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

 

[Wallace52]

31550 as an interested and interesting party maybe there is a spot for you at the inquest. I am sure that the forum would be helpful in supplying you with a list of questions.

That is unnecessary, isn’t it.

 

[31550]

We are led to believe that FM allegedly hid a dead child and that FF did nothing in response and stayed supportive. It doesn't gel

I still think it's possible FF doesn't know what actually happened and is simply accepting FM's public account of events.

 

[31550]

That is unnecessary, isn’t it.

Yeah it's unnecessary - I have enough questions of my own

 

[js47]

There is imo no co dependency type relationship here where one enables the other. Impossible to conclude from afar but based on what is exposed.... no. Both have narcissistic traits (especially FM) that fall short of diagnostic thresholds.....once again from afar. I therefore feel the relationship is unlikely to be deflected in that way where one would blindly follow the other. Opinion. And this is my problem.....that I've formed that opinion it then feeds the unlikelihood they would stay united on the back of unilateral choices of such significance. But they have.

From behavioural viewpoint it is clear that both have parental dysfunction incompatible to the situation of children from such a background. It fuelled the problem.

We are led to believe that FM allegedly hid a dead child and that FF did nothing in response and stayed supportive. It doesn't gel

Fear. Of going to gaol would be a good incentive.

 

[js47]

Did the FP’s seperate at one stage? If so then there is a big WHY?

 

[js47]

IMO if FM and FGM needed to deal with a situation then 1 the FF was not involved so may still not know anything. 2 he has been told something but not everything and is scared. Knowing something fearful and not having input into dealing with it would be mind numbing. He ran into the bathroom. This plays onto my mind. I lost a son through an accident. I just look back on my reaction and so many things do not gel for me. I think FF was shocked. The FM seemed panicked. Just my opinion.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The point is that IF the FF wasn't involved it would be difficult for him to become an accessory after the fact or participate in a crime of interfering with a dead body. The vast majority imo would convince their partner to stop and / or would walk away silently not help commit a crime. Even if they did initially, the wedge it would drive between them would imo be fatal to the relationship.

I don't believe he would be kept in dark. Incongruous to human nature in this context I believe

 

[31550]

The point is that IF the FF wasn't involved it would be difficult for him to become an accessory after the fact or participate in a crime of interfering with a dead body. The vast majority imo would convince their partner to stop and / or would walk away silently not help commit a crime. Even if they did initially, the wedge it would drive between them would imo be fatal to the relationship.

I don't believe he would be kept in dark. Incongruous to human nature in this context I believe

I would argue that the opposite is true, and that family members (without first-hand knowledge of the crime) tend to take the side of their spouse/partner in almost every situation. Some examples:

• Borce Ristevski killed his wife Karen, yet was supported by his daughter all the way up to his conviction.
• Jaidyn Leskie, disappeared and was killed while in the care of his mother's boyfriend Greg Domasiewicz. Jaidyn's mother, Bilynda Murphy supported and defended her boyfriend, who was accused and tried, but never convicted.
• Katie Perinovic killed her three children. Her husband Tomislav was totally unaware of her actions, discovered their bodies, and was subsequently accused of the crime.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I would argue that the opposite is true, and that family members (without first-hand knowledge of the crime) tend to take the side of their spouse/partner in almost every situation. Some examples:

• Borce Ristevski killed his wife Karen, yet was supported by his daughter all the way up to his conviction.
• Jaidyn Leskie, disappeared and was killed while in the care of his mother's boyfriend Greg Domasiewicz. Jaidyn's mother, Bilynda Murphy supported and defended her boyfriend, who was accused and tried, but never convicted.
• Katie Perinovic killed her three children. Her husband Tomislav was totally unaware of her actions, discovered their bodies, and was subsequently accused of the crime.

I've mentioned co dependency already as one example of where support may continue..these people aren't co-dependents imo.

A daughter unaware may indeed continue to support their parents innocence. Unrelated

Having your partner kill children THEN herself then implicating you thereafter again isn't compatible..Not even close. Unrelated

A partner who witnessed their child's accidental death is a major trauma..it's simply inconceivable she not seek conversation then support IF they remain together as we know they have. If she did as I suspect (the bathroom crying likely) then it likely will cause a fracture in the relationship

 

[31550]

A daughter unaware may indeed continue to support their parents innocence. Unrelated (1)

Having your partner kill children THEN herself then implicating you thereafter again isn't compatible..Not even close. Unrelated (2)

A partner who witnessed their child's accidental death is a major trauma. (3) .it's simply inconceivable she not seek conversation then support IF they remain together as we know they have. If she did as I suspect (the bathroom crying likely) then it likely will cause a fracture in the relationship

(1) How is a daughter unaware any different to a spouse unaware?
(2) That's not what happened. The husband was oblivious of the wive's actions, and supported her account of events. This only changed when police investigations implicated the wife.
(3) Not what I am suggesting. FF witnessed nothing. He was told William had been 'taken' by someone. That's why FF was crying in the bathroom. (According to the theory I am currently discussing).

 

[Wallace52]

He was told William had been 'taken' by someone. That's why FF was crying in the bathroom. (According to the theory I am currently discussing).

I don’t think the FF knows anything.

If the wife has done something: He’s in the dark. IMO.

That’s why there’s no incriminating audio, because she’s pretending to him that William was abducted by a stranger.

My opinion only.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I don’t think the FF knows anything.

If the wife has done something: He’s in the dark. IMO.

That’s why there’s no incriminating audio, because she’s pretending to him that William was abducted by a stranger.

My opinion only.

They didn't know they were under surveillance. Otherwise they wouldn't have incriminated themselves with the treatment of FD..The way GJ tags people to get them to talk also should have been revealing but wasn't.

These are powerful considerations for no involvement.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The FM comment to FF immediately upon arrival back at house is possibly revealing. Something along the lines...."Do you have William?"

Why?

I can't accept that an abduction occurred at house......no reason for an opportunist to be in the street. I can see that a child taken away from the house and left somewhere as punishment could be abducted.

 

[Wallace52]

The FM comment to FF immediately upon arrival back at house is possibly revealing. Something along the lines...."Do you have William?"

Why?

I can't accept that an abduction occurred at house......no reason for an opportunist to be in the street. I can see that a child taken away from the house and left somewhere as punishment could be abducted.

Bingo.

If she thought he was abducted, she would not have asked the foster father if he had him.

Perfect.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Is it possible that she asked the question in desperation that he wandered off and had been picked up by FF? That may explain it. But again, they are on record as saying he isn't a wanderer.

Just as likely is that it immediately pushes the fact WT is missing and overcomes the uncomfortable conversation as to how that happened in her care. She half expected FF to have him, having to drive past his location. In the 10 minute window an opportunist arrives and takes William. Possible.

IF she took him to Batar Cr Rd to meet up with FF and he ran off and hid, her then going back to house, this scenario is much more likely to be accepted by FF than a death in her care followed by hiding the body.

What I know as fact is that dysfunctional parents can make ridiculous decisions that endanger the child..they act out of sheer hopeless frustration which isn't a rational mindset. Leaving a child unattended anywhere isn't rational but is possible as a discipline by a dysfunctional parent intent on trying anything to gain control

 

[Wallace52]

Is it possible that she asked the question in desperation that he wandered off and had been picked up by FF? That may explain it. But again, they are on record as saying he isn't a wanderer.

Just as likely is that it immediately pushes the fact WT is missing and overcomes the uncomfortable conversation as to how that happened in her care. She half expected FF to have him, having to drive past his location. In the 10 minute window an opportunist arrives and takes William. Possible.

IF she took him to Batar Cr Rd to meet up with FF and he ran off and hid, her then going back to house, this scenario is much more likely to be accepted by FF than a death in her care followed by hiding the body.

What I know as fact is that dysfunctional parents can make ridiculous decisions that endanger the child..they act out of sheer hopeless frustration which isn't a rational mindset. Leaving a child unattended anywhere isn't rational but is possible as a discipline by a dysfunctional parent intent on trying anything to gain control

Just as likely is that it immediately pushes the fact WT is missing and overcomes the uncomfortable conversation as to how that happened in her care.

Just moo; it’s perhaps just an awkward blame-shifting statement possibly designed to obscure but also communicate a horrible truth: He’s missing.


BBM

 

[Wallace52]

They didn't know they were under surveillance. Otherwise they wouldn't have incriminated themselves with the treatment of FD..The way GJ tags people to get them to talk also should have been revealing but wasn't.

These are powerful considerations for no involvement.

Maybe they just don’t talk about William? Like at all?

 

[Wallace52]

From senior constable WH statement - FM told her on the day William went missing the time he went missing ...."It was just before FF texted me around 1O.30am."
She is not hiding the fact that there was a text. Does her story change later that she did not see the text?

Yes, I would say so.

 

[31550]

Yes, I would say so.

Not necessarily. She may have looked at her phone between say the 000 call and the time WH interviewed her and then she would have noticed the text. Her story is that it was '5 minutes' before FF got home. So if she saw the 'home in 5' text on her phone, this might have had a timestamp as a reference point which she subsequently used.

So the story about her not seeing the text initially could well be true. But there are other parts of the story which did change over time, and cannot all be completely true - the three mysterious cars, her drive in FGM car, the sequence of events between William jumping off the deck and the 000 call. They do not fit the known facts or observations of independent witnesses.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Not necessarily. She may have looked at her phone between say the 000 call and the time WH interviewed her and then she would have noticed the text. Her story is that it was '5 minutes' before FF got home. So if she saw the 'home in 5' text on her phone, this might have had a timestamp as a reference point which she subsequently used.

So the story about her not seeing the text initially could well be true. But there are other parts of the story which did change over time, and cannot all be completely true - the three mysterious cars, her drive in FGM car, the sequence of events between William jumping off the deck and the 000 call. They do not fit the known facts or observations of independent witnesses.

The sequence is problematic. The last proof of life (ignoring the photo) was neighbours hearing the children before 9 and shortly after 9 (approx 9.15) We are told that bike riding happened first, game in garden, failed tree climb THEN they settled into verandah play for an extended time before WT went around corner.

The verandah picture has FD in her dressing gown AFTER the alleged bike riding in driveway. She most definately isn't dressed for bike riding. Rather that picture seems to be before the bike ride which coincidentally is more consistent with 7.37 time. Get up, verandah play, then more active pursuits

So we are led to believe bike riding THEN FD gets dressed in dressing gown afterwards. That is a red flag I'm afraid. Not impossible but odd

 

[Wallace52]

The sequence is problematic. The last proof of life (ignoring the photo) was neighbours hearing the children before 9 and shortly after 9 (approx 9.15) We are told that bike riding happened first, game in garden, failed tree climb THEN they settled into verandah play for an extended time before WT went around corner.

I think there’s too many activities that apparently occurred in such a short period of time.

The verandah picture has FD in her dressing gown AFTER the alleged bike riding in driveway. She most definately isn't dressed for bike riding. Rather that picture seems to be before the bike ride which coincidentally is more consistent with 7.37 time. Get up, verandah play, then more active pursuits

To me, the light looks like 7.37am but I am not an expert.

So we are led to believe bike riding THEN FD gets dressed in dressing gown afterwards. That is a red flag I'm afraid. Not impossible but odd

Some people like to wear a dressing gown when they are sick just to keep them warm and help them feel more cosy when they’re poorly.

 

[31550]

I think there’s too many activities that apparently occurred in such a short period of time.

To me, the light looks like 7.37am but I am not an expert.

Some people like to wear a dressing gown when they are sick just to keep them warm and help them feel more cosy when they’re poorly.

I can't believe we are still on the photos, but let's try one more time:

• The camera was set to Bali Time (2 hours behind AEST = 2 hours early). All the photos, including the 'Sunrise Show' photo were taken with the camera set to Bali time.
• If the verandah pics were actually taken at 7:39 AEST and not 9:37 AEST then the camera timestamp would have been 5:39AM. The timestamp on the verandah photos was ~7:37.
• For the verandah pics to be taken at 7:39, FM would have needed to set the camera to AEST and take the pics. Then the timestamp and the camera would have both been correct.
• When the camera was handed in, it was set to Bali time. So if FM had set it to AEST, this means she would have had to have set it back to Bali time after taking the series of verandah photos and before handing it over to police. This constitutes conspiracy, and also foreknowledge of what was about to happen to William - also a very risky practice. If you are planning to do away with someone and want to take photos as proof of life, you would set the camera to the correct time and leave it that way. This way you create a 'perfect alibi'.

- At 7:30AM the sun would not have been hitting that back verandah, which faces roughly North. It would have been in shade from the house itself. 9:30AM would be the time when the sun would start to directly shine on the verandah, providing a good time to go out there and draw and make cards etc, and for FGM to read the paper.

- FGM seems to have been in her dressing gown the whole time. She had recently been sick. FGM has no account of the bike riding and has stated she didn't witness the bike riding or the Mummy Monsters or the tree climbing - she did the dishes while this was happening, then she was present on the verandah, so she didn't leave the house itself until after FM went looking for William and hadn't returned for some time.

- Williams's sister is wearing a coat or jacket on the verandah, so it was still fairly cold. At 7:30 it would have been even colder - too cold and too dark to be on the verandah. Note William wanted to wear his Spiderman suit and FM insisted he put a singlet underneath. It wasn't warm, but William was warm enough in his Spiderman suit and barefoot on the verandah - indicating 9:30am not 7:30am.

 

[Wallace52]

I can't believe we are still on the photos, but let's try one more time:

• The camera was set to Bali Time (2 hours behind AEST = 2 hours early). All the photos, including the 'Sunrise Show' photo were taken with the camera set to Bali time.
• If the verandah pics were actually taken at 7:39 AEST and not 9:37 AEST then the camera timestamp would have been 5:39AM. The timestamp on the verandah photos was ~7:37.
• For the verandah pics to be taken at 7:39, FM would have needed to set the camera to AEST and take the pics. Then the timestamp and the camera would have both been correct.
• When the camera was handed in, it was set to Bali time. So if FM had set it to AEST, this means she would have had to have set it back to Bali time after taking the series of verandah photos and before handing it over to police. This constitutes conspiracy, and also foreknowledge of what was about to happen to William - also a very risky practice. If you are planning to do away with someone and want to take photos as proof of life, you would set the camera to the correct time and leave it that way. This way you create a 'perfect alibi'.

- At 7:30AM the sun would not have been hitting that back verandah, which faces roughly North. It would have been in shade from the house itself. 9:30AM would be the time when the sun would start to directly shine on the verandah, providing a good time to go out there and draw and make cards etc, and for FGM to read the paper.

- FGM seems to have been in her dressing gown the whole time. She had recently been sick. FGM has no account of the bike riding and has stated she didn't witness the bike riding or the Mummy Monsters or the tree climbing - she did the dishes while this was happening, then she was present on the verandah, so she didn't leave the house itself until after FM went looking for William and hadn't returned for some time.

- Williams's sister is wearing a coat or jacket on the verandah, so it was still fairly cold. At 7:30 it would have been even colder - too cold and too dark to be on the verandah. Note William wanted to wear his Spiderman suit and FM insisted he put a singlet underneath. It wasn't warm, but William was warm enough in his Spiderman suit and barefoot on the verandah - indicating 9:30am not 7:30am.

Thank you! It’s always good to have a refresh of the facts of the case.

• If you are planning to do away with someone and want to take photos as proof of life, you would set the camera to the correct time and leave it that way. This way you create a 'perfect alibi'.

Do you think he was killed on purpose or that it was planned?

 

[31550]

Do you think he was killed on purpose or that it was planned?

Neither.

 

[LRitz]

• For the verandah pics to be taken at 7:39, FM would have needed to set the camera to AEST and take the pics. Then the timestamp and the camera would have both been correct.

• At 7:30AM the sun would not have been hitting that back verandah, which faces roughly North. It would have been in shade from the house itself. 9:30AM would be the time when the sun would start to directly shine on the verandah, providing a good time to go out there and draw and make cards etc, and for FGM to read the paper.

What if the photos were taken later, say at 8:00 or 8:10 or ?? with a camera that the time was set to 7:39. I would think it would have been bright enough by around 8:00 to read outside.
The photo looks like there was a flash used, IMO. There is a light reflection ("catch light") in Williams eyes. Would you need a flash at 9:30?