Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * FM guilty of assault & intimidation

[Kurve]

Continued from PART 1

Criminal charges the former foster parents currently face as at 15 April 2022 include:

• 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

 

[RustyHawk]

Three-year-old William Tyrell went missing from his grandmother's backyard at Kendall on the NSW mid-north coast on 12th September 2014.

Search involving police, SES and volunteers from 13th to 21st September 2014 when the search was scaled down.

January 6 2015 - Police deny it was a targeted abduction

January 20, 2015
Forensic teams searched the home of tradesman William Harrie Spedding, who was understood to have given a quote at William's grandmother's house four days before he disappeared.

Police seized a number of items and the property's septic tank was drained. Police also executed a search warrant for a Laurieton pawn shop believed to be operated by Mr Spedding.


2nd March 2015
The Homicide Squad began a new search for the body of William in dense bushland at Bonny Hills off the Pacific Highway after a tip-off from a member of the public.

Police searched for his body and further evidence about 20 kilometres from where William was last seen, in an area around Houston Mitchell Drive and Long Point Road.


Search continues.

Lets just hope this doesn't end up like the Beaumont children case and never being solved.

 

[31550]

I can't explain why you would see a 3yo go around towards the front of the house and then just go inside and make some tea? Why you wouldn't have made sure he didn't have access to the extremely high verandah. Why, if there was an accident, you wouldn't just call 000. Why if there was obviously no chance of him being revived, you would bundle him up in your mother's car and take his body and just dispose of it in the bush. Why then allow people to search for him when you knew exactly where he was. Why suggest that he was abducted and even remember you had seen cars and a creepy man that morning. Why would you let completely uninvolved neighbours and tradesmen be treated as suspects. I struggle to believe that also, if indeed it did happen.

The simplest explanations are either:
- that he was actually left unsupervised for much longer than we have been led to believe, and the '5 minutes' is just made up to cover up this negligence. E.g. FM left William and his sister with FGM while she drove off to see a friend. This may have led to an accident or abduction by someone else.
OR
- the people at the house either deliberately or through negligence caused some injury/death to William and he was removed from the house to hide this fact while they concocted an alibi to protect the guilty party / parties. E.g. siblicide, a punishment gone wrong, a stupid game gone wrong.

How to explain this behaviour? Either misplaced affection for or allegiance to the person who was responsible (putting allegiance to that person above William and above the law) , or narcissitic personality leading to denial of responsibility or failure. (Putting oneself above William and above the law).

 

[maggiethecat]

I think the last photos tell a good story!

I can almost feel his energy and exuberance, was he ADHD?
He looks tightly wound up , funny family photos really …. Grandma and sister both ignoring him , not portrait shots in any way at all.

Last photo , William roars … by then he’s bouncing … stuff the dice and drawing , he wants adventure! I’m wondering if roaring is the only way he was able to express his pent up frustration, in a safe way ?

Not desired results to roaring so behavior escalated , maybe bites FMs hand? Is put in time out on the balcony and told to stay until FF gets home …. Hanging over balcony railing looking for dads car…
My speculation only

 

[Awakening]

Yes possible of course. BUT if that's what happened then there must be symmetry between that and failure to report. Why not report what was purely an accident? There is no significant motive. Yeah I understand that FAC involvement may be an obstacle. But it is a MAJOR crime to hide a child's body after an accident. I struggle to believe they did that or would do that.

You might be inclined to cover up an accidental death if you knew an autopsy would show signs of previous physical and/or sexual abuse.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Confusion about the FM car trip

There have been numerous media reports about the car trip taken by FM in FGM car

Thee was conjecture that there might have been a second trip even. I'm thinking the existence of a second trip was simply misreporting because the release of information of police attitude occurred at different times

FM said she made the trip at start of search to search for WT but went to riding a school and realized it was too far

Police early said they had a theory that something was thrown from FGM car by FM

Police later suggested now that a search was done near riding school on cnr of Cobb and Co Rd and Batar Cr Rd for evidence of WT body being there. We don't know what results there were BUT
Images released show a material which imo is almost an exact colour match for the dark pink blanket on one of the bedrooms in FGM walk through on one only of the beds. Not the other. Ie the second one of a matching pair isn't there

You might be inclined to cover up an accidental death if you knew an autopsy would show signs of previous physical and/or sexual abuse.

Yes that is the counter argument. You'd have to say the trauma would need to be pretty serious to warrant criminal intent to conceal it

 

[31550]

Confusion about the FM car trip

There have been numerous media reports about the car trip taken by FM in FGM car

Thee was conjecture that there might have been a second trip even. I'm thinking the existence of a second trip was simply misreporting because the release of information of police attitude occurred at different times

FM said she made the trip at start of search to search for WT but went to riding a school and realized it was too far

Police early said they had a theory that something was thrown from FGM car by FM

Police later suggested now that a search was done near riding school on cnr of Cobb and Co Rd and Batar Cr Rd for evidence of WT body being there. We don't know what results there were BUT
Images released show a material which imo is almost an exact colour match for the dark pink blanket on one of the bedrooms in FGM walk through on one only of the beds. Not the other. Ie the second one of a matching pair isn't there

Yes that is the counter argument. You'd have to say the trauma would need to be pretty serious to warrant criminal intent to conceal it

I've said repeatedly I believe the exact time, nature and circumstances of this 'drive' in the FGM car holds the key to the case. It seems it was not originally reported to police, but it was mentioned in the FM walkthrough several days later.
This raises suspicion. The timing is critical.

If FM took this drive BEFORE FF returned home, (say between 10am when tea was made and 10:30) then William must have been missing longer than she said. How could a 3YO possibly get all the way to the riding school in such a short time? Makes no sense. Why search down there before searching the immediate vicinity? Why leave FGM and LT without telling them where you are going? What if William was just hiding or had injured himself near the property?

If FM took this drive AFTER FF returned home (between 10:30 and 10:55 000 call), then why take FGM car and not FF car (which William would recognise, and had a car seat for him)? Again, why not tell anyone where you are going? At this stage neighbours were already on the street looking - why didn't any of them see FM take this drive?

There is only a very short window for this drive whichever way you look at it. If she had her head out looking for William she would be driving very slowly. It has to be at least 10-15 minutes in duration. But nobody saw her. Was the 'semi trailer' driver ever identified? Can't have been that many heavy vehicles on Batar Ck Rd that time of day.

Is it possible she took this drive AFTER police arrived? (e.g. between 11am and 12noon)? If this is the case, she may have actually driven much further down Batar Ck Rd than she said, and this would have provided an opportunity to conceal a body (may have been hidden in the car boot much earlier. Sniffer dogs arrived in the early afternoon. Did they detect any scent of William on or around FGM car? Or maybe they didn't bother, assuming FM and FF had already checked the cars for William?

Sorry, lots of unanswered questions but I don't think the exact time of the drive is documented anywhere.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I agree the trip is critical. I'm going to listen again to Lia Harris and see what I can determine from it's discussion..

I now think there was only one trip. Originally police thought something was thrown..then finally to hide WT body. cnr of Cobb & Co and Batar Cr Rd where there is a riding school. That is about 1.1 klm from Benaroon home. It's ludicrous to think he had gone that far so the trip is incriminating.

From recollection it happened right at the start of the search possibly 10.15- 10.20, but I will check that. For those thinking 9.37 it must have been WT. For those thinking 7.39 it was to throw something incriminating. The thing most likely is the dark pink bedroom blanket or the shoes. There was one only blanket in the FGM walk through. The colour was an eye match to colour of material found at the location..I suspect there was a matching pair and one was used to shroud WT. After 7 years in water and open air it would have no DNA material left.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

We are led to believe that the only exchange between FM and FF was FF texting he was on way home at or about 10.30. Let's examine that from human nature viewpoint

Whilst FF was at chemist and or online WT either

• was killed
• had an accident and died
• was abducted.

And the first time the FF gets to hear about it was on arrival home about 20-25 min later. .."Do you have William?" I simply don't believe that's compatible with what 100% of married mothers would do. They would start searching and immediately ring the FF to advise and seek advice and telling him to come home immediately. The fact she didn't do that makes me believe FF knew the status. There is only one way he could and that is by having been there to witness. is it possible that not disturbing his online meeting may thake precedence. Answer: No. This was life or death....much more important that a Meeting .

I remember we had a spoodle. Housebound. It got out when I was at work and just going into a client meeting. My wife rang me to tell me. The dog couldn't be found. What did I do? I apologized to client and said I had to go home for an emergency and I'd ring them to reschedule. That was a Dog. A much loved dog but still a dog. Not a child. I don't believe for one second they didn't communicate or she enlist his help unless of course he knew and had already helped by taking WT body away. It aligns on so many levels it seems self evident

The FGM walk through she said he knew when he got home. We know that FF and FM stories had said otherwise ."Do you have William?"......."Why would I have William" exchange. That is incriminating because it's contrary to what 100% of people would do. They would call, panic and seek help

The exchange is important to their story though. It paints once again FF as innocently away time all accounted for in alibi. Except for why he left before 8 to get to chemist at 9?...and FGM was the one who told him it opened at 9.

 

[31550]

We are led to believe that the only exchange between FM and FF was FF texting he was on way home at or about 10.30. Let's examine that from human nature viewpoint

Whilst FF was at chemist and or online WT either

• was killed
• had an accident and died
• was abducted.

And the first time the FF gets to hear about it was on arrival home about 20-25 min later. .."Do you have William?" I simply don't believe that's compatible with what 100% of married mothers would do. They would start searching and immediately ring the FF to advise and seek advice and telling him to come home immediately. The fact she didn't do that makes me believe FF knew the status. There is only one way he could and that is by having been there to witness. is it possible that not disturbing his online meeting may thake precedence. Answer: No. This was life or death....much more important that a Meeting .

I remember we had a spoodle. Housebound. It got out when I was at work and just going into a client meeting. My wife rang me to tell me. The dog couldn't be found. What did I do? I apologized to client and said I had to go home for an emergency and I'd ring them to reschedule. That was a Dog. A much loved dog but still a dog. Not a child. I don't believe for one second they didn't communicate or she enlist his help unless of course he knew and had already helped by taking WT body away. It aligns on so many levels it seems self evident

Except:

• William was a foster child, not a biological child. If anything serious happened to William, they were (both) obliged to inform FACS. This was not done until around 12:30 or 1pm if I recall? Long after the 000 call anyway.
• The relationship between William and the FF may have been different to that of the FM
• The relationship between FM and FF may not have been 'normal'
• The relationship between FM and FGM was reported to be difficult
• There was clearly tension in the house in the morning - unusual sleeping arrangements, fights over toys, break in routine, no internet, William not conforming to expected behaviour, broken washing machine etc. etc.

Myriad reasons why FM may not have immediately contacted FF about William. She would probably take the line that she was not sure that he was actually missing until around the time FF returned home so she did actually 'inform him' in her own way by asking if he had him.

The question, "Have you got William?" is interesting. Did she perhaps think William had wandered down Benaroon Drive and FF picked him up on the way home? If so, this indicates she had possibly not taken her drive in FGM car at this time - surely she would have seen William on Benaroon Drive in his Spiderman suit on either the drive or the walk? Did she believe William may have hidden from her, but would pop out when he saw FF car? This behaviour is consistent with the possibility that William actually ran away and hid from FM (to avoid punishment), but doesn't explain why he wasn't subsequently found.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Except:

• William was a foster child, not a biological child. If anything serious happened to William, they were (both) obliged to inform FACS. This was not done until around 12:30 or 1pm if I recall? Long after the 000 call anyway.
• The relationship between William and the FF may have been different to that of the FM
• The relationship between FM and FF may not have been 'normal'
• The relationship between FM and FGM was reported to be difficult
• There was clearly tension in the house in the morning - unusual sleeping arrangements, fights over toys, break in routine, no internet, William not conforming to expected behaviour, broken washing machine etc. etc.

Myriad reasons why FM may not have immediately contacted FF about William. She would probably take the line that she was not sure that he was actually missing until around the time FF returned home so she did actually 'inform him' in her own way by asking if he had him.

The question, "Have you got William?" is interesting. Did she perhaps think William had wandered down Benaroon Drive and FF picked him up on the way home? If so, this indicates she had possibly not taken her drive in FGM car at this time - surely she would have seen William on Benaroon Drive in his Spiderman suit on either the drive or the walk? Did she believe William may have hidden from her, but would pop out when he saw FF car? This behaviour is consistent with the possibility that William actually ran away and hid from FM (to avoid punishment), but doesn't explain why he wasn't subsequently found.

Sleeping arrangement:
You say they are unusual. I say they are probably exactly what would happen 90% in these circumstances. WT and FD wouldn't sleep together fighting and inaporopriate. the choice is then have one or both sleep on Lounge. Instead they chose FF and WT and FM and FD and everyone in a bed. Would be my choice too.

Cinderella effect
The Cinderella effect works on evolutionary psychologist level or DNA not as conscious choice. They are trying to adopt the child

Relationship b/w FM and FF
Has survived police challenge so must have something of substance

Relationship b/w FM and FGM
Are you suggesting FGM didn't talk to FM about mutual knowledge regarding who knew what because she didn't like her?

Tension
Whether or not the house was in tension wouldn't affect reaction to crisis. The aim is to save and protect.

Myriad of reasons
With respect no there aren't..in a crisis you always choose the path to minimize risk and keep safe because it is a crisis ....unless there is no need because you know the outcome

 

[faible]

Myriad of reasons
With respect no there aren't..in a crisis you always choose the path to minimize risk and keep safe because it is a crisis ....unless there is no need because you know the outcome

Plenty of reasons why one might not make contact ASAP.

 

[31550]

Sleeping arrangement:
You say they are unusual. I say they are probably exactly what would happen 90% in these circumstances. WT and FD wouldn't sleep together fighting and inaporopriate. the choice is then have one or both sleep on Lounge. Instead they chose FF and WT and FM and FD and everyone in a bed. Would be my choice too.

Cinderella effect
The Cinderella effect works on evolutionary psychologist level or DNA not as conscious choice. They are trying to adopt the child

Relationship b/w FM and FF
Has survived police challenge so must have something of substance

Relationship b/w FM and FGM
Are you suggesting FGM didn't talk to FM about mutual knowledge regarding who knew what because she didn't like her?

Tension
Whether or not the house was in tension wouldn't affect reaction to crisis. The aim is to save and protect.

Myriad of reasons
With respect no there aren't..in a crisis you always choose the path to minimize risk and keep safe because it is a crisis ....unless there is no need because you know the outcome

Sorry but disagree with most of that.

Sleeping arrangement. You don't share beds with foster kids. Ever. Other options were either William or his sister on the couch (it was late and they should have been asleep anyway). Begs the question why FF and FM did not share a bed. Why didn't they take the air mattress up? Why didn't they ring FM earlier in the day to let them know they were coming - she may have been able to set things up better. Perhaps they didn't want to giver her the opportunity to decline the early arrival? They waited until around 5pm when they were already on the way, although they had decided several hours earlier.

Cinderella effect. Adoption doesn't change DNA. The relationship is the same. Not biological. If anything it places the fosters/adoptive parents in an even MORE powerful and controlling position - which would exactly satisfy narcissistic needs to demonstrate they are 'good people' with a 'successful family unit', avoiding the stigma of people saying, "Oh, they're not really YOURS, they are just foster kids". We know that William had previously lashed out physically at FM - there is no evidence this was a loving mother-son relationship. It might have been, but there's no proof. Where are the photos of William and FM cuddling and smiling?

FM/FF relationship. The police seem to have accepted that this was normal, but we don't know about this particular morning. There may well have been disagreement and fighting. They certainly didn't share a bed the night before. The FGM statement 'everyone was happy' raises supicion for me.

Tension- absolutely this would influence behaviour, depending what the tension was about. If they had an argument about how FM disciplined the kids, or her ability to deal with William's behaviour, for instance, then the last thing FM would want to do would be to ring FF and tell him about how she had lost or injured William.

reasons (for not immediately phoning FF)

• hasn't been missing long enough to bother him
• haven't looked everywhere for him yet
• Don't want to exacerbate FF anxiety
• Fear of recrimination, being called a 'bad mother'
• protecting someone else (FGM, LT)
• don't want to interrupt his important work call
• phone reception is dodgy, probably won't get him anyway
• probably on his way home, will see him soon enough, - he can't do anything till he gets here
• don't have telephone handy, too busy looking, dealing with LT and FGM
• just didn't think he needed to be told right away
• forgot
• too panicked
• trying to hatch an evil scheme that doesn't involve FF
• ...

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Sorry but disagree with most of that.

Sleeping arrangement. You don't share beds with foster kids. Ever. Other options were either William or his sister on the couch (it was late and they should have been asleep anyway). Begs the question why FF and FM did not share a bed. Why didn't they take the air mattress up? Why didn't they ring FM earlier in the day to let them know they were coming - she may have been able to set things up better. Perhaps they didn't want to giver her the opportunity to decline the early arrival? They waited until around 5pm when they were already on the way, although they had decided several hours earlier.

Cinderella effect. Adoption doesn't change DNA. The relationship is the same. Not biological. If anything it places the fosters/adoptive parents in an even MORE powerful and controlling position - which would exactly satisfy narcissistic needs to demonstrate they are 'good people' with a 'successful family unit', avoiding the stigma of people saying, "Oh, they're not really YOURS, they are just foster kids". We know that William had previously lashed out physically at FM - there is no evidence this was a loving mother-son relationship. It might have been, but there's no proof. Where are the photos of William and FM cuddling and smiling?

FM/FF relationship. The police seem to have accepted that this was normal, but we don't know about this particular morning. There may well have been disagreement and fighting. They certainly didn't share a bed the night before. The FGM statement 'everyone was happy' raises supicion for me.

Tension- absolutely this would influence behaviour, depending what the tension was about. If they had an argument about how FM disciplined the kids, or her ability to deal with William's behaviour, for instance, then the last thing FM would want to do would be to ring FF and tell him about how she had lost or injured William.

reasons (for not immediately phoning FF)

• hasn't been missing long enough to bother him
• haven't looked everywhere for him yet
• Don't want to exacerbate FF anxiety
• Fear of recrimination, being called a 'bad mother'
• protecting someone else (FGM, LT)
• don't want to interrupt his important work call
• phone reception is dodgy, probably won't get him anyway
• probably on his way home, will see him soon enough, - he can't do anything till he gets here
• don't have telephone handy, too busy looking, dealing with LT and FGM
• just didn't think he needed to be told right away
• forgot
• too panicked
• trying to hatch an evil scheme that doesn't involve FF
• ...

Look. I'm not going to respond to you anymore. It's a waste of my time. No offence. That's how I see it. I'm neither a patient nor tolerant person.....that's on me that I am but that I am means I tend to choose wisely how I spend that time. I simply don't want to wade through monotonous debate about an issue I've already concluded in my mind. You seem to have necessity to respond endlessly when I've determined at outset that I simply don't see merit and don't therefore need a rally to ensue debating it as though it may change my mind on merit. Unlikely

 

[faible]

Look. I'm not going to respond to you anymore. It's a waste of my time. No offence. That's how I see it. I'm neither a patient nor tolerant person.....that's on me that I am but that I am means I tend to choose wisely how I spend that time. I simply don't want to wade through monotonous debate about an issue I've already concluded in my mind. You seem to have necessity to respond endlessly when I've determined at outset that I simply don't see merit and don't therefore need a rally to ensue debating it as though it may change my mind on merit. Unlikely

I see you don't understand how a discussion forum works.

 

[31550]

Look. I'm not going to respond to you anymore. It's a waste of my time. No offence. That's how I see it. I'm neither a patient nor tolerant person.....that's on me that I am but that I am means I tend to choose wisely how I spend that time. I simply don't want to wade through monotonous debate about an issue I've already concluded in my mind. You seem to have necessity to respond endlessly when I've determined at outset that I simply don't see merit and don't therefore need a rally to ensue debating it as though it may change my mind on merit. Unlikely

Well that's a shame because none of us know for certain what happened, and all we can do is discuss, debate and evaluate various theories, but this requires that people remain open-minded and willing to both scrutinise other peoples theories and defend their own theories with factual evidence. I haven't made my mind up irrevocably and am always interested in other people's reasonable suggestions.

 

[CodyRose]

Sorry but disagree with most of that.

Sleeping arrangement. You don't share beds with foster kids. Ever. Other options were either William or his sister on the couch (it was late and they should have been asleep anyway). Begs the question why FF and FM did not share a bed. Why didn't they take the air mattress up? Why didn't they ring FM earlier in the day to let them know they were coming - she may have been able to set things up better. Perhaps they didn't want to giver her the opportunity to decline the early arrival? They waited until around 5pm when they were already on the way, although they had decided several hours earlier.

Cinderella effect. Adoption doesn't change DNA. The relationship is the same. Not biological. If anything it places the fosters/adoptive parents in an even MORE powerful and controlling position - which would exactly satisfy narcissistic needs to demonstrate they are 'good people' with a 'successful family unit', avoiding the stigma of people saying, "Oh, they're not really YOURS, they are just foster kids". We know that William had previously lashed out physically at FM - there is no evidence this was a loving mother-son relationship. It might have been, but there's no proof. Where are the photos of William and FM cuddling and smiling?

FM/FF relationship. The police seem to have accepted that this was normal, but we don't know about this particular morning. There may well have been disagreement and fighting. They certainly didn't share a bed the night before. The FGM statement 'everyone was happy' raises supicion for me.

Tension- absolutely this would influence behaviour, depending what the tension was about. If they had an argument about how FM disciplined the kids, or her ability to deal with William's behaviour, for instance, then the last thing FM would want to do would be to ring FF and tell him about how she had lost or injured William.

reasons (for not immediately phoning FF)

• hasn't been missing long enough to bother him
• haven't looked everywhere for him yet
• Don't want to exacerbate FF anxiety
• Fear of recrimination, being called a 'bad mother'
• protecting someone else (FGM, LT)
• don't want to interrupt his important work call
• phone reception is dodgy, probably won't get him anyway
• probably on his way home, will see him soon enough, - he can't do anything till he gets here
• don't have telephone handy, too busy looking, dealing with LT and FGM
• just didn't think he needed to be told right away
• forgot
• too panicked
• trying to hatch an evil scheme that doesn't involve FF
• ...

If it was me and my mum wasn't in full cognitive/physical health I might not tell her early that the family were coming up for a visit. This would be to avoid her doing any rush-around work for the visit. The washing machine was broken so she might have ruminated about washing which wouldn't be done. So not to add extra stress and worry to her day.

 

[CodyRose]

I am familiar with confirmation bias. It's when you use a specific fact to prove your theory or reinforce your belief; but that fact has a reasonable and plausible explanation which is unrelated in any way to your theory or belief. I can illustrate for you:

In my case I used the fact that LT said William had gone looking for Daddy's car to support the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. This fact is related to whether FF was present or not, because it makes no sense for William to look for FF's car if FF is actually present - his car would be in the carport!

Now, the question is why said that. Either she believed it to be true (in which case FF was not present), or somebody told her that William had gone to look for Daddy's car - i.e. part of the FM narrative. But it makes no sense for this to be part of FM's narrative: Firstly because it raises the possibility that FF was very close to the house when William disappeared. Secondly it suggests that FM (negligently) told William to go out onto Benaroon Drive (unsupervised). If LT was told William had gone looking for the car when FF was actually present she would not have been so accepting of this narrative. Therefore I believe the fact that LT said William was looking for Daddy's car is related and supports the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. Not confirmation bias.

On the other hand, your theory that FF was present when the 'roar' photo was taken is supported by the fact that William is not looking at the camera because 'he must be looking at FF' is pure confirmation bias. There are any number of plausible explanations for William not looking at the camera which don't involve the FF being present. But your logic is he must be looking at someone(1), so that someone must be the FF (2) , so therefore either the pictures are faked (3) or FFs alibi has been faked (4). Four unlikely conclusions when there is a much simpler explanation - he simply wasn't looking at the camera when the photo was snapped.

It's a pity it was a still photo, if it had been a video we could easily see if his eyes moved away from the camera and towards someone. I think there were some video's of William from earlier days playing guitar and on play equipment.

 

[CodyRose]

I've said repeatedly I believe the exact time, nature and circumstances of this 'drive' in the FGM car holds the key to the case. It seems it was not originally reported to police, but it was mentioned in the FM walkthrough several days later.
This raises suspicion. The timing is critical.

If FM took this drive BEFORE FF returned home, (say between 10am when tea was made and 10:30) then William must have been missing longer than she said. How could a 3YO possibly get all the way to the riding school in such a short time? Makes no sense. Why search down there before searching the immediate vicinity? Why leave FGM and LT without telling them where you are going? What if William was just hiding or had injured himself near the property?

If FM took this drive AFTER FF returned home (between 10:30 and 10:55 000 call), then why take FGM car and not FF car (which William would recognise, and had a car seat for him)? Again, why not tell anyone where you are going? At this stage neighbours were already on the street looking - why didn't any of them see FM take this drive?

There is only a very short window for this drive whichever way you look at it. If she had her head out looking for William she would be driving very slowly. It has to be at least 10-15 minutes in duration. But nobody saw her. Was the 'semi trailer' driver ever identified? Can't have been that many heavy vehicles on Batar Ck Rd that time of day.

Is it possible she took this drive AFTER police arrived? (e.g. between 11am and 12noon)? If this is the case, she may have actually driven much further down Batar Ck Rd than she said, and this would have provided an opportunity to conceal a body (may have been hidden in the car boot much earlier. Sniffer dogs arrived in the early afternoon. Did they detect any scent of William on or around FGM car? Or maybe they didn't bother, assuming FM and FF had already checked the cars for William?

Sorry, lots of unanswered questions but I don't think the exact time of the drive is documented anywhere.

Maybe the drive in the FGM car, along with passing transport vehicle on Batar Creek Road are Red Herrings.

 

[LRitz]

I think the last photos tell a good story!

I can almost feel his energy and exuberance, was he ADHD?
He looks tightly wound up , funny family photos really …. Grandma and sister both ignoring him , not portrait shots in any way at all.

Last photo , William roars … by then he’s bouncing … stuff the dice and drawing , he wants adventure! I’m wondering if roaring is the only way he was able to express his pent up frustration, in a safe way ?

Not desired results to roaring so behavior escalated , maybe bites FMs hand? Is put in time out on the balcony and told to stay until FF gets home …. Hanging over balcony railing looking for dads car…
My speculation only

Agree. Not really a nice family photo. The FGM reading the paper, which i think is a week old! The kids have only just arrived so why not a nice photo of them with nanna? She seems to be ignoring them all. Three year olds don't draw much. So why is he given an activity he can't do. It looks like he is just throwing the crayons around. Is it all staged?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Well that's a shame because none of us know for certain what happened, and all we can do is discuss, debate and evaluate various theories, but this requires that people remain open-minded and willing to both scrutinise other peoples theories and defend their own theories with factual evidence. I haven't made my mind up irrevocably and am always interested in other people's reasonable suggestions.

Not so much a shame. I will be posting still. I'm sure I will survive somehow you believing I'm not open minded enough. Importantly I'll stop the incessant 8th, 9th, 10th iteration of the same issue why I must be wrong when I answered it in the first attempt but you just disagree..

 

[LRitz]

We are led to believe that the only exchange between FM and FF was FF texting he was on way home at or about 10.30. Let's examine that from human nature viewpoint

Whilst FF was at chemist and or online WT either

• was killed
• had an accident and died
• was abducted.

And the first time the FF gets to hear about it was on arrival home about 20-25 min later. .."Do you have William?" I simply don't believe that's compatible with what 100% of married mothers would do. They would start searching and immediately ring the FF to advise and seek advice and telling him to come home immediately. The fact she didn't do that makes me believe FF knew the status. There is only one way he could and that is by having been there to witness. is it possible that not disturbing his online meeting may thake precedence. Answer: No. This was life or death....much more important that a Meeting .

I remember we had a spoodle. Housebound. It got out when I was at work and just going into a client meeting. My wife rang me to tell me. The dog couldn't be found. What did I do? I apologized to client and said I had to go home for an emergency and I'd ring them to reschedule. That was a Dog. A much loved dog but still a dog. Not a child. I don't believe for one second they didn't communicate or she enlist his help unless of course he knew and had already helped by taking WT body away. It aligns on so many levels it seems self evident

The FGM walk through she said he knew when he got home. We know that FF and FM stories had said otherwise ."Do you have William?"......."Why would I have William" exchange. That is incriminating because it's contrary to what 100% of people would do. They would call, panic and seek help

The exchange is important to their story though. It paints once again FF as innocently away time all accounted for in alibi. Except for why he left before 8 to get to chemist at 9?...and FGM was the one who told him it opened at 9.

Incriminating to lie to police about drive in FGM's car. She remembered so many details but forgot this. She must have told the FGM she was leaving in the car and ask her to look after FD. After all she was already worried that WT had been abducted. So both FM and FGM lied to police.

This and her "false memory" of the cars in the street are very suspicious. Did the FGM also have false memories about cars? There is possible collusion.

 

[LRitz]

We are led to believe that the only exchange between FM and FF was FF texting he was on way home at or about 10.30. Let's examine that from human nature viewpoint

Whilst FF was at chemist and or online WT either

• was killed
• had an accident and died
• was abducted.

And the first time the FF gets to hear about it was on arrival home about 20-25 min later. .."Do you have William?" I simply don't believe that's compatible with what 100% of married mothers would do. They would start searching and immediately ring the FF to advise and seek advice and telling him to come home immediately. The fact she didn't do that makes me believe FF knew the status. There is only one way he could and that is by having been there to witness. is it possible that not disturbing his online meeting may thake precedence. Answer: No. This was life or death....much more important that a Meeting .

I remember we had a spoodle. Housebound. It got out when I was at work and just going into a client meeting. My wife rang me to tell me. The dog couldn't be found. What did I do? I apologized to client and said I had to go home for an emergency and I'd ring them to reschedule. That was a Dog. A much loved dog but still a dog. Not a child. I don't believe for one second they didn't communicate or she enlist his help unless of course he knew and had already helped by taking WT body away. It aligns on so many levels it seems self evident

The FGM walk through she said he knew when he got home. We know that FF and FM stories had said otherwise ."Do you have William?"......."Why would I have William" exchange. That is incriminating because it's contrary to what 100% of people would do. They would call, panic and seek help

The exchange is important to their story though. It paints once again FF as innocently away time all accounted for in alibi. Except for why he left before 8 to get to chemist at 9?...and FGM was the one who told him it opened at 9.

Sorry but disagree with most of that.

Sleeping arrangement. You don't share beds with foster kids. Ever. Other options were either William or his sister on the couch (it was late and they should have been asleep anyway). Begs the question why FF and FM did not share a bed. Why didn't they take the air mattress up? Why didn't they ring FM earlier in the day to let them know they were coming - she may have been able to set things up better. Perhaps they didn't want to giver her the opportunity to decline the early arrival? They waited until around 5pm when they were already on the way, although they had decided several hours earlier.

Cinderella effect. Adoption doesn't change DNA. The relationship is the same. Not biological. If anything it places the fosters/adoptive parents in an even MORE powerful and controlling position - which would exactly satisfy narcissistic needs to demonstrate they are 'good people' with a 'successful family unit', avoiding the stigma of people saying, "Oh, they're not really YOURS, they are just foster kids". We know that William had previously lashed out physically at FM - there is no evidence this was a loving mother-son relationship. It might have been, but there's no proof. Where are the photos of William and FM cuddling and smiling?

FM/FF relationship. The police seem to have accepted that this was normal, but we don't know about this particular morning. There may well have been disagreement and fighting. They certainly didn't share a bed the night before. The FGM statement 'everyone was happy' raises supicion for me.

Tension- absolutely this would influence behaviour, depending what the tension was about. If they had an argument about how FM disciplined the kids, or her ability to deal with William's behaviour, for instance, then the last thing FM would want to do would be to ring FF and tell him about how she had lost or injured William.

reasons (for not immediately phoning FF)

• hasn't been missing long enough to bother him
• haven't looked everywhere for him yet
• Don't want to exacerbate FF anxiety
• Fear of recrimination, being called a 'bad mother'
• protecting someone else (FGM, LT)
• don't want to interrupt his important work call
• phone reception is dodgy, probably won't get him anyway
• probably on his way home, will see him soon enough, - he can't do anything till he gets here
• don't have telephone handy, too busy looking, dealing with LT and FGM
• just didn't think he needed to be told right away
• forgot
• too panicked
• trying to hatch an evil scheme that doesn't involve FF
• ...

There is no evidence about sleeping arrangements. Just what has been told by the foster family. Should we take anything they say as fact. Maybe the FF was up all night. We just don't know.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There is no evidence about sleeping arrangements. Just what has been told by the foster family. Should we take anything they say as fact. Maybe the FF was up all night. We just don't know.

Importantly the only independent evidence of proof of life that day was PS who heard them playing between 9 and 9.30 but has since recanted. The photos and camera were under their control which means 9.37 can't be relied upon. I already had it in severe doubt given all the red flags pointing to the earlier timeline.

 

[LRitz]

We are led to believe that the only exchange between FM and FF was FF texting he was on way home at or about 10.30. Let's examine that from human nature viewpoint

Whilst FF was at chemist and or online WT either

• was killed
• had an accident and died
• was abducted.

And the first time the FF gets to hear about it was on arrival home about 20-25 min later. .."Do you have William?" I simply don't believe that's compatible with what 100% of married mothers would do. They would start searching and immediately ring the FF to advise and seek advice and telling him to come home immediately. The fact she didn't do that makes me believe FF knew the status. There is only one way he could and that is by having been there to witness. is it possible that not disturbing his online meeting may thake precedence. Answer: No. This was life or death....much more important that a Meeting .

I remember we had a spoodle. Housebound. It got out when I was at work and just going into a client meeting. My wife rang me to tell me. The dog couldn't be found. What did I do? I apologized to client and said I had to go home for an emergency and I'd ring them to reschedule. That was a Dog. A much loved dog but still a dog. Not a child. I don't believe for one second they didn't communicate or she enlist his help unless of course he knew and had already helped by taking WT body away. It aligns on so many levels it seems self evident

The FGM walk through she said he knew when he got home. We know that FF and FM stories had said otherwise ."Do you have William?"......."Why would I have William" exchange. That is incriminating because it's contrary to what 100% of people would do. They would call, panic and seek help

The exchange is important to their story though. It paints once again FF as innocently away time all accounted for in alibi. Except for why he left before 8 to get to chemist at 9?...and FGM was the one who told him it opened at 9.

...."the only exchange between FM and FF was FF texting".
Ok, so FF did text FM that he was on his way back. But we don't know for 100% that this was the ONLY communication. They could have both had second phones. If the FM had a second phone she may have had to go (drive) to a better spot for reception.
All this would require planning before the events of the morning.

 

[31550]

If it was me and my mum wasn't in full cognitive/physical health I might not tell her early that the family were coming up for a visit. This would be to avoid her doing any rush-around work for the visit. The washing machine was broken so she might have ruminated about washing which wouldn't be done. So not to add extra stress and worry to her day.

In my opinion, just common decency and good manners to let her mother know of the change in plans ASAP. If they were regular 'drop in' visitors it might be different but they hadn't visited for seven months. Yet they just assumed it would be OK to arrive in the evening when FGM would normally be going to bed? What if FGM had male company? Phoning earlier would give FGM a chance to make sure there was food for breakfast, beds were ready (because the kids would be tired) etc. Or at least ask if FGM needed them to bring anything up for the visit (e.g. the air mattress). But they didn't phone until they were well on the way. Perhaps this added to the stress on the morning? FGM didn't tell FM about the washing machine until the morning.