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

 

[Kurve]

I think due to her health that Magistrate McIntyre would not have seriously considered sending her to prison.

IMO.

On another topic: I wonder what her community corrections order might be? I mean we know she is community minded. Working at the Salvos store?

Attending mental health or rehabilitation sessions? Anger management?

If she has to do a community service order, people are going to find out who she is and with plenty of time for word to get around over 12 months.

She could still end up a target.

In jail she'd get some protection and nobody asks 'what's your crime?' so she could hide for a while.

 

[Wallace52]

If she has to do a community service order, people are going to find out who she is and with plenty of time for word to get around over 12 months.

She could still end up a target.

Yeah you’re right, she could become a target out on community service. And word will eventually get out. 12 months is a long time.

In jail she'd get some protection and nobody asks 'what's your crime?' so she could hide for a while.

That’s unusual that prisoners don’t ask that question of one another. I’ll take your word for it, Kurve .

 

[31550]

In jail she'd get some protection and nobody asks 'what's your crime?' so she could hide for a while.

I reckon in jail she'd manipulate her way to become 'top dog'. This seems to be her special power.

 

[Wallace52]

I reckon in jail she'd manipulate her way to become 'top dog'. This seems to be her special power.

I wasn’t gonna say it, but…..

 

[stormbird]

From the Daily Telegraph, 30 March 2024 (paywalled):

'... despite hours of interviews, searching bushland and digging up areas around the last place William was seen, police have yet to reveal any new evidence or lay any charges relating to the disappearance.

The lawyer representing the foster father, Lauren MacDougall, told The Saturday Telegraph the level of scrutiny the foster parents had been under since William vanished was extraordinary.

“It’s something I have only ever encountered in organised crime matters,” Ms MacDougall said. ...

“The police’s position is that the foster mother is the main suspect, despite clearing her previously, yet to date no charges have been laid,” Ms MacDougall said.

“The irony is that the best opportunity for her to clear her name in circumstances where fingers are pointed at her, would be to defend a charge.” ...

Asked to comment on what he thought about the progress of the investigation into William’s disappearance, [Retired NSW Police homicide detective Gary Jubelin] said “seeing five senior police sitting all day through a local court proceedings where they were not required to give evidence was not an efficient use of resources considering there is still a child missing”. ...

[Magistrate Susan McIntyre] had already dismissed other counts of intimidation against the foster mother and rejected an assault charge against the foster father, and she noted that on listening to the hours and hours of recordings, the transcripts provided by police had been taken out of context.

In the 1000 hours of recordings, there were six occasions that the police had identified alleged misconduct, she said, finding there was no “pattern” of violence, as suggested by the prosecution.

The charges were laid after police investigating William’s disappearance interviewed the other foster child at school, questioning the child about what had been heard on the recordings.

In two separate interviews, the child was asked 750 questions each time, some of which the magistrate described in court last week as “leading”.'

 

[31550]

From the Daily Telegraph, 30 March 2024 (paywalled):

'... despite hours of interviews, searching bushland and digging up areas around the last place William was seen, police have yet to reveal any new evidence or lay any charges relating to the disappearance.

The lawyer representing the foster father, Lauren MacDougall, told The Saturday Telegraph the level of scrutiny the foster parents had been under since William vanished was extraordinary.

“It’s something I have only ever encountered in organised crime matters,” Ms MacDougall said. ...

“The police’s position is that the foster mother is the main suspect, despite clearing her previously, yet to date no charges have been laid,” Ms MacDougall said.

“The irony is that the best opportunity for her to clear her name in circumstances where fingers are pointed at her, would be to defend a charge.” ...

Asked to comment on what he thought about the progress of the investigation into William’s disappearance, [Retired NSW Police homicide detective Gary Jubelin] said “seeing five senior police sitting all day through a local court proceedings where they were not required to give evidence was not an efficient use of resources considering there is still a child missing”. ...

[Magistrate Susan McIntyre] had already dismissed other counts of intimidation against the foster mother and rejected an assault charge against the foster father, and she noted that on listening to the hours and hours of recordings, the transcripts provided by police had been taken out of context.

In the 1000 hours of recordings, there were six occasions that the police had identified alleged misconduct, she said, finding there was no “pattern” of violence, as suggested by the prosecution.

The charges were laid after police investigating William’s disappearance interviewed the other foster child at school, questioning the child about what had been heard on the recordings.

In two separate interviews, the child was asked 750 questions each time, some of which the magistrate described in court last week as “leading”.'

I'm not sure why McDougall is telling us what the "police's position" is - it's up to the police to tell us that.
Also not sure why she is commenting on the FM, who is not her client. She represents the FF only.
I don't see the 'irony' there, (unless she is using the Alannis Morisette definition).

The irony I do see is Jubelin commenting on the presence of SFR detectives at the sentencing hearing. I would think it is standard police practice for the arresting/charging officers to attend court. One could ask Jubelin why he himself thought it was 'efficient use of resources' for him to be there.

I also don't understand the tone of the magistrate in describing the questions put to the victim as 'leading'. The victim is not on trial here, and detectives are entitled to ask any type of question (including leading ones) to elicit the information they need. It is up to the lawyers in court to object to questions they consider 'leading', and if they do so, the magistrate may rule against such questions being put.

 

[stormbird]

Editorial: Police need to produce evidence in William Tyrrell case, Saturday Telegraph, 30 March 2024

"... it is a criminal investigation dogged by poor policing, appalling internal politics inside the NSW force, and the very public pursuit of a foster family with very little thought given to the notion of innocence until proven otherwise. ...

[...] as of today, the police have not revealed one piece of new evidence, have no new witnesses, no new forensic evidence worth speaking about and, most importantly, no body. Whatever they claimed they knew, they don’t know it well enough to share with the public, or it seems, the coroner.
They clearly don’t know enough to press charges. ...

There is no doubt every stone should be overturned in the search for answers as to what happened to William, and if it comes to pass the foster parents are proven to be responsible, they should feel the full force of the law.

But we cannot, and should not, condone a society in which police openly accuse people of committing a crime without being required to produce any evidence.

And a vague promise that they will have evidence one day is no justification, because it appears as though that day may never come."

 

[stormbird]

Editorial: Police need to produce evidence in William Tyrrell case, Saturday Telegraph, 30 March 2024

"... it is a criminal investigation dogged by poor policing, appalling internal politics inside the NSW force, and the very public pursuit of a foster family with very little thought given to the notion of innocence until proven otherwise. ...

[...] as of today, the police have not revealed one piece of new evidence, have no new witnesses, no new forensic evidence worth speaking about and, most importantly, no body. Whatever they claimed they knew, they don’t know it well enough to share with the public, or it seems, the coroner.
They clearly don’t know enough to press charges. ...

There is no doubt every stone should be overturned in the search for answers as to what happened to William, and if it comes to pass the foster parents are proven to be responsible, they should feel the full force of the law.

But we cannot, and should not, condone a society in which police openly accuse people of committing a crime without being required to produce any evidence.

And a vague promise that they will have evidence one day is no justification, because it appears as though that day may never come."

Something else from the editorial: "Last year, the inquest was put over until 2025 to give police more time"...

But the public was told the inquest will resume for two weeks of hearings (one week in November and one week in December) this year, 2024. So is the editorial just wrong about the year or will the inquest be delayed even further?

 

[Wallace52]

Something else from the editorial: "Last year, the inquest was put over until 2025 to give police more time"...

But the public was told the inquest will resume for two weeks of hearings (one week in November and one week in December) this year, 2024. So is the editorial just wrong about the year or will the inquest be delayed even further?

That part of the editorial is wrong. The inquest has hearings set for Nov and Dec 2024.

The rest of the article is mainly opinion and hyperbole. I thought journalists were supposed to be objective. But whatever. I have pretty low expectations from News Corps who are a de facto mouthpiece for the foster family.

IMO

 

[Lady O]

Something else from the editorial: "Last year, the inquest was put over until 2025 to give police more time"...

But the public was told the inquest will resume for two weeks of hearings (one week in November and one week in December) this year, 2024. So is the editorial just wrong about the year or will the inquest be delayed even further?

From the same editorial quoted above:

"The devastation of losing William has been compounded by aspects of the police investigation, and has left the reputations of two people in tatters.

Their daughter has been taken from them, and they have been banned from the foster system.

Even though their names have been suppressed it was revealed this week they struggle to find meaningful work and keep their place in the community."

Nothing has changed. It is still all about THEM!! They have lost William, they have been treated badly. And, their daughter? She was never theirs, she was only in their "care". Banned from the foster system, poor dears. Should never have had foster children in the first place, but especially after WT went missing.

What about William?

What about LT, who has been treated abominably??

 

[31550]

Something else from the editorial: "Last year, the inquest was put over until 2025 to give police more time"...

But the public was told the inquest will resume for two weeks of hearings (one week in November and one week in December) this year, 2024. So is the editorial just wrong about the year or will the inquest be delayed even further?

My money is on the inquest proper (other than directions hearings etc.) not even re-convening until well after the end of 2024. It certainly won't conclude in 2024. We still don't have a decision about the "interfere with corpse" charges. Also, there are backlogs in the system, and the possibility of other new leads, and avenues of investigation which may yet emerge.

 

[31550]

banned from the foster system.

As one would expect any convicted criminal to be. Especially one convicted of assaulting a child (in their care)! Why is this a surprise?

(Did Insight write that editorial?)

 

[Wallace52]

As one would expect any convicted criminal to be. Especially one convicted of assaulting a child (in their care)! Why is this a surprise?

(Did Insight write that editorial?)

Maybe Advocacy Australia worked with News Corp on that one.

Their daughter has been taken from them

That child was never their daughter. They never adopted her.

Ask the girl if she considers herself their daughter: I bet $1 Mil she would say she isn’t.

She is someone else’s daughter. She has her own actual biological siblings.

Not the fake ones the foster parents kept bringing home.

These people are fully delusional.

IMO

 

[Wallace52]

As one would expect any convicted criminal to be. Especially one convicted of assaulting a child (in their care)! Why is this a surprise?

(Did Insight write that editorial?)

They couldn’t even get a blue card at this point. Could they?

{just to add, it’s a tad ironic that their old mate Hetty J and Bravehearts really advocated for those blue cards to be used all throughout Australia to protect children, and now it’s very likely that the fosters’ blue cards have been cancelled despite foster dad JS being a former ambassador for Bravehearts…. The whole thing sings a very Alanis Morrissette ironic tune}

IMO
Link: https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tp/2019/5619T774.pdf

 

[Wallace52]

The FGM was also there, she clarified where William was playing before he vanished.

The FM has to simply tell the truth, leaving out the part of her involvement in moving the body if that's what happened and keep it simple. 'There one minute, gone the next.'

I don't think the FGM knew what had happened, if she might have guessed it later. The FGM left the house and stayed elsewhere.

“I hear nothing. I see nothing.”

These were probably real experiences the FM had before she found him.

 

[Wallace52]

Just had another look at the balcony, agree he probably couldn't have squeezed through the horizontal rails if it might be possible to get through the top horitzontal rails but it seems more likely he would have gone straight over the top now.

The balcony goes from ground level at the rear to a drop from a height of three storeys at the other end. Very dangerous.

View attachment 1942842

If he fell: The odds of William dying sort of increased with the slope of the house. IMO

 

[Wallace52]

In two separate interviews, the child was asked 750 questions each time, some of which the magistrate described in court last week as “leading”.'

Homicide police asked a 10-11 year old child a total of 1500 questions over 2 interviews.

That is really interesting.

IMHO, As a child you have to be very competent, bright, and motivated to answer that many questions. I actually think if asked, the child’s bio mother may have been ok with that amount of questions being asked of her daughter, because from what I understand, the bio mother is very committed to finding out the truth about what happened to her son.

Talking about interview questions, I feel like the foster dad would have crumbled after about 80 questions because cognitively he would have started struggling. From the interviews of him that have read, he really struggles to answer questions about himself, his wife, and about William’s disappearance. In one interview he struggled to say how old he was. He really did.

IMHO, it’s easy to answer questions when you have nothing to hide.

 

[gymjam]

You can swap Sims (keep the same phone) but retain contacts, email, messages etc. Similarly you can swap phones and keep your Sim, but in this case you would (selectively) transfer contacts email and messages you want to.
With iPhones this is as easy as logging into iCloud and doing a sync.

Yes you can use the internet without a Sim, but you would need WiFi connected to the internet. You need a Sim for a data connection otherwise.

Phone carriers log both the IMEI and the phone number in call and text logs.
Carriers log data connections and usage against the IMEI and phone number also even if a 'data only' SIM is in the device. It still has a phone # associated.

If you use wifi to connect to internet, the phone carrier doesn't know what you are doing, only the ISP for the wifi connection does.

Thanks for that info. Very appreciated.

 

[geeeyejo]

I also don't understand the tone of the magistrate in describing the questions put to the victim as 'leading'. The victim is not on trial here, and detectives are entitled to ask any type of question (including leading ones) to elicit the information they need. It is up to the lawyers in court to object to questions they consider 'leading', and if they do so, the magistrate may rule against such questions being put.[/QUOTE]


Detectives most absolutely are not “entitled” to question vulnerable witness in any manner they choose - special provisions are made for vulnerable witnesses in most states and territories of Australia, changes mostly implanted after the royal commission into response to CSA in institutions. One of those new provisions is the introduction of intermediary schemes for vulnerable witnesses - nsw certainly does have one - the use of special provisions are not just for court - they are also used when police interview witnesses via videotaped interviews which then become evidence-in-chief if progressing further in court.

Also, Gary Jubelin no longer holds public office , so his use of his own time is his prerogative

 

[Wallace52]

I also don't understand the tone of the magistrate in describing the questions put to the victim as 'leading'. The victim is not on trial here, and detectives are entitled to ask any type of question (including leading ones) to elicit the information they need. It is up to the lawyers in court to object to questions they consider 'leading', and if they do so, the magistrate may rule against such questions being put.

geeeyejo , just responding to your quote:

Also, Gary Jubelin no longer holds public office , so his use of his own time is his prerogative
[/QUOTE]


Response to quote:
He is supposed to be a journalist. He’s supposed to be completely impartial and balanced. It’s not his use of his own time. He’s working, he’s going to these court cases with his boss from work, head of audio at News Corp, and EP of I Catch Killers, Dan Box.

They’re both going to court in work time as a work assignment or activity, just as Tiffany Genders or Lia Harris, or Candace Sutton, Miklos Bolza, etc. they all go to these court matters, whether it’s the William Tyrrell foster parents case(s) or another court case or mention, to work as journalists, in work time as part of their jobs as journalists and court reporters.

Tiff is a TV news reporter for Chan 9, Candace is a crime reporter for DMA, Miklos is an AAP Court Reporter, Steve Zemek is a News Corp Court Reporter, Lia reports for the ABC. And the list goes on and on.

So why can’t Gary Jubelin be impartial like the rest of them? Why isn’t he held to a proper standard of behaviour as a journalist?

That might all sound pretty complex so I’ll keep it simple:

*He’s a journalist.
*Dan Box, his boss, is a journalist (and a News Corp exec.)
*They attend court whilst being paid News Corp dollars.
*Dan Box never ever writes a news article or speaks in a podcast in a way that is overtly biased. Ever. He knows the rules and adheres to them.

But Gary? In my opinion: Whenever his bosses want to push a strong and controversial message out there that suits their purpose, especially related to the William Tyrrell case, they do it under his name, leaving all of the proper journalists (like Dan) to keep their hands and their reputations clean. And everyone goes oh that’s just Gary. His peers, many of them don’t take him seriously as a journalist.

But honestly, don’t come out and say so his use of his own time is his prerogative.

The ethics of journalism in Australia are basically to report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.

Have a look at Gary’s LinkedIn: currently working as an investigative journalist.

Gary Jubelin - NSW Police | LinkedIn

Retired as Detective Chief Inspector - NSW Homicide Squad. 34 year career in various… · Experience: NSW Police · Location: Greater Sydney Area · 45 connections on LinkedIn. View Gary Jubelin’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional community of 1 billion members.

au.linkedin.com

 

[31550]

Detectives most absolutely are not “entitled” to question vulnerable witness in any manner they choose - special provisions are made for vulnerable witnesses in most states and territories of Australia, changes mostly implanted after the royal commission into response to CSA in institutions. One of those new provisions is the introduction of intermediary schemes for vulnerable witnesses - nsw certainly does have one - the use of special provisions are not just for court - they are also used when police interview witnesses via videotaped interviews which then become evidence-in-chief if progressing further in court.

I see the cavalry have arrived



There is no legal limit to the amount of questions police may ask a witness.

We are talking about a victim here, not just a witness. A victim of multiple assaults and alleged intimidation. A victim who is under the protection of the State, and therefore would have been accompanied at interviews by a suitably qualified and authorised supervisor. We would want such a victim to be afforded every opportunity to give her testimony, her full testimony, and clarify any vaguaries or possible misunderstandings for police so they can assemble an appropriate case against relevant offenders and see that justice is upheld.
It would certainly not be acceptable for police to stop the interview after 100, 200, or even 750 questions and say, "Sorry, we'd like to hep you but weve run out of our allowed number of questions, so we can't get to all the other things you have alleged." They had 1000 hours of surveillance to discuss - potentially dozens of instances which may have been of concern. It's vitally important that police spend as much time with the victim as they need to assemble their case.
Of course if the victim at any time had indicated she did not want to answer any more questions, the interview would have terminated. Clearly this was not the case.

 

[Kurve]

Important to remember that presumably each with no priors, they were both convicted of criminal assaults and intimidation, regardless.

 

[Wallace52]

Important to remember that presumably each with no priors, they were both convicted of criminal assaults and intimidation, regardless.

Well they reported the foster mother had no priors.

I’m not sure about her husband.

But yes, they had the best legal counsel really that one could have and they still were found guilty of intimidation. And after the mental health defence failed, the FM rightly admitted that she was guilty to assaulting the child twice.

The FF was found not guilty of assault.

 

[Lady O]

If he fell: The odds of William dying sort of increased with the slope of the house. IMO

And the rocks in the garden. IF he fell off the high balcony, he wasn't just going to land on plants or soft soil. There were rocks as big as WT's head all around the garden area.

 

[Wallace52]

It would certainly not be acceptable for police to stop the interview after 100, 200, or even 750 questions and say, "Sorry, we'd like to hep you but weve run out of our allowed number of questions, so we can't get to all the other things you have alleged."

No, but they could have given her a break. Or maybe 3 or 4 breaks.

It’s a bit much.

It’s not fair to sacrifice one kid to find another. Is it?

Was she given her own legal counsel or advocate to support her rights and wellbeing?

IMHO