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

 

[js47]

OMG I feel exhausted poor William.

 

[Wallace52]

What impact will all this have on the timing of the "re-convenement" of the Coronial Inquest? I imagine this cannot now proceed until well into the second half of 2025?

I imagine it will have zero impact and these matters aren’t related to the disappearance of William Tyrrell.

 

[stormbird]

What impact will all this have on the timing of the "re-convenement" of the Coronial Inquest? I imagine this cannot now proceed until well into the second half of 2025?

In the first link (post 1,797):

"On Tuesday, Phoebe MacDougall appeared on behalf of the couple in the NSW District Court to set a date for the appeal hearings. ...

She noted the foster father would be unavailable on a proposed hearing date in December because he is involved in an inquest into the disappearance of his foster son William Tyrrell.

Judge O’Brien set the foster father’s appeal hearing for February 10, 2025."

 

[31550]

In the first link (post 1,797):

"On Tuesday, Phoebe MacDougall appeared on behalf of the couple in the NSW District Court to set a date for the appeal hearings. ...

She noted the foster father would be unavailable on a proposed hearing date in December because he is involved in an inquest into the disappearance of his foster son William Tyrrell.

Judge O’Brien set the foster father’s appeal hearing for February 10, 2025."

What about the brief of evidence NSWPOL sent to the DPP. Are they still considering laying charges? If so, how can the inquest proceed in December?

 

[Wallace52]

In the first link (post 1,797):

"On Tuesday, Phoebe MacDougall appeared on behalf of the couple in the NSW District Court to set a date for the appeal hearings. ...

She noted the foster father would be unavailable on a proposed hearing date in December because he is involved in an inquest into the disappearance of his foster son William Tyrrell.

Judge O’Brien set the foster father’s appeal hearing for February 10, 2025."

Oh, Jesus.

 

[Wallace52]

What about the brief of evidence NSWPOL sent to the DPP. Are they still considering laying charges? If so, how can the inquest proceed in December?

Strike Force have snatched their brief back from the DPP, and are sitting on it for now.

Hence the inquest is going ahead.

 

[BFew]

She noted the foster father would be unavailable on a proposed hearing date in December because he is involved in an inquest into the disappearance of his foster son William Tyrrell.

So only the FF involved in the next phase of the inquest, not the FM?

 

[DropBearess]

I'm told this won't affect the planned inquest, but l'd like to hear verification from our posters with legal knowledge.

I'm only guessing the FPs don’t want their convictions on record, but SD pled guilty to assault charges. So how can one appeal a guilty plea?

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[31550]

I'm told this won't affect the planned inquest, but l'd like to hear verification from our posters with legal knowledge.

I'm only guessing the FPs don’t want their convictions on record, but SD pled guilty to assault charges. So how can one appeal a guilty plea?

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

I understand she is appealing the severity of the sentence (in particular the recording of a conviction), not the verdict.

 

[Wallace52]

I'm told this won't affect the planned inquest, but l'd like to hear verification from our posters with legal knowledge.

I'm only guessing the FPs don’t want their convictions on record, but SD pled guilty to assault charges. So how can one appeal a guilty plea?

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

Their convictions will already be on record throughout the upcoming inquest. I don’t see that they’ll have any bearing on the inquest.

Their appeal for the stalk/intimidate charges was not able to be addressed before their 12 month sentences expired, so they’ll still have to serve those also.

You do the crime, you do the time. Even if that time is in the community.

 

[LRitz]

Their convictions will already be on record throughout the upcoming inquest. I don’t see that they’ll have any bearing on the inquest.
Their appeal for the stalk/intimidate charges was not able to be addressed before their 12 month sentences expired, so they’ll still have to serve those also.

So do you think the convictions will have no influence on the inquest? Or do you think the appeals ( no matter the outcomes) will have no influence? I would have thought the court hearings, plea of guilty, convictions, and sentencing would have a big impact, even if not mentioned in the inquest. Puts a different light on things, IMO.
Maybe they will reconsider their appeals before next year, as you said, will have served their time. Just more money for the lawyers.

 

[LRitz]

.....In any case, afaik, it hasn’t been independently established that there was a video watched. It’s just what the FF said. It hasn’t been forensically reviewed.

FF was seen on CCTV at tennis club at around 8:50.It does not appear that there is any evidence of FF before this. He was not seen leaving the house. He could have been up early and gone for drive in the Kendall forest before breakfast for all we know.

 

[stormbird]

So only the FF involved in the next phase of the inquest, not the FM?

My guess: it might be just that the court had half a day clear in December (which would have been long enough for FF's appeal hearing but not FM's) so they only checked whether it was suitable for him.

 

[31550]

FF was seen on CCTV at tennis club at around 8:50.It does not appear that there is any evidence of FF before this. He was not seen leaving the house. He could have been up early and gone for drive in the Kendall forest before breakfast for all we know.

FF vehicle was seen passing the tennis club at 8:50.

So he could have been anywhere before that. But how is it relevant, given that William was photographed at 9:37am?

 

[Wallace52]

So do you think the convictions will have no influence on the inquest?

That’s right. They’re entirely seperate from the disappearance of William Tyrrell.

The only thing that links those matters is they were captured on a surveillance warrant, which was obtained by the Strike Force Rosann that’s tasked with investigating the disappearance of William Tyrrell.

That’s it.

Or do you think the appeals ( no matter the outcomes) will have no influence?

I don’t know. A Coronial Inquest is an Inquest. It’s not a criminal trial. No one is on trial at an Inquest.

They’re just trying to find out what happened to William and determine if he died and if so, how that occurred.

I would have thought the court hearings, plea of guilty, convictions, and sentencing would have a big impact, even if not mentioned in the inquest.

How? It has an impact on what? Those who followed this case closely have read about the content of what’s in those recordings in the family home and in the FF car. We can see how they treated the other foster child, whoever that person is.

People have their own views based on that, but I can’t see how that has any bearing on the Coroner.

I’m sure she would be more interested in the forensics on the FGM car, if any bones were found in the search, phone and maritime data etc. Stuff that pertains to William.

Puts a different light on things, IMO.

Maybe for you or for me, but not really in a legal sense.

Maybe they will reconsider their appeals before next year, as you said, will have served their time. Just more money for the lawyers.

Not a chance. They will continue to
throw good money after bad. They don’t want a criminal record. IMO.

I recon they want to go overseas.

IMO

 

[Wallace52]

My guess: it might be just that the court had half a day clear in December (which would have been long enough for FF's appeal hearing but not FM's) so they only checked whether it was suitable for him.

That’s a really good hypothesis!

 

[LRitz]

FF vehicle was seen passing the tennis club at 8:50.
So he could have been anywhere before that. But how is it relevant, given that William was photographed at 9:37am?

Just a possibility. Lots of narratives (e.g. watching kids show on phone) that are not evidence. The cat narrative does not prove that they were planning to travel on Friday. Maybe Thursday was always the planned travel day.

 

[LRitz]

I’m sure she would be more interested in the forensics on the FGM car, if any bones were found in the search, phone and maritime data etc. Stuff that pertains to William.
Maybe for you or for me, but not really in a legal sense.

Not a chance. They will continue to throw good money after bad. They don’t want a criminal record. IMO.

Yes. But maybe new light on previous statements given by foster family. The mystery cars seen by the FM were explained away as false memories (!!!). Will the new inquest be so forgiving.

 

[31550]

Just a possibility. Lots of narratives (e.g. watching kids show on phone) that are not evidence. The cat narrative does not prove that they were planning to travel on Friday. Maybe Thursday was always the planned travel day.

So what? We have evidence that William was alive at 9:37. We have evidence that FF was elsewhere on his GoToMeeting call at around the same time.
What is it that you are trying to prove which remains consistent with this evidence?

 

[31550]

Just a possibility. Lots of narratives (e.g. watching kids show on phone) that are not evidence. The cat narrative does not prove that they were planning to travel on Friday. Maybe Thursday was always the planned travel day.

Not true. If they planned to travel Thursday they would have booked the cats in prior to Thursday, not left it till the last minute. There is no record of a previous booking, but there are phone records showing FM called the cattery after speaking with FF, and records of the cats being dropped off on the Thursday. Why go to that trouble if it wasn't a last-minute decision? The original plan was to leave on the Friday, and let the cats fend for themselves. Leaving on the Thursday meant it was going to be too long to leave the cats unattended.

 

[Wallace52]

Yes. But maybe new light on previous statements given by foster family. The mystery cars seen by the FM were explained away as false memories (!!!). Will the new inquest be so forgiving.

I feel like maybe she did see the cars.
Just because no one else saw them doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

 

[Wallace52]

Not true. If they planned to travel Thursday they would have booked the cats in prior to Thursday, not left it till the last minute. There is no record of a previous booking, but there are phone records showing FM called the cattery after speaking with FF, and records of the cats being dropped off on the Thursday. Why go to that trouble if it wasn't a last-minute decision? The original plan was to leave on the Friday, and let the cats fend for themselves. Leaving on the Thursday meant it was going to be too long to leave the cats unattended.

Exactly.

That part makes complete sense to me.

 

[31550]

I feel like maybe she did see the cars.
Just because no one else saw them doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

Forgetting one car is possible, forgetting THREE cars is improbable. Failing to remember them when explicitly asked, "Any suspicious cars ...?" is even more improbable. Failing to remember them until a couple of days later is even more improbable.
Remembering the cars, and accurately providing their descriptions, colours, and the appearance of the driver(s) several days (or months, or years) later seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[Sammy 72]

FF vehicle was seen passing the tennis club at 8:50.

So he could have been anywhere before that. But how is it relevant, given that William was photographed at 9:37am?

Has it been mentioned about the cameras seeing FF returning at all ?

 

[js47]

When the FF drove past the tennis courts could the FF face be seen?
I know proof of life photo = no relevance.
If his car was seen at 8.50 what time did he make the first call at Lakewood? Does any one know?