FULL DETAILS AND NAMES OF THOSE MENTIONED IN THESE "COINCIDENCES", AND THE SOURCES OF THE "COINCIDENCES" ARE AVAILABLE TO A PROPERLY CONSITITUTED GOVERNMENT INQUIRY.
Coincidence. "Recovered Memory" therapist's association with Attorney-General.
There was the therapist who "assisted" police in reviving the "memories" which convicted Bill D'Arcy. This therapist appears to have had a business relationship with an Attorney General, who later refused to investigate anomalies in the D'Arcy case — anomalies which he should have investigated. (Names available to an enquiry)
Coincidence. Police influenced by "Recovered Memory" advocates.
Before lodging her complaint, the first and only woman who accused Bill D'Arcy of sexual assault had been in close contact with a certain Police Officer over a sexual assault against her daughter. The Police Officer was assisting her to gain compensation. This particular Police Officer, along with her fellow Police, were trained by an organisation which promoted the validity of the total repression of traumatic childhood memories. (Discredited) They believe such memories can then be recovered later in life, usually through therapy or counselling, and are reliable enough to imprison persons without any independent corroboration whatever".
Story. The Barrister, the Legal person and the judge.
A barrister (named) told the D'Arcy family that a prominent legal person approached a Judge and suggested that it would be proper for him to clear his conscience on the D'Arcy trial.
Story. The Police Officer, the Attorney-General and the Investigation.
Then there was the Police Officer who was sent by the Attorney-General and the Assistant Police Commissioner to investigate his own wrongdoing — regarding an important accusation in a D'Arcy trial. Guess what was his conclusion?
Coincidence. Prominent ALP opponent of D'Arcy connected to original accusers.
The first accusers of Bill D'Arcy went to the same school at the same time as one of Bill D'Arcy's main ALP factional opponents. This man's brother had been closely connected with the accusing woman's husband. This ALP opponent was never required to give a statement to police!
Story. The serious error.
The original Director of Public Prosecutions told the Chief Justice that there had been three women who accused D'Arcy of raping them when they were children. In fact there was ever only one woman who accused him of rape. But this serious misinformation meant that Bill D'Arcy went to trial in the Supreme Court and not the District Court. The charges should have been separated which may have been so in the District Court (with far less expense to the D'Arcy's). And this could have, probably would have, meant a totally different result. ( DPP-Chief Justice FOI letters in full)
Story. A very inappropriate appointment.
A further misfortune occurred when Judge McKenzie, an experienced and respected judge, was replaced by Bob Douglas, recently appointed directly from the TAB (the Totalisator Agency Board) to a Supreme Court position. What is particularly inappropriate is that Judge Bob Douglas was assigned to this very high profile case (his first case?) instead of the experienced Judge McKenzie. It was extraordinarily inappropriate given that Bob Douglas, just weeks before, was dealing with members of parliament who were factional enemies of Bill D'Arcy.
Story. "Leanne Cracken" refused to accuse D'Arcy despite enormous pressure.
Many people have reported to the D'Arcy family and their investigators that certain police officers actively and aggressively sought statements from people to accuse D'Arcy. A prime example is "Leanne Cracken". Police found a witness, "Warrick Beckham", who claimed he saw Bill D'Arcy assault "Leanne Cracken". The police investigators put enormous pressure on "Leanne Cracken" to accuse Bill D'Arcy, she resisted and stuck to the truth.