The first and main trial of Bill D'Arcy was held during a time of "hysteria-mania" and a two year period of prejudical pre-trial publicity. Evidence at the trial itself now carefully analysed - and evidence obtained since, conclusively prove that Bill D'Arcy should not have been convicted of anything. Dangerously for our society, the ethos has developed that a man accused of abhorent sexual crimes against children, must prove himself innocent.
An analysis (without names) of the hole-in-the-wall statements of prosecution witnesses whose evidence convicted Bill D'Arcy of lesser charges. These lesser charges had the effect on the jury of indirectly supporting the uncorroborated charge of rape. Currently in Preparation.
1. Botting Judgment in the civil proceedings disallowing the accusers from gaining $250,000 and ruling in favour of the D'Arcys - awarding costs to the D'Arcys (never paid!)
2. Letter of Dr O'Connor on the impossibility of the rape accusations against D'Arcy