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

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Suppression orders are in force, 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
MW - Michelle White
SFR - Strike Force Rosann
AMS - Anne Maree Sharpley
One even reduced bike riding to - BR :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The truck driver’s evidence is just bizarre and I have no idea why he was called to give evidence at the Coronial Inquest.

Literally no idea.

I’m wondering if there was a second truck driver because this guy has told me nothing that I or anyone else can use.
It was to show the world the police story about a witness was not true. He is literally throwing them under a bus.

Or

He was establishing the FM never went to Batar creek road.

Again makes the police look stupid.
 
Unsolicited, Peter the Truckie initially described it as large (and yellow, but dirty and that most/all excavators were yellow), at the inquest on Wednesday (via AVL).
When questioned further on its size, Peter the Truckie just said that it was bigger than a car and something like that it had a boom and a bucket on it. Which appeared to imply that it was not a large sized excavator. Possibly just a normal sized one.
Would this be helpful? We could get Sargent Murphy on to the case. Image 11-11-24 at 7.50 am.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It was to show the world the police story about a witness was not true. He is literally throwing them under a bus.

Or

He was establishing the FM never went to Batar creek road.

Again makes the police look stupid.
Shows the FM never went to BCR at the time Peter was on BCR (whenever they can show that to be).
 
The drive.

Possible facts. We can update.

Children heard playing. At 9 am. There were other children in street.

Crabbs hear a car between 9.45 and 10.15.

Crabbs do not report children
playing?

FM alerts neighbours at 10.30 am?

No one sees FM driving vehicle. Neighbours.

Peter the Truckie does not see FM vehicle.

000 phone call . Missing since 10.30.

Police officer checks car bonnet at 11.10 and it’s warm.

FM does not include driving in her initial statement.

One week later the FM changes her statement to include drive.
 
Last edited:
The drive.

Possible facts. We can update.

Children heard playing. At 9 am. There were other children in street.

Crabbs hear a car between 9.45 and 10.15.

Crabbs do not report children
playing?

FM alerts neighbours at 10.30 am?

No one sees FM driving vehicle. Neighbours.

Peter the Truckie does not see FM vehicle.

000 phone call . Missing since 10.30.

Police officer checks car bonnet at 11.10 and it’s warm.

FM does not include driving in her initial statement.

One week later the FM changes her statement to include drive.
My opinion is the drive probably happened much earlier and was the car that the Crabbs heard.
 
If the drive was after alerting neighbours, why did none of the neighbours see her in the car either on the way out or the way back? Not possible.
AMS did not leave the street, other than to go to the Savages house. The Millers had been alerted.
AMS says she sent FM down to the bus shelter and back. She would have driven past LH's place (twice) while she was unloading groceries and keeping an eye on two small children. There is just no time for the drive after talking to AMS and before dialling 000 IMO. The street was on alert for William, and by the time police arrived several neighbours were in the street.

The drive MUST have been before talking to AMS, which means it was before FF returned home. Which means the drive was the FIRST thing she did when William went 'missing'. Which means IMO the drive was NOT 'looking for William'.

This is just adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 IMO.

How long do you think it would take to establish he very likely wasn't in the house or immediate garden vicinity outside the house? I reckon 30 seconds of calling his name inside the house. Then maybe 90 seconds doing a lap of the house outside, calling his name and looking as far as the eye can see in all directions.

Then decision time and mild panic. What are the worst things that can have happened? A fall - I would have seen him. He's wandered off - fear of swimming pool and drowning - I better look over a wider area quickly. He's been taken - maybe taken by someone on foot - so again, I better move faster than them to find him.

The car is a perfectly reasonable next option IMO. If he is around the house, it's ok because FGM is there for him. If he is hiding under a bed or behind a tree, that's a good result that will sort itself out without him needing to be found immediately. So, 2 minutes to arrive at the "jump in the car and look at a wider area" decision. Not everyone would do this, but it is quite feasible that someone would.

I agree with the general chronological order you have proposed. I 100% do not agree that because she drove very soon after realising he was missing, that she was not was not looking for him.
 
From the coroners perspective. It must first be decided if William is alive or dead, and then when and where he died.
There is enough evidence to suggest that he was alive at FGMs, and has been removed in a vehicle, not on foot.
That is beyond reasonable doubt. Could not have walked far in a short time, no scent off the property.
The chances of him being alive when he left (opportunistic abduction) are very slim due to the short timeframe and remote location. Therefore, beyond reasonable doubt he died on the property.
That is really all the coroner needs to decide.

Who moved him, where, and why are of interest to the coroner, but the coroner does not need to make a determination on this. Although IMO the FM is the most likely person on the balance or probability to have done this. Is there reasonable doubt? Certainly. But on the balance of probability she is the only person with means and opportunity to remove William from the property.

That's all the coroner needs IMO. The rest is up to SFR.

This is utter bullshit.

The Coroner won't even find on the balance of probability that is what happened.
 
Last edited:
It was to show the world the police story about a witness was not true. He is literally throwing them under a bus.

Or

He was establishing the FM never went to Batar creek road.

Again makes the police look stupid.

Or

establishing that there were random cars moving about in the general area.
 
It not only does not make sense, it also makes them look like they are making it up again.
It's not the cops making this up. The cops are simply relaying what the FM told them is the chronology of events - i.e. taking FM at her word that she notified the neighbours THEN went for the drive.
The police theory accepts everything that was told to them by the FM at face value EXCEPT the true reason for the drive.
If things happened the way FM says they did, then the only possible way for William to have left the property without a trace is to have done so in her vehicle. There is no other explanation.
Why she would take him away from the property however remains an unexplained mystery.
IMO
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

This is utter bullshit.

The Coroner won't even find on the balance of probability that is what happened.

It looks like it but the public still aren't being told everything.
 
The 9.37 time is a critical pivot. We've heard from people at the inquest it is accepted as correct. We've seen from links on here it's impossible to detect edits. Absence accepting that we have POF of hearing children playing before and after 9. The independent POF (not seen but heard) has to be approx 9.15 then.

FGM leakage is twofold. "This is where it all happened" referring to verandah. And then "bouncing out of his skull with happiness and joy of life" or some such verbiage.

FD by comparison simply says W "went off the balcony to go look for FF"

Suggested: Argument ensued between W and FM to impress FGM that FM had Willian under complete control (which is what dysfunctional parents do not in their own setting). As a direct result of exchange W takes off to find FF to make FM stop. Yes perhaps part of dynamic. FM chases after W and he runs down balcony forgetting it led to significant height difference from ground. Why? Because he was on the ground same level when he started to run along it. They grapple toward end of balcony he thinking it was another smack she aware he was in danger and he falls backwards over balcony.

FGM is right about where it started and his skull bouncing..FD is right because it replicated behaviour patterns of what W does when FM tries to discipline.....uses FF as a shield perhaps.

Neither see the incident. FM runs around corner then to find William prostate in ferns per SFR

One possible scenario but it doesn't account for mysterious omission of bike riding.

What it does do though is give a reason to hide ab accident because the contribution to it was discipline
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the search dogs have very good scent. If his scent was in the boot of the car, the dogs would have come close enough in their general searching to have picked up the scent IMO.

You might be right, unless they didn't send the dogs over the car. They might not have said 'boot' I'd have to check, not sure if it was a sedan or a hatch, I think it might have been a hatchback.
 
So why conduct a predominantly public inquiry to not expose relevant stuff publicly?

If they have evidence on her, she will be aware of it in advance of any trial anyway.

To protect identities of witnesses, to not prejudice any future proceedings? The FMs lawyers will be working overtime to suppress whatever they can as well.
 
Yes, but the search dogs have very good scent. If his scent was in the boot of the car, the dogs would have come close enough in their general searching to have picked up the scent IMO.

You might be right, unless they didn't send the dogs over the car. They might not have said 'boot' I'd have to check, not sure if it was a sedan or a hatch, I think it might have been a hatchback.

Ahhhhhh ... maybe the dogs did find William's scent in or around the FGM car and that's why the cops are asking the FM whether she had to use the keys to get in to the FGM car, whether it was locked or not.

If she says it was locked, then how could a living William have been in it? If it was unlocked, he could have got in to the car playing, as a 3yo might do, providing an innocent reason for his scent in that location.
 
Ahhhhhh ... maybe the dogs did find William's scent in or around the FGM car and that's why the cops are asking the FM whether she had to use the keys to get in to the FGM car, whether it was locked or not.

If she says it was locked, then how could William have been in it? If it was unlocked, he could have got in to the car playing, as a 3yo might do.
Car was parked where the bikes were allegedly ridden. Bikes were parked next to the car. William's scent detected in that location. Maybe the bike riding is the explanation for how William's scent was detected at the rear of the car? Assuming it was?
 
Lol. Ok, I got;
2 Hay Street
PORT MACQUARIE 2444

So why does it say this in Ep 6 of Witness?

“The Strike Force is committed. They set up a dedicated room in a local police station. But as a reporter covering the investigation, I hear odd things like how they get told to move out of the room when the local cops want to have a meeting.”

From Witness: William Tyrrell: How did we get here? | 6, 10 Nov 2024



<the local police station is 35 km away >

Or are they talking about

101 Bold Street
LAURIETON 2443

??

There is a small police station in Laurieton.

The Strike Force set up was at the Port Macquarie police station.
 
This is just adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 IMO.

How long do you think it would take to establish he very likely wasn't in the house or immediate garden vicinity outside the house? I reckon 30 seconds of calling his name inside the house. Then maybe 90 seconds doing a lap of the house outside, calling his name and looking as far as the eye can see in all directions.

Then decision time and mild panic. What are the worst things that can have happened? A fall - I would have seen him. He's wandered off - fear of swimming pool and drowning - I better look over a wider area quickly. He's been taken - maybe taken by someone on foot - so again, I better move faster than them to find him.

The car is a perfectly reasonable next option IMO. If he is around the house, it's ok because FGM is there for him. If he is hiding under a bed or behind a tree, that's a good result that will sort itself out without him needing to be found immediately. So, 2 minutes to arrive at the "jump in the car and look at a wider area" decision. Not everyone would do this, but it is quite feasible that someone would.

I agree with the general chronological order you have proposed. I 100% do not agree that because she drove very soon after realising he was missing, that she was not was not looking for him.

With respect, no I don't consider a car's use is the very next thing you do in your scenario. He is 3 yo and without shoes. Any adult can easily catch up with a 3 year old on foot if he was gone 5 mins and isn't a wanderer as has been relied upon repeatedly. You most definitely wouldn't drive 1.3 klm away. Ridiculous and incriminating imo..You wouldn't revert to use of a car at all. It is imo aberrant to the circumstances..Later perhaps when foot searches were exhausted but not at that initial point.

Then what she said to AMS as first discussion...."he might have hit his head and cant hear me"

No one mentioned a hit to a head. Why did she ? To offer it as speculation for his absence is massively Incriminating. It is a consciousness of guilt behaviour. One of many..
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top