Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * Coroners Inquiry CANCELLED!

[Kurve]

Continued from PART 1

Criminal charges:

• Apprehended Violence Orders on both (AVOs)
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster mother *Not Guilty
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster father *Not Guilty
• 2 x charges of assault against a child on former foster mother *Guilty
• 1 x charge of assault against a child on former foster father *Not Guilty
• Stalking &/or Intimidation on both *Guilty
• Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty

TIMELINE

Where's William Tyrrell? - The Ch 10 podcast (under Coroner's subpoena)

Operation Arkstone

Please type names out in full for those who are not covered by suppression orders.

For those covered by suppression orders, please use the following to indicate:

FM - Foster Mother
FF - Foster Father
FGM - Foster Grandmother
FD - Foster Daughter
FPs - Foster Parents

Up to you if you wish to refer to them as former fosters but please write it in full, strictly using the above. No deviations.

Other initials posters will use informally but should not are:

BCR - Batar Creek Road
FA - Frank Abbott
MW - Michelle White
SFR - Strike Force Rosann
AMS - Anne Maree Sharpley
CCR - Cobb and Co Road
GO - Geoff Owens
One even reduced bike riding to - BR
COG - Consciousness of guilt. Like WHO KNEW?

 

[Wallace52]

They already fired Jubelin and I don't think there's many around who buy the official reason put forward of why he was fired. There was always more to that story imo.

We might eventually find out.

Oh, I’ve got an inkling. I don’t think we will ever officially be told, but I think it’s pretty obvious once you get to know the case well.

Let’s just say it is possible that surveillance was on GJ phone and a certain FM phone earlier than 2020 and may have intercepted some conversations, but due to ethical standards we will probably never officially know how that occurred or what was said between the two of them. And I don’t even want to know.
organisation.

 

[shorsky]

Yeah I think even “blind-Freddie” would concede that there was probably another person there when the photos were taken, as William seemed to be looking right at him/her and it wasn’t the grandmother, as she is in the frame.

Why could he not be looking at FM, standing above him to take the photo ?

I guess surely Police checked all the other photos taken at that time to ensure there were similar photos taken of L as well..

 

[Wallace52]

Why could he not be looking at FM, standing above him to take the photo ?

I guess surely Police checked all the other photos taken at that time to ensure there were similar photos taken of L as well..

FM has talked about her angle and how she took the photo and she’s specifically said or implied that he was not looking at her.

I think she has crouched down to take some of those photos and he’s looking at someone else or something else.

But all MOO.

I guess surely Police checked all the other photos taken at that time to ensure there were similar photos taken of L as well..

I highly doubt it.

 

[31550]

Loading…

www.news.com.au

Laidlaw will not appear at the inquest.
It seems the coroner isn't interested in what the current leader of SFR has to say.

 

[Kurve]

Loading…

www.news.com.au

Laidlaw will not appear at the inquest.
It seems the coroner isn't interested in what the current leader of SFR has to say.

Was it not with the Coroner's directions the big dig was launched?

In an extraordinary decision, the coroner overseeing the inquest refused a request by the NSW Police Commissioner, Karen Webb, asking for Detective Chief Inspector Detective Laidlaw to be called.

It means he will not be asked to explain why police launched a massive search of the area around Kendall, where William was reported missing in 2014.

This is a bit odd however ..

Nor will DCI Laidlaw be asked what evidence the strike force he commands has gathered, despite its detectives having said in court they believe William’s foster mother knows where the boy is.

Via link.

 

[31550]

Was it not with the Coroner's directions the big dig was launched?

In an extraordinary decision, the coroner overseeing the inquest refused a request by the NSW Police Commissioner, Karen Webb, asking for Detective Chief Inspector Detective Laidlaw to be called.

It means he will not be asked to explain why police launched a massive search of the area around Kendall, where William was reported missing in 2014.

Via link.

True, the big dig was at the coroner's request.

But if Laidlaw is not appearing, then who will present the findings of the big dig, and anything discovered by SFR since the inquest last convened?

Does this mean they have found nothing new in the last couple of years?

 

[Wallace52]

Was it not with the Coroner's directions the big dig was launched?

Thats what the public were told.
I’m baffled: What is going on here?

 

[31550]

Thats what the public were told.
I’m baffled: What is going on here?

 

[Lady O]

Loading…

www.news.com.au

Laidlaw will not appear at the inquest.
It seems the coroner isn't interested in what the current leader of SFR has to say.

Nor apparently was she interested in the previous leader of SFR had to say.

 

[31550]

Nor apparently was she interested in the previous leader of SFR had to say.

Yeah but he'd already been sacked.

 

[Kurve]

Thats what the public were told.
I’m baffled: What is going on here?

The Coroner may have already received the police reports.

 

[31550]

The Coroner may have already received the police reports.

 

[Lady O]

The Coroner may have already received the police reports.

Well, you would think the senior police officer(s) in charge of the case would need to give evidence in person. Same with all the other witnesses and Police officers involved.

 

[31550]

Well, you would think the senior police officer(s) in charge of the case would need to give evidence in person. Same with all the other witnesses and Police officers involved.

I think (Det Sgt) Laura Beacroft is the most senior police rep to give evidence.
It would appear that the coroner does not need to ask any questions about the police evidence she has.
The coroner is unlikely to go over old ground.
Either there is nothing new in the latest police brief, or the coroner has already made her decision about whether to accept or reject the 'new' evidence. Probably there is nothing new.
She asked the police to investigate the possibility of a balcony fall / other accident and/or concealment of the body near FGM house. SFR will presumably have provided details of any evidence found to support this theory. The coroner will probably weigh up this evidence against everything else, and use it to make her determination as to cause of death. That's all folks.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Nor apparently was she interested in the previous leader of SFR had to say.

The request was in my view a legally strategic decision to have information made public in questioning via coroner which perhaps wouldn't be if it were strict police natter.. coroner denying the request is a slap in face .....no I'm not playing your game, do you job without media persecution

Have to admire a coroner who stands up to police with integrity as sole motivation.

 

[31550]

The request was in my view a legally strategic decision to have information made public in questioning via coroner which perhaps wouldn't be if it were strict police natter.. coroner denying the request is a slap in face .....no I'm not playing your game, do you job with out media persecution

Are you talking about the original request by FM to have Jubelin at the inquest?
If so, coroner IMO was correct in decision to exclude him as he had no official role any more, and was not a material witness.
Or are you talking about current NSW Police Commissioner request for Laidlaw to give evidence?
If so, coroner has considered the request and ruled against it, but not revealed her reasons publicly.

Let's remember the coroner should 'swim in her own lane'. She is only interested in 'what happened to William', and not anything else. So she will only consider evidence which directly relates to the circumstances of William's presumed death. Not anything which happened before or after, unless it is proven to be connected.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Are you talking about the original request by FM to have Jubelin at the inquest?
If so, coroner IMO was correct in decision to exclude him as he had no official role any more, and was not a material witness.
Or are you talking about current NSW Police Commissioner request for Laidlaw to give evidence?
If so, coroner has considered the request and ruled against it, but not revealed her reasons publicly.

Let's remember the coroner should 'swim in her own lane'. She is only interested in 'what happened to William', and not anything else. So she will only consider evidence which directly relates to the circumstances of William's presumed death. Not anything which happened before or after, unless it is proven to be connected.

Read the article saying police applied to have head investigator questioned on stand. Was denied.

There are I suspect rules regarding secrecy of police evidence that could be circumvented if the coroner controls it instead. It was an attempt to talk about the whole police case against FPs without breaching legal police obligations to the prospective defendant's attempted. Persecution using the coroner's court..

 

[31550]

Read the article saying police applied to have head investigator questioned on stand. Was denied.

There are I suspect rules regarding secrecy of police evidence that could be circumvented if the coroner controls it instead

That is true but coroner can decide what evidence is to be heard public or in camera.
Remember quite a lot of evidence was not made public ( e.g William's sister).
The coroner has decided not to hear Laidlaw (at all). She has also declined to make public her reasons for doing so. I don't think it has anything to do with secrecy. It's about necessity, relevance, procedure, and protocol.
Whatever Laidlaw needs to present should already be in the brief.

 

[stormbird]

At previous inquest hearings there would have been reporters live-tweeting by now, but this time I can't find any at all.

 

[31550]

At previous inquest hearings there would have been reporters live-tweeting by now, but this time I can't find any at all.

Geez give them a chance. The coroner has probably not got past "Good morning!"

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That is true but coroner can decide what evidence is to be heard public or in camera.
Remember quite a lot of evidence was not made public ( e.g William's sister).
The coroner has decided not to hear Laidlaw (at all). She has also declined to make public her reasons for doing so. I don't think it has anything to do with secrecy. It's about necessity, relevance, procedure, and protocol.
Whatever Laidlaw needs to present should already be in the brief.

In a way if you allow Laidlaw it's just a mouthpiece to contrive an outcome police want.

Show the evidence itself and let the Coroner decide. That's why she's there....to adjudicate.. Agree completely with her.

I do believe the request was to drive media response and coerce an outcome.......'died at hands of someone known'

Reading between the lines I'd say it possibly means the evidence is so frail that they , the police, need a narrator

 

[stormbird]

That is true but coroner can decide what evidence is to be heard public or in camera.
Remember quite a lot of evidence was not made public ( e.g William's sister).
The coroner has decided not to hear Laidlaw (at all). She has also declined to make public her reasons for doing so. I don't think it has anything to do with secrecy. It's about necessity, relevance, procedure, and protocol.
Whatever Laidlaw needs to present should already be in the brief.

"The coroner has decided not to hear Laidlaw (at all)."

Hang on, the news.com article was talking about this week. Maybe it's standard for the head of the investigation to be called near the end (so, in December).

 

[Kurve]

The FM had every break for years until Jubelin was relieved of his position and the investigation eventually after all that time of getting nothing on anybody else, properly turned focus to her. When they did, the FD was removed as being in danger and they were both charged for assaults and intimidation.

Of course it's for the courts to determine whether the FM removed WT but she's so full of it anyway.

From the same article:

“I believe that if the police had properly investigated this case, instead of persecuting me, they may well have found the person responsible for William’s disappearance,” she said.

 

[Underarrest_]

Role of the Coroner

Role of the Coroner in NSW including having the power to call for particular evidence to be gathered and heard; make recommendations to the relevant Minister or government department and refer matters to the Department of Public Prosecutions.

coroners.nsw.gov.au

 

[31550]

Role of the Coroner

Role of the Coroner in NSW including having the power to call for particular evidence to be gathered and heard; make recommendations to the relevant Minister or government department and refer matters to the Department of Public Prosecutions.

coroners.nsw.gov.au

One thing I am clinging to is that the coroner's findings are based on balance of probability and do not need to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
So if she finds that William 'probably' died at Kendall on the 12th, as opposed to have becoming lost in the bush, or abducted by person(s) unknown, then she will find exactly that.