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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 :rolleyes:
COG - Consciousness of guilt. Like WHO KNEW?
 
Last edited:
FF rang to say home on five I don’t know how phone towers work but instead of FF ringing could FM have rung him other way round with land line and said I will meet you?
 
If William was not abducted and something happened to him and was hidden on the property that makes the time of the photos irrelevant because he probably was moved that night. The FF was away from the house when police arrived the next morning.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I keep thinking FM had to have been some where to see the truck was on that road but not on Barta Creek Road itself any thoughts?
 
During FF interview his carxwas not there at 48 and it became clear later that FM had taken the car to drive to her interview in P. mac with her mother I would say as she was interviewed on same day there too.
So she was quite comfortable driving the new FF car?
Which begs the question, why didn't she take the FF car to look for William?
  • She was ok driving it
  • it would have had a suitable child restraint for William
  • a 4WD could go on the dirt tracks if necessary
  • the raised driving position compared to the Mazda gives an excellent view of the road
  • if William was scared and hiding somewhere, he would recognise 'Daddy's Car' and come out

And the most likely answer is, "FF car was not available when she went for the drive, because he was still out on his Lakewood trip"

So FMs drive is probably well before FF returned home - well before William was even 'missing'.
 
I think one of the police who arrived did talk to FD first and then FD was interviewed by specialist officers.
Children can be prepromted but FD would have had to have stuck to the same version of events. I’d assume FD was interviewed more than once using different techniques.
"Where did William Go?" - "He went to look for Daddy's car!"
"How do you know that?" - "Um, I don't know".

The "I don't know" response from children is very common and doesn't always mean they don't know. It's often a way of avoiding answering questions they don't want to answer. Gives them an easy way out.

The thing with foster kids also is that they may not feel comfortable around police. In most cases it's a uniformed police officer who escorted them away from their real parents and siblings, and placed them into a care situation. It's authorities like magistrates who make judgements keeping them away from their bio families. Many of them come from a difficult domestic background where their families may not have had a good relationship with police and authorities in general. So it's unlikely that they are going to instantly open up and be completely open and honest with an interviewer. Even if the interviewer is showing them kindness, and they are coming from a bad situation, these kids don't give their trust easily to anyone. The "I don't know" answer is often just an automatic response to questions from strangers or authority figures.
 
I keep thinking FM had to have been some where to see the truck was on that road but not on Barta Creek Road itself any thoughts?

My thinking is that she drove straight past. Peter the T didn't notice because he seems distracted by cars stopping. She drove past, notice him. Went 10 min away to hide in virgin bush. Outside search zone still winin parameters for total trip.
 
My thinking is that she drove straight past. Peter the T didn't notice because he seems distracted by cars stopping. She drove past, notice him. Went 10 min away to hide in virgin bush. Outside search zone still winin parameters for total trip.
What time was Peter on BCR? Seems a very simple basic question. Surely he passed the Tennis Club CCTV?
Surely between himself and Michelle they would have some idea of time? Was his phone on and pinging? Did he call anyone? Purchase anything? SFR have had years to check this out. What was the time????
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sydney morning herald 6 sept 2015. Paywalled but first sentence revealed!!!!

"Can you see daddy's car? And there was no answer" said the mother..

So if W was going to look for daddy's car per FD AND the FM went around corner to ask W whether he had seen daddy's car then I ask why would W be filled with that idea in a time presumably FF wasn't there and the text hadn't yet been made at 10.30?

Huh????

There is no compunction for a child that young to lie..so her comments can be relied on to an extent as having an element of truth. Why would she think W had gone to look for daddy's car?
 
"Where did William Go?" - "He went to look for Daddy's car!"
"How do you know that?" - "Um, I don't know".

The "I don't know" response from children is very common and doesn't always mean they don't know. It's often a way of avoiding answering questions they don't want to answer. Gives them an easy way out.

The thing with foster kids also is that they may not feel comfortable around police. In most cases it's a uniformed police officer who escorted them away from their real parents and siblings, and placed them into a care situation. It's authorities like magistrates who make judgements keeping them away from their bio families. Many of them come from a difficult domestic background where their families may not have had a good relationship with police and authorities in general. So it's unlikely that they are going to instantly open up and be completely open and honest with an interviewer. Even if the interviewer is showing them kindness, and they are coming from a bad situation, these kids don't give their trust easily to anyone. The "I don't know" answer is often just an automatic response to questions from strangers or authority figures.
“Where did William go.”
Foster children are uncomfortable with police? Are you surmising that the investigator went in with her badge out and this is the only question the investigator had?
Maybe there was questions about the whole morning? Maybe the investigator let FD tell her story, as in to find out if they were riding bikes, did tthe four of them have breakfast did they go out and collect foliage what did they play who was where what happened. FD would have to have a very good menory if she was told what to say. Maybe the investigator used different methods to find out what happened. FD was very good at drawing and she is 4!
It’s just a thought I had and whatever FD said then and in any later interviews could help lead to the truth whatever that is. If you don’t want to believe FD because you think FM has told her the morning’s narrative that’s up to you.
 
“Where did William go.”
Foster children are uncomfortable with police? Are you surmising that the investigator went in with her badge out and this is the only question the investigator had?
Maybe there was questions about the whole morning? Maybe the investigator let FD tell her story, as in to find out if they were riding bikes, did tthe four of them have breakfast did they go out and collect foliage what did they play who was where what happened. FD would have to have a very good menory if she was told what to say. Maybe the investigator used different methods to find out what happened. FD was very good at drawing and she is 4!
It’s just a thought I had and whatever FD said then and in any later interviews could help lead to the truth whatever that is. If you don’t want to believe FD because you think FM has told her the morning’s narrative that’s up to you.
It's not a matter of belief. I am not casting any aspersions on FD. None of this is her fault. I am simply explaining why she may not have opened up completely to anyone, ever. Badge or no badge. These kids are often quite broken and they will not give trust quickly or easily. Trauma is traumatizing.
She may or may not know what really happened. If she does know she may tell one day, but she might never tell anyone. We just have to accept that.
 
It's not a matter of belief. I am not casting any aspersions on FD. None of this is her fault. I am simply explaining why she may not have opened up completely to anyone, ever. Badge or no badge. These kids are often quite broken and they will not give trust quickly or easily. Trauma is traumatizing.
She may or may not know what really happened. If she does know she may tell one day, but she might never tell anyone. We just have to accept that.
What I accept is that Children are very good at revealing the truth
and I’m sure the specialist investigator is skilled in this area.
FD said, William went looking for Daddy. That’s all we do know.
We don’t know what was said in these specialist interviews.
Maybe all FD knows is that William went looking for Daddy and nothing after that but my thought was did William run down the hill because he thought he did heard FF.
I’ll agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
What I accept is that Children are very good at revealing the truth
and I’m sure the specialist investigator is skilled in this area.
FD said, William went looking for Daddy. That’s all we do know.
We don’t know what was said in these specialist interviews.
Maybe all FD knows is that William went looking for Daddy and nothing after that but my thought was did William run down the hill because he thought he did heard FF.
I’ll agree to disagree.
Anything to do with William’s sister and what she saw would be dealt with in Closed Court at the inquest; if at all.

We wouldn’t be privy to it, and neither would the media.
 
What I accept is that Children are very good at revealing the truth
and I’m sure the specialist investigator is skilled in this area.
FD said, William went looking for Daddy. That’s all we do know.
We don’t know what was said in these specialist interviews.
Maybe all FD knows is that William went looking for Daddy and nothing after that but my thought was did William run down the hill because he thought he did heard FF.
I’ll agree to disagree.
I agree with you that we don't know anything. We don't know everything FD said or was asked.
We don't know that William ran anywhere. What makes you think he "ran downhill" at all? Too easy to get drawn into other people's narratives.
"Looking for Daddy's car" is reportedly what FD said. That's all we know, but even that is second or third hand evidence.
 
I agree with you that we don't know anything. We don't know everything FD said or was asked.
We don't know that William ran anywhere. What makes you think he "ran downhill" at all? Too easy to get drawn into other people's narratives.
"Looking for Daddy's car" is reportedly what FD said. That's all we know, but even that is second or third hand evidence.
If the coroner would be viewing anything to do with the FD it would be first hand evidence.

The FD also had a walkthrough interview.

IMO

But as I said, if this occurred it would be in closed court and no one would know.
 
I agree with you that we don't know anything. We don't know everything FD said or was asked.
We don't know that William ran anywhere. What makes you think he "ran downhill" at all? Too easy to get drawn into other people's narratives.
"Looking for Daddy's car" is reportedly what FD said. That's all we know, but even that is second or third hand evidence.
I don’t know that William went downhill. It was a thought that maybe if he was looking for Daddy he might have.
“Looking for Daddy” came straight from an investigator’s mouth about what was said in FD’s interview. As much as that investigator has tripped up/over things, I don’t think he was lying in his interview to the media.
I’m not asking you to be drawn into a narrative.
I commented on a thought as I’m personally trying to keep an open mind until we know why police think William fell off the balcony and was dumped in the bush like a piece of trash by FM.
 
“the problem is that a lack of evidence doesn't prove that William's body wasn't there, which is where these wild animals come in. If the wild animals could have taken William's body, then it might still be that the police theory is possible. That this kind of hypothetical situation where William falls off the balcony, his foster mother discovers him, doesn't call for help, and decides to dispose of his body, is still possible because possibly a wild animal took his corpse, and that's why there's no forensic evidence despite years and years of searching.”

From Witness: William Tyrrell: The Evidence | 5, 8 Nov 2024

This material may be protected by copyright.

Well it’s either wild animals, or he was placed somewhere else or he was hidden and moved.

Or it may be the police allegations are incorrect.


IMO
 
Last edited:
I’m not surprised. The podcast is June’s opinions. I believe he was duped and can’t bear to accept it.
I thought Jubelin was a positive step when he was put on this case but I think it ended up being a huge negative.
He did the wrong thing, he assumed. He assumed the FPS couldn't be responsible for William missing. He got too close to the FPS, too close to keep them as POIs.
There were red flags with the FPs, still are after 10 years, but it seems he doesn't think those flags are important enough for Williams disappearance. I think they are.

There were problems with William's behaviour, the FPs said so.
There were prior and recent accidents with William, the FPs said so.
There were discipline problems with the FPS.

And then the tapes were introduced.

After hearing what was in those tapes does Jubelin think the FPs abuse is within normal parenting? Is he fine with the abuse heard?
Is Jubelin not rethinking that maybe he did have tunnel vision while wearing rose coloured glasses? Apparently not.
Is he at all shocked by what he heard on the tapes, enough to step back from his support?
Is there a personal reason stopping him from thinking the untouchable FPs are guilty?

I'm confused why any supporter of the FPs are accepting of the FPS abuse and behaviour.

Too many people sleeping in the same bed IMO.

It's a shame because I really did have confidence in his ability when he took over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top