are talking now of the early sixties, thirty-seven years ago, when adultery and homosexuality were crimes but bouncing a kid on your knee or putting your arm around a distressed child were not. D'Arcy was found guilty of the full ambit claim of 18 charges including "raping an 8 year old child in front of the whole class". Now one would think there would have been plenty of evidence for that, a classful, in fact. But was there? How could you suppress that one for 37 years? The man is convicted on the basis of the transmogrified memories of a few six, seven and eight years olds, reprocessed by the dubious self justifications of the human mind, refined in the badgered conversations with persons affected by the media and the police. Who knows whether these memories were exaggerated by the probings of ardent psychologists, beat up by the phantasies of anti-male judgmentalists, spurred by the promise of victim's compensation? And why were the police so super diligent - visit after visit to certain "victims" - in the attempt to articulate statements. (I wish I could have got that sort of diligence when my house was robbed.) I'll tell you what is a crime. To wait until the young teacher meets a girl, achieves a successful and happy marriage, raises a wonderful family of children who adore him and broad spectrum of friends who think the world of him and then, 37 years later, move in for the kill. If D'Arcy's family are not real victims then who is? According to your report, there is a final kick when the man is down. Having taken away husband, father and friend, they want to take away his assets from his family to compensate his "victims". It has been quite OK to accuse men of sex crimes for twenty years or so. Why now? And the rival faction (and is there anything as savage or ruthless as a faction fight in the ALP) in the Labor Party, having agreed that he keep his superannuation, now are talking of giving it to the "victims" too. As some sort of reward, gentlemen? Bill D'Arcy, was an unguided young man, in an unguided age, with different rules, values, standards conventions and teacher preparation, He was put in charge of a single teacher school in his early twenties. No male teacher would touch such a proposition today. Who'd be a male teacher anyway? Unless a male teacher observes a careful set of complex rules he is totally vulnerable. It could be that this is the cleverest political assassination in Australian history. Dally Messenger Richmond 3121

November 2000

(Letter sent to all the main National Newspapers from Dally Messenger)

The Editor

Bill D'Arcy (The Australian2/11/00) had about as much chance of getting a fair trial in Queensland as Lindy Chamberlain would in a dingo camp. He was trialled by media many times in the last few years and found guilty many times. No presumption of innocence there. But was he?
There are some very disturbing features.

Bill D'Arcy was the most successful Labor politician Queensland ever had with the largest electorate majority. He had a productive and impeccable record of public service. While he was weakened with a serious heart attack, accusations of sexual misconduct concerning the time he was the lone teacher in his early twenties in country schools, emerged from nowhere. We are talking now of the early sixties, thirty-seven years ago, when adultery and homosexuality were crimes but bouncing a kid on your knee or putting your arm around a distressed child were not.

D'Arcy was found guilty of the full ambit claim of 18 charges including "raping an 8 year old child in front of the whole class". Now one would think there would have been plenty of evidence for that, a classful, in fact. But was there? How could you suppress that one for 37 years? The man is convicted on the basis of the transmogrified memories of a few six, seven and eight years olds, reprocessed by the dubious self justifications of the human mind, refined in the badgered conversations with persons affected by the media and the police.

Who knows whether these memories were exaggerated by the probings of ardent psychologists, beat up by the phantasies of anti-male judgmentalists, spurred by the promise of victim's compensation? And why were the police so super diligent - visit after visit to certain "victims" - in the attempt to articulate statements. (I wish I could have got that sort of diligence when my house was robbed.)

I'll tell you what is a crime. To wait until the young teacher meets a girl, achieves a successful and happy marriage, raises a wonderful family of children who adore him and broad spectrum of friends who think the world of him and then, 37 years later, move in for the kill. If D'Arcy's family are not real victims then who is? According to your report, there is a final kick when the man is down. Having taken away husband, father and friend, they want to take away his assets from his family to compensate his "victims".

It has been quite OK to accuse men of sex crimes for twenty years or so. Why now? And the rival faction (and is there anything as savage or ruthless as a faction fight in the ALP) in the Labor Party, having agreed that he keep his superannuation, now are talking of giving it to the "victims" too. As some sort of reward, gentlemen?

Bill D'Arcy, was an unguided young man, in an unguided age, with different rules, values, standards conventions and teacher preparation, He was put in charge of a single teacher school in his early twenties. No male teacher would touch such a proposition today. Who'd be a male teacher anyway? Unless a male teacher observes a careful set of complex rules he is totally vulnerable.

It could be that this is the cleverest political assassination in Australian history.

Dally Messenger
Richmond 3121

Home Page