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

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

 

[31550]

Really are you serious?

I don't think so IMO

No she didn't

It was video

So the NSWCC hearing was by video, not in person?

The 'produce the phones' then makes perfect sense - show FM the phones and get her to identify which one(s) she used and when.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

So the NSWCC hearing was by video, not in person?

The 'produce the phones' then makes perfect sense - show FM the phones and get her to identify which one(s) she used and when.

The CC hearing was in person & we watched the video of it.

 

[31550]

Handbag maybe.

My handbags were always quite big when my kids were around that age, I'd only switch out if I had a dinner or a function on and the kids weren't going.

Why would you take your handbag on an emergency search for your missing (believed abducted) foster child?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

But it's hard enough to imagine FM grabbing the car keys and taking off in the car without being noticed by FGM and FD (if they didn't notice). To add a whole new activity before or after the keys but before driving - going through the house to get FGM's mobile and either one or both cordless handsets... it's just bizarre this is even a suggestion, IMO. How would she have carried all this stuff to the car - did she have big pockets? a shopping bag? balancing them on her head?

Handbag maybe.

My handbags were always quite big when my kids were around that age, I'd only switch out if I had a dinner or a function on and the kids weren't going.

The question also has a corollary. IF she wanted to control communication does that suggest the FGM was a witness and she needed to control communication to prevent a 000 call?

Perhaps I'm letting this get away from me..idk..They are thoughts spring to mind

 

[31550]

The CC hearing was in person & we watched the video of it.

Then the CC had all the phones as they should and they were producing them in front of the FM for her to indentify which she used. IMO

 

[stormbird]

Why would you take your handbag on an emergency search for your missing (believed abducted) foster child?

STYLE.

 

[zedx]

Sorry, I am digging my heels in here on the dementia. You can not win an argument by just repeating it over and over.
I do not know that FGM had any symptoms of dementia. No one said she had dementia. She remembers lots of details about the repair man. So IMO the bit of information we have is supporting NO dementia.

Why do you think it needs to be on the table?
Dementia is more common in older people. But you can't say therefore you are an old person you must have dementia.
A series of one family member means nothing.
It is possible that she had early dementia, but lets not jump to the conclusion that this is a fact.
It is possible that FGM was in collusion with the FF and FM in the disappearance of William. i think that shoud be on the table.

You just agreed with me that it is possible she had demntia or ealy onset, thats why it needs to kept on the table. To keep something 'on the table' means to keep it open for dicusion.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

Then the CC had all the phones as they should and they were producing them in front of the FM for her to indentify which she used. IMO

Um NO

Why would she need to identify the phones themselves?

They did not produce the phones to her.

I think the CC would be more interested in any forensic data they could get of the phones as to the location of the phones ( which I would assume Strike Force Rossan would have done )

 

[passball]

FGF was buried seven months earlier. Are you suggesting someone dug it up and nobody noticed?

Haven't heard anyone mention the grave itself, only that he 'could' have been left at the cemetery and moved later.
The FF left on his own Saturday morning, apparently before 6am.
If people want to express their own theories then this is one of mine, crazy as it is

 

[alwaysintrigued]

Haven't heard anyone mention the grave itself, only that he 'could' have been left at the cemetery and moved later.
The FF left on his own Saturday morning, apparently before 6am.
If people want to express their own theories then this is one of mine, crazy as it is

There were people all over that cemetery that day & the days following. Someone would have noticed a fresh dug up grave ( it's a very nice & neat cemetery )

Impossible IMO

 

[31550]

Um NO

Why would she need to identify the phones themselves?

They did not produce the phones to her.

I think the CC would be more interested in any forensic data they could get of the phones as to the location of the phones ( which I would assume Strike Force Rossan would have done )

Because she is giving evidence which is critical to her precise movements. The entire case rests on exactly where she was and when. This needs to be determined beyond reasonable doubt and as precisely as possible. If she says she took a phone we need to know which one. Having her identify the phone she took while under oath puts this beyond reasonable doubt. If she says "I took Mums phone" we need to know if it was the cell phone or cordless landline handset". If she had more than one phone or SIM registered in her own name we need to know which device she means, beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise she can later say, “Oh I meant the other one, I don't know why I said that“. They would want her to be very specific and definite.

 

[31550]

Haven't heard anyone mention the grave itself, only that he 'could' have been left at the cemetery and moved later.
The FF left on his own Saturday morning, apparently before 6am.
If people want to express their own theories then this is one of mine, crazy as it is

Yeah I thought of the cemetery general location as an interim place myself but surely not FGFs grave!

 

[BFew]

The FM was not asked one question about the time being incorrect,

Unless she was asked one or more questions about the time, and this was edited out of the vid shown in the inquest room that we saw.

Or do you think the only things edited out were some of the names, and we got to see the whole 2 days of everything else with nothing else edited out?

 

[alwaysintrigued]

Unless she was asked one or more questions about the time, and this was edited out of the vid shown in the inquest room that we saw.

Or do you think the only things edited out were some of the names, and we got to see the whole 2 days of everything else with nothing else edited out?

I don't believe we saw the whole 2 days ( closed court was most of Wednesday )

I don't believe that any questions were edited out about the photo at all IMO

Why would they edit that out specifically?

Mr Craddock has said the photos are correct in open court.

It was discussed on Thursday. I've given many examples ( you've given none )

 

[alwaysintrigued]

Interesting that she couldn't remember WHEN she had them. It implies she had them all at one point. So I pose the question why would someone collect the phones? The possible answer is when someone wants to control communication.

Why does it imply she had all 3 at once??

 

[Wallace52]

It wasn't Scott Cook . It was Detective Craig Lambert

Mr Jubelin also recounted a confrontation between himself and Detective Sergeant Craig Lambert on July 31, 2018. Mr Lambert was officer in charge of William's disappearance and Mr Jubelin oversaw him as investigation supervisor.

'Ranting and ravings': ex-Tyrrell detectives pulled apart after heated argument, court told

William, 3, was wearing a Spider-Man suit when he vanished from his foster-grandmother's home in the NSW Mid North Coast town of Kendall on September 12, 2014.

www.smh.com.au

I eat my words.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Why does it imply she had all 3 at once??

Wasn't there so only hypothesizing

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I eat my words.

No need.

 

[InTheBleachers]

Not really, Bill Spedding had a rock solid alibi. Spedding should never have been subjected to what the cops put him through.

It's in part what happened to Spedding that has me thinking the cops aren't going to risk something like that happening again, they're confident they have the right person in their sights this time. Whether they can prove it or not is the question.

We were talking about malicious prosecution. Bill Spedding was prosecuted about something else because the strike force wanted to put pressure on him about WT. The foster parents were prosecuted about something else because the strike force wanted to put pressure on them about WT. Then judges decided that Bill Spedding and the foster parents were not guilty.

 

[Kurve]

We were talking about malicious prosecution. Bill Spedding was prosecuted about something else because the strike force wanted to put pressure on him about WT. The foster parents were prosecuted about something else because the strike force wanted to put pressure on them about WT. Then judges decided that Bill Spedding and the foster parents were not guilty.

The fosters were found guilty of assault, stalking and intimidation.

 

[InTheBleachers]

The fosters were found guilty of assault, stalking and intimidation.

The other prosecution.

• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster mother *Not Guilty
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster father *Not Guilty

 

[Kurve]

The other prosecution.

Okay, those charges were tested and the fosters cleared. People are often charged with offences and subsequently found not guilty, that doesn't automatically mean the prosecutions were malicious.

 

[InTheBleachers]

Okay, those charges were tested and the fosters cleared. People are often charged with offences and subsequently found not guilty, that doesn't automatically mean the prosecutions were malicious.

A good lawyer will make a case for it. It is so much like what happened to Bill Spedding.

 

[31550]

We were talking about malicious prosecution. Bill Spedding was prosecuted about something else because the strike force wanted to put pressure on him about WT. The foster parents were prosecuted about something else because the strike force wanted to put pressure on them about WT. Then judges decided that Bill Spedding and the foster parents were not guilty.

Rubbish. The FM pled guilty and was found guilty about the 'something else as in the assault. They were found not guilty of deliberately lying to the CC but at no stage was it suggested by the presiding judge that these charges were inappropriate or malicious. The cops don't win every time. Doesn't mean every time they lose a case someone should sue them.

 

[truecrimepath]

I misread the post by storm bird . Page 16. It was the media that said he went around the side of the house looking for FF based on conflating the FD and FM account.

Reading Wendy Hudson’s report confirms the sleeping arrangement and that 35 Benaroon was searched day 1.