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 "many" lesser charges.

In 2004, while he was still incarcerated, Bill D'Arcy's lawyer at the time asked him to explain why there were so many lesser charges brought against him. This was his reply.

Locked Bag 2000 (the jail) Richlands Q4077, Saturday 16 October 2004
To Steve Quadrio, Marinez Quadrio Lawyers, PO Box 66 New Farm 4005 QLD

My wife asked me to identify or you the reasons that there were so many complainants. Witch-hunt might not be a legal term none the less it is what convicted me.

• The police corrupted the investigation to gain a conviction in a witch-hunt.
• Police pressured complainants and witnesses to give suggestive statements
• Police pressured witnesses to get them to court,
• Police accommodated school witnesses at the same hotel on several occasions.
• Police trawling contaminated the investigation.
• Police introduced evidence.
• Police found evidence 30 years later that was not even rumoured at the time,
• Evidence was spread by collusion though family members.
• Police leaked false sensational reports to the media, e.g. Spy hole
• Police targeted me and then suggested the crimes,
• Investigators used repressed memory and other unethical techniques.
• Police selected witnesses yet if true all students would have known,
• Evidence. if true, would have been rumoured, as an open secret at the time.
• Police purposely failed to check the most basic derails in statements.
• We now know police fabricated evidence in collusion with witnesses,
• Trial evidence indicates collusion with defence counsel.

My wife also asked me to identify for you what was unusual in my case.
What showed the- investigation and the subsequent conviction was a miscarriage of justice?

• The Large number of complainants with no corroboration.
• The complaints are in school time,
• Many of the complaints are in front of the class and witnesses.
• The complaints are in small country schools in gossip-ridden communities,
• There are multiple complainants at each of the-schools and at the same-time.
• There is no grooming.
• There is no conversation recorded by the complainants.
• There are no weekend complaints or activities with children.
• There are intervening years without complaints
• There is no recidivism.
• Witnesses never mentioned their evidence to anyone until police came.
• Political prejudice, inquiries; Superannuation, Election advertising etc.
• Trawling and entrapment. Complainants did not come forward.
• The rape allegation is anatomically. chronological and visually impossible.
• Police contacted and liaised with the media,
• Psychology. Use of unethical repressed memory techniques.
• Ancient allegations. A huge time lapse since the allegation, over 30 years.
• A loving rock solid family. A conventional family life of 37 married years.