Any chance of innocence proved by facts?
Bill D'Arcy was originally sentenced to 14 years jail. Ten of these fourteen years was for the rape of one girl/woman. So this was the one big serious offence. If he was guilty of the "lesser" charges he would have been sentenced to four years jail. The school Register of Students (as distinct from the attendance books) was not available at this trial. (Was it hidden by the police?) When they were "found", after the trial was over, guess what? It recorded that Bill wasn't at the school at the time of the alleged offence.
He wasn't even there.
The one accusation of rape was firmly placed at May 1966 by a number of items of evidence. The time was also very clear from the cross examination of the accuser and the witness of others. Bill D'Arcy left that school and was at another one by July 1965. In case you have difficulty adding 2 and 2 — let me state it clearly. Bill D'Arcy wasn't there - he had left ten months before. So he is clearly innocent of the main ten year crime of which he was accused.
The one woman who accused Bill D'Arcy of rape had never adverted to this experience until the police "identified me as a victim". Need I say more?
Yes, but lots of his student accused him of sexual offences.
There are so many of these — he MUST be guilty of something!
Not quite. In fact, hundreds were questioned by police who told them that Bill D'Arcy was a great teacher, he was a wonderful worker for the district, and that he was an enthusiastic sports organiser within the schools. In one school, the Hendra School, the police interviewed many former students but could not find anyone who ever could recall the slightest suspician of a sexual offence. None of these positive statements ever saw the light of the courthouse day.
Imagine you are a former student of one of these schools and the police come to you and say:
"Look, we know this guy D'Arcy is a paedophile, he has done some dreadful things, but we need your help to nail him. Now are you sure you never saw him do any of these things at your school? Look, let's say we come back next week, and in the meantime see if you can remember anything."
Marie Doyle in her videotaped interview describes how the police worked on her to "help" them.
Most people want to help the police nail a paedophile so they work on "remembering". If you read the statements and transcripts you soon get the picture. The "hole in the wall" (discussed elsewhere) is the classic. The account contains a mass of contradictions and differing "memories".
Later on, the courts threw out most of these accusations, mostly because the accusers could not remember what they said in their written evidence - but by then, Bill, in the "hysteria-mania period" (quote by former senior police officer) Bill D'Arcy had been sentenced - so who cares?
Paedophiles regularly re-offend. Until these charges came "out of the blue" after 35 years, Bill D'Arcy had never been slightly suspected of anything — except being a loving husband, family man, and contributing citizen.
Bill D'Arcy is innocent.