The Supporters Group
Bill D'Arcy supporters consist of

1. Those who believe, because of the extensive pre-trial publicity, that Bill D'Arcy had no chance of a fair trial. And/or

2. Those who believe, because of a plethora of uncorroborated "evidence", contradictory allegations and conflicting "evidence", he should never have been found guilty. And/or

3. Those who believe that because of evidence given at the trials, evidence suppressed by the police, and evidence which has been clarified or uncovered since, that he was not guilty of any offence even the lesser charges. And/or

4, Those who believe that the consistent refusal of all government and legal authorities to ignore Bill D'Arcy's request for an independent enquiry into his case, given the circumstances, is reprehensible.

The Wikipedia that was

Supporter's Comment: A Wikipedia editor revised the entry on Bill D'Arcy as below. Another Wikipedia editor took it down, citing that it broke the rules regarding living subjects. As Wikipedia editors are anonymous, there is no way of knowing whether this was done out of malice or not. Be that as it may, it is a very accurate account, backed up by sources.

William Theodore "Bill" D'Arcy (born 31 July 1939) is a former Australian politician. He was the Labor member for Albert (1972–74) and Woodridge (1977–2000) in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland.
D'Arcy was born in Brisbane. He worked as a teacher and business consultant before his entry into politics. He was first elected to parliament at the 1972 by-election for the seat of Albert following Liberal MLA Bill Heatley's death, but he was defeated at the 1974 election. He returned to the Assembly in 1977 as the member for the new seat of Woodridge. In 1987 he was appointed Opposition Spokesman on Tourism, Sport and Racing, and in February 1980 became Deputy Leader of the Opposition, serving until 1982. He held his seat until his resignation in January 2000.[1][2] Later in 2000 he was convicted of a number of sexual offences against children from his days as a sole teacher at country primary schools in the 1960s and 1970s. D'Arcy was released in 2007.[2]

1 D'Arcy always maintained Innocence
2 Impossibility of a Fair Trial
2.1 Significant Editorial
3 Support Group Letter to CCC
3.1 The One Accuser of Rape Refuted
3.2 Extensive & unlawful police "trawling"
3.3 Recovered Memory
3.4 Tainted Evidence
3.5 Paedophile Mania
3.6 Bond University
4 Civil case ruling by Judge H.W.H. Botting
5 References

D'Arcy always maintained Innocence
D'Arcy spent seven years, six weeks and three days in Queensland jails - always maintaining his innocence. Fellow prisoners did not consider he was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused and convicted. He therefore did not require protection from the prison community. He refused to consider treatment for pedophilia, even though it meant a reduced sentence.

During this time, and since, he has been constantly and consistently supported by his wife, his children, his relatives and his friends. In the thirty seven years between the alleged crimes and the first trial Bill, D'Arcy raised a family of three children, took an active part in public life, and became a distinguished Member of the Queensland Parliament, without the slightest hint of any action even remotely suggesting inappropriate action with children.(Paedophiles regularly re-offend.)

An extensive network of friends have supported him since his trials. Forty-five of his friends, including four former high ranking police, sent a letter to the Crime and Corruption Commission in December 6, 2014 asking the commission to examine the D'Arcy case, the third time[3] this has been attempted.[4]

Impossibility of a Fair Trial
Prior to his first trial the Courier Mail published a number of articles reporting D'Arcy as being guilty of sexual offences against children some thirty seven years previously.[5] One in particular was an accusation that he made a fourteen year old girl pregnant. Even though this was easily refuted by DNA and other evidence, the refutation received no publicity. These stories and others convinced many observers that D'Arcy had no chance of experiencing an unprejudiced trial.[6]

Significant Editorial
In a strongly worded Editorial (01-09-1998) the Australian Newspaper condemned Premier Peter Beattie of "undue haste" and "fear of political damage" in ignoring all established processes and presuming Bill D'Arcy guilty of offences based only on "innuendo and gossip".
Sexual crimes against children are so repugnant that even the suggestion that a person is a child molester is a serious smear. If an allegation is true, it would be horrific for the victims; if false, or malicious, it would be horrific for the accused … The matter in Queensland has rapidly run out of control.

Mr Beattie has panicked and asked the backbencher to resign "in the interests of himself, his family and the Government". It is a cynical request … for the MP, it would amount to an admission of guilt. He has rightly refused to resign and has denied the allegations "forcefully and indignantly" … In seeking the MP's resignation the Premier .. (has), by implication, branded him guilty.

The editorial went on to strongly defend the processes of law and the presumption of innocence. It urged Premier Beattie to desist. In a prescient statement the Australian editors (also stating that the name of MP is well known) concluded:-

Only strict observance of the rule of law can prevent an investigation snowballing into a witch-hunt which damages a community as well as individuals.[7]


Support Group Letter to CCC
In Dec 2014 a group of supporters asked the Crime and Corruption Commission to examine the following anomalies in the Bill D'Arcy conviction and to declare a miscarriage of justice.[8]

The One Accuser of Rape Refuted
There was only one person (the main complainant) who claimed that D'Arcy raped her as a child. This conviction of rape which was alleged to occur in early 1966 occurred nine months after Bill D'Arcy had left that school (July 1965); this was not a mistake given in evidence by this person at the time of the trial. She was adamant in her assertion of other notable incidents in her life which occurred at the time of her allegations, which simply did not occur while Bill D'Arcy taught at that school. D'Arcy's defence, supporters claim, has now also been totally verified by Education Department records, not available at the time of the trial (October 2000).[9]

Extensive & unlawful police "trawling"
The supporters further claimed the Argos Police Task Force used extensive "trawling" over at least twelve months ie, interviewing hundreds of people, ignoring those who defended D'Arcy and cultivating those who seemed disposed to "remember" offences against D'Arcy. They consider that the task force was not examining whether a crime had or had not been committed, but was uncommonly over-intent on gaining a conviction.
It is the duty of the prosecution to hand over all interviews to the defence. This did not happen.[10] On July 20, 1999, in the Queensland Parliament, at the time Bill D'Arcy was being investigated, (in answer to a question from Allan Grice), the Minister for Police, Mr Tom Barton, articulated the duties of police very clearly.

… police officers have an obligation to consider all evidence gathered, whether detrimental or beneficial to the alleged offender, before charging or commencing any proceedings. In the conduct of an investigation a police officer gathers evidence from all known and available witnesses, as well as collecting any available physical evidence that is relevant to the facts In issue. … If a statement is not obtained from a potential witness, the prosecution should provide the person's name to the defence …
Section 10.21 of the Police Service Administration Act provides for action against persons who knowingly make false complaints which call for a police investigation.

Recent information obtained by Freedom of Information processes clearly reveal that many people, who defended D'Arcy, were interviewed and their evidence not presented. Marie Doyle, D'Arcy's fellow teacher at the Logan Village School described the police tactics very clearly. In a video interview she stated that the police approached her at least six times to make a false statement implicating D'Arcy in sexual misconduct with children.[12]

Recovered Memory
Nearly all the evidence which convicted D'Arcy (of the one woman who claimed she was raped, and the lesser charges of sexual improprieties claimed by others) relied on the uncorroborated testimony of human memory. For many years this type of evidence has been rejected by almost every legal jurisdiction in the western world except Queensland. In a New York Times article (Feb 9, 2015) on this subject Tara Parker-Pope articulated the misgivings of the D'Arcy Support Group as follows:-

Numerous scientific studies show that memories can fade, shift and distort over time. Not only can our real memories become unwittingly altered and embellished, but entirely new false memories can be incorporated into our memory bank, embedded so deeply that we become convinced they are real and actually happened.[13]

Tainted Evidence
The letter details fantasies accepted as evidence from the main complainant. It details many examples of contradictory evidence among the many lesser complainants. SSC&S Investigators describes how D'Arcy was "carpet bombed" i.e confronted with an overwhelming number of accusations - impossible for an individual to defend.[14]

Paedophile Mania
SSC&S describes how the first main trial, and indeed subsequent trials, was influenced by "paedophile mania". This was the unreasonable pursuit of accused men, presuming guilt without evidence, severely tainting, prejudicing and influencing the media, and thus the juries concerned. Says SSC&S, "it was a perception that one only has to make a complaint that someone has committed a sexual offence and there is every likelihood that the subject will be convicted regardless of the standard of the evidence." (pp16 and 17)[9]

Bond University
Bond University post-graduate students studied the D'Arcy case in detail. Individually they found serious problems with the case for the prosecution, including key evidence which was contradictory. One example of this was the assertion of the hole in the wall, which was central to D'Arcy's conviction on some lesser charges. This hole in the wall was where some witnesses asserted that they watched Bill D'Arcy in compromising positions with children. Some of the former students asserted this, and a number of their contemporaries claimed no such hole existed. Expert post trial examination of the building, which still existed in the same state, revealed that no hole existed or had ever existed.[9]

Civil case ruling by Judge H.W.H. Botting
The woman who claimed rape in May 1966 and another woman who claimed sexual assault sued Bill D'Arcy and the Queensland Education Department for $250,000 each in cvil proceedings.[15] The court sat in June 2002. Judge H,W.H. Botting presided.

In his ruling Judge Botting stated that he was aware that D'Arcy had been convicted of 18 offences in the criminal court. Nevertheless, he detailed a range of serious inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants. He denied their claim and awarded legal costs to D'Arcy.

"The applicants have not discharged the onus of persuading me that a fair trial is now possible. In fact, in my view, the time that has now elapsed since the events complained of took place make the chances of a fair trial unlikely."
Judge Botting also observed that "having watched him closely" that "the Defendant (Bill D'Arcy) (was) an honest and reliable witness on those factual issues which emerged…" An expert witness produced by the complainants admitted that anyone "can misremember or misinterpet the past.". Judge Botting also noted that given the "numerous health problems" of the first woman she never divulged her accusations against Bill D'Arcy to her various doctors, even when it was quite relevant to do so, but after many years she readily divulged her accusations to a police officer. Judge found this fact "not reasonable".[16] The documentation of tainted evidence and questionable processes and procedures is continuing.


1. Former Members". Parliament of Queensland. 2015. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
2. Alex Dickinson (14 December 2007). "Former Labor MP served seven years for child sex offences". Courier-Mail.
3. To the CJC in 2003 and the CMC in 2008
4. "Victim of Trial by Media". 2015. Retrieved 2015-02-08.
5 . "Teacher accused of sex with students", the Courier Mail (Brisbane), April 2, 1998 p.1
6. Koch, Tony, "ALP backbencher soon to face child sex abuse charges", the Courier Mail (Brisbane), August 29, 1998 p.1
7. The Australian, Canberra, 01-09-1998 p.12
8. Bill D'Arcy Support Group (45 signatories), Dec 6-2014,Letter to Ken Levy, Chair, Crime and Corruption Commission, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
9. "Queensland Government:An Illegal One Party Dictatorship". Renaissance Learning Foundation. 2015. Retrieved 2015-02-08.
10. SSC&S, William Theodore D'Arcy, Submission of Concerns held with Validity of Convictions and whether there was a Miscarriage of Justice, pp16, 21, 65, 83 and 84
11. Queensland Parliament, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), July 20 1999, Question on Notice No 683 p2630
12. "Marie Doyle""Fellow teacher, Marie Doyle, Defends Bill D'Arcy". Bill D'Arcy Support Group. 2014. Retrieved 2015-02-08.
13. Tara Parker Pope, Was Brian Williams a Victim of False Memory?, New York Times, New York USA, February 9, 2015
14. SSC&S Report, op.cit. pp.18 and 62
15. SSC&S, William Theodore D'Arcy, Submission of Concerns held with Validity of Convictions and whether there was a Miscarriage of Justice, pp63 and 64
16. Judge H.W.H. Botting. Ruling, District Court Of Queensland, June 21, 2002-Applications 861 and 864 of 2001