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

 

[BFew]

We will know either way - soon enough.

Surely if would be easier to secure a conviction in this case, if the window of opportunity for it was very short and at a specific time, based on alleged/claimed proof of life photos?

 

[BFew]

If Rosann now believe the photos are faked they have a duty to report this publicly otherwise Rosann themselves are perverting the course of justice.

You are kidding us aren't you?

 

[Wallace52]

Would they have had to give FP’s Lawyer as she requested the apparent evidence they have or can they withhold that until the inquest (or parts of it?)

Not until they charge her, which they haven’t done. Yet.

 

[Wallace52]

there are orders protecting L, which by extension, protect the bio family to some extent -

No, the bio family has no protection. The laws only protect the kids who are in care, and their foster carers.
What laws would protect the biological family of William Tyrrell? There are none in place that I know of.

not to the extent that they protect the fosters. There are also orders which prevent the bios commenting on certain things, so even if they were interviewed, they would not be allowed (legally) to say certain things publicly.

I think that if they said things that they were not allowed to say, then surely the Witness podcast producers would just edit those portions out?
IMO

There is also such a thing as 'natural justice' - people are entitled to live their lives freely.

I don’t think that natural justice means that people are entitled to live their lives freely.

Look at what the press in the UK did to Princess Diana. She wasn’t allowed to live her life freely.

The only people here that are protected are the foster parents. And the child with the AVO protecting that child.

IMO

 

[31550]

You are kidding us aren't you?

No. The police have presented these photos to the coroner as evidence. IIF they now know the photos are faked they have committed perjury. Note I don't believe this is the case. I just said IF. The suggestion that Rosann believe or have evidence that the photos are faked was made by someone else. I don't think they do. I think Rosann believe the photos are genuine.

 

[Wallace52]

I wonder if bio grandma Natalie Collins would have a case for stalk intimidate against Dan Box and News Corps, as she was contacted by 3 different reporters / producers for interviews from the Witness podcast, and they went door-knocking various Tyrrell family members to try to find Karlie, but to no avail.

What’s the point at which it becomes stalking? Honestly? I’m just wondering.

When you listen to Episode 2, it becomes clear that Natalie wouldn’t talk to Dan, so Nina Young called her. Nina has what seems like zero empathy (no offence Nina- and we are not trying to say that the lack of empathy is hereditary or anything….) so Nat didn’t want to deal with her. So then Emily rang Nat and tried again. Do Emily and Nina even have Press Passes? I know Dan would as he is an actual journalist.

Like, at what point do they stop? And how many houses did they letterbox and door knock looking for KT?

I’ve heard of journos being dragged into the local police station for questioning on possible charges of stalk/intimidate for one house approach, just one. And that was for a suspect who did not have a non publication order.

At what point do law-enforcement step in and actually help to keep the community safe in this respect, and William’s bio family members are actual members of the community who deserve to have quiet enjoyment of their own properties and residences don’t they? And they don’t deserve to be harassed via a carriage service, do they?

IMO it’s getting a bit out of hand.

 

[Underarrest_]

Not until they charge her, which they haven’t done. Yet.

Yes I assume some of that evidence will come out in the inquest?

 

[Underarrest_]

I wonder if bio grandma Natalie Collins would have a case for stalk intimidate against Dan Box and News Corps, as she was contacted by 3 different reporters / producers for interviews from the Witness podcast, and they went door-knocking various Tyrrell family members to try to find Karlie, but to no avail.

What’s the point at which it becomes stalking? Honestly? I’m just wondering.

When you listen to Episode 2, it becomes clear that Natalie wouldn’t talk to Dan, so Nina Young called her. Nina has what seems like zero empathy (no offence Nina- and we are not trying to say that the lack of empathy is hereditary or anything….) so Nat didn’t want to deal with her. So then Emily rang Nat and tried again. Do Emily and Nina even have Press Passes? I know Dan would as he is an actual journalist.

Like, at what point do they stop? And how many houses did they letterbox and door knock looking for KT?

I’ve heard of journos being dragged into the local police station for questioning on possible charges of stalk/intimidate for one house approach, just one. And that was for a suspect who did not have a non publication order.

At what point do law-enforcement step in and actually help to keep the community safe in this respect, and William’s bio family members are actual members of the community who deserve to have quiet enjoyment of their own properties and residences don’t they? And they don’t deserve to be harassed via a carriage service, do they?

IMO it’s getting a bit out of hand.

Totally. It was pestering until they got what they wanted.

 

[Underarrest_]

The answer is no. The coroner will call whatever witnessed she wants. None of them will receive any evidence of other witnesses until the inquest. This includes the police. Nobody is on trial.

Yes I know no one is on trial. FM or anyone else hasn’t been charged.
Thank you. Will be an interesting inquest.

 

[Wallace52]

Yes I assume some of that evidence will come out in the inquest?

Well, if they have any!

 

[Wallace52]

You are kidding us aren't you?

Surely he is.

 

[Lady O]

The one thing that supports your thoughts about the photos is that police dogs found no scent on the property which is very strange if he’d walked from the car to the house that night (maybe he was asleep and carried) or played at all in the front/back yard/patio, or was it the way police worded it (that they’d not picked up his scent other than where they know he’d been seen?)

I know it was reported early in the search that the Police dogs found no scent of WT. However, this was later clarified and the dog had not found any scent OFF the property.

"Police dogs were brought to the scene shortly after William disappeared in 2014 and they detected his scent but only within the property's boundaries."

These are the special techniques police are using in their search for William Tyrrell

Officers are using a combination of technologies to try and make a breakthrough in one of Australia's most high-profile police investigations — the disappearance of the little boy in a Spider-Man suit.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Underarrest_]

I know it was reported early in the search that the Police dogs found no scent of WT. However, this was later clarified and the dog had not found any scent OFF the property.

"Police dogs were brought to the scene shortly after William disappeared in 2014 and they detected his scent but only within the property's boundaries."

These are the special techniques police are using in their search for William Tyrrell

Officers are using a combination of technologies to try and make a breakthrough in one of Australia's most high-profile police investigations — the disappearance of the little boy in a Spider-Man suit.

www.abc.net.au

Ok thanks that makes more sense.

 

[Underarrest_]

Well, if they have any!

Might be a bombshell dropped.
Or maybe not. Have to wait and see.

 

[31550]

Might be a bombshell dropped.
Or maybe not. Have to wait and see.

Why would they sit on bombshell evidence and not lay criminal charges?

 

[Underarrest_]

Why would they sit on bombshell evidence and not lay criminal charges?

That’s my big question.

 

[js47]

I think there are also questions to ask about the potential view from FGM's towards that house and yard.

There was a swing set and a cubby or garden shed in the backyard at No.52. See FF's walk-through:

Daily Mail, YouTube from 2:08 minutes


FF indicates he checked the swings/possible-cubby area while making his way around the boundary, but I think it's strange he didn't go there first. IMO it's the most obvious place a child might want to go to if that area could be seen from FGM's.

FM said she thought William might have been attracted to a play area at a neighbour's place (I think she means Anne Maree S's at No.31):

Interview by Chris Smith, 2GB, 18 Sep 2015, YouTube from 4:33 minutes

But did FM check the swings right next door to FGM's at No.52 before running down the hill to the properties along the lower part of Benaroon Drive? I haven't found anything saying she did.

Maybe the swings/possible-cubby area at No.52 couldn't be seen from FGM's and none of them knew about it.

But then, why did No.52 have swings? Were there kids living there? grandkids visiting occasionally? foster kids? Had William ever played over there, such that even if he couldn't see the swings from FGM's he might have remembered where they were?

What if William was not the target BIG IF he was abducted?

 

[js47]

I think it would make sense that if William had walked a little away he could have seen the cubby/swings or as you said, had he had interactions there before?
Did he have swings at his house in Sydney which made it seem normal to go towards them?
FF said he was assuming he would more go downhill which is probably right, unless there’s something drawing him uphill.
I only mention it because I’ve seen a lot of media coverage of one side of the house which runs downhill to the road but none of the back house and how that leads out to the other part of the road.

I ask myself did FF lead the detective away from the swings down hill?

 

[Underarrest_]

I ask myself did FF lead the detective away from the swings down hill?

It did appear he fobbed the idea that William would have gone that way off.
I’d hope police did a proper search of that property themselves and with sniffer dogs. I feel they were concentrating more on the forest though.
The one thing in FF’s favour is that he said the caravan was locked. If he was bunging the whole search thing on would he have gone to the trouble to try and look in the caravan and know it was locked? (Unless he didn’t know at this time that something else happened.)

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Were they there for the funeral, including William and L as you suggest? Why would they go for the funeral and be playing on the verandah, with FGM in her slippers at midday as you suggest? Staying overnight with two young children would be very inconvenient for a grieving FGM.

I am making no claims, therefore I have nothing to justify. I am just positioning your assertion (that the photo was taken Nov-Feb 2013) against the other evidence in the case. That is your assertion, not mine. But if it is true, then everything else I asked you about must also be true: the second Spiderman suit, keeping all the toys and materials, furniture on the verandah etc. etc. Because FM claims the entire set of photographs were taken 12 Sep 2014, and police investigated and photographed the scene, so they could easily compare the furniture, clothing, toys etc. to confirm it was the same in their photographs as in FMs photographs. Is this what you are asserting or not?
Are you also asserting that FM or an accomplice expertly manipulated the EXIF data on those photographs including Creation Date, and this has not been detected by Rosann? Do you know of any witness who saw William at Opa's funeral, or in Kendall around that time of year wearing a Spiderman suit? Where do you believe this 'November 2013' Spiderman suit was purchased, given that it has been alleged that that particular suit is not readily available in Australia, and the fosters said it was purchased in Bali in July or August 2014?

You are inelastic on one thing alone ie that EXIF data wouldn't have been edited without detection. There is some merit for that thinking given that the most likely course would have been edits using a computer and software which should have produced a detectable footprint especially as those edits must have arisen in the days following disappearance..

In contrast, my acceptance of the edits is mandated by the fact I simply can't conceive it be done by FPs who are showing Consciousness of Guilt behaviours and witness statement leakages, in the time promoted ....between 9.40 and 10.20..and that's assuming the disappearance happened right after the photos which is highly convenient logistically..Had it happened randomly any time distant to the 9.37 time then it becomes impossible from time perspective. So because I accept all the witness statement leakages and alleged consciousness of guilt lies as advocating FPs alleged involvement the only way I can move forward is to accept it did happen and wasn't detected. But I understand where you stand and why.

It's rather ironic that you are being accused of inflexible confirmation bias by the poster holding easily the most radical view of how this crime unfolded which itself mandates inflexible confirmation bias in its origin. That irony amuses me....

 

[Wallace52]

Why would they sit on bombshell evidence and not lay criminal charges?

There’s a lot of reasons why they might do this.

 

[31550]

You are inelastic on one thing alone ie that EXIF data wouldn't have been edited without detection. There is some merit for that thinking given that the most likely course would have been edits using a computer and software which should have produced a detectable footprint especially as those edits must have arisen in the days following disappearance..

In contrast, my acceptance of the edits is mandated by the fact I simply can't conceive it be done by FPs who are showing Consciousness of Guilt behaviours and witness statement leakages, in the time promoted ....between 9.40 and 10.20..and that's assuming the disappearance happened right after the photos which is highly convenient logistically..Had it happened randomly any time distant to the 9.37 time then it becomes impossible from time perspective. So because I accept all the witness statement leakages and alleged consciousness of guilt lies as advocating FPs alleged involvement the only way I can move forward is to accept it did happen and wasn't detected. But I understand where you stand and why.

It's rather ironic that you are being accused of inflexible confirmation bias by the poster holding easily the most radical view of how this crime unfolded which itself mandates inflexible confirmation bias in its origin. That irony amuses me....

I'm interested primarily in evidence which is provable beyond reasonable doubt in court.

I have always maintained that if it can be proven that the photos were deliberately manipulated then this case becomes a 'slam dunk' for police, as the whole narrative falls apart, and the timeline needs to be thrown out the window. The photo manipulation itself becomes a serious crime, and the motivation for tampering with the photos indicates guilt of something even more serious.

On the other hand, if the photos cannot be shown to be manipulated, then they must be accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt that William was alive, dressed in a Spiderman suit on the verandah at 9:37am. Any theory or timeline must allow for this evidence.

It's a binary decision IMO.

I agree that there is certainly plenty of 'red flags' in people's behaviour, testimony, choice of words etc. but I don't see any of these things as 'irrefutable proof'. I know about things such as 'leakage' but will they hold up in a court of law? Unlikely.

The other likely significant piece of evidence is the FM's admission that she drove FGMs car that morning. It doesn't fit with any known theory or timeline which can be logically constructed. We don't know exactly when, where, why or even IF she went on that drive. Doesn't make sense to me, and if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true.

 

[js47]

That’s my big question.

The may have ‘bombshell evidence’ but it might not be strong enough to to lay charges perhaps.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm interested primarily in evidence which is provable beyond reasonable doubt in court.

I have always maintained that if it can be proven that the photos were deliberately manipulated then this case becomes a 'slam dunk' for police, as the whole narrative falls apart, and the timeline needs to be thrown out the window. The photo manipulation itself becomes a serious crime, and the motivation for tampering with the photos indicates guilt of something even more serious.

On the other hand, if the photos cannot be shown to be manipulated, then they must be accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt that William was alive, dressed in a Spiderman suit on the verandah at 9:37am. Any theory or timeline must allow for this evidence.

It's a binary decision IMO.

I agree that there is certainly plenty of 'red flags' in people's behaviour, testimony, choice of words etc. but I don't see any of these things as 'irrefutable proof'. I know about things such as 'leakage' but will they hold up in a court of law? Unlikely.

The other likely significant piece of evidence is the FM's admission that she drove FGMs car that morning. It doesn't fit with any known theory or timeline which can be logically constructed. We don't know exactly when, where, why or even IF she went on that drive. Doesn't make sense to me, and if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true.

There are actually 3 alternatives regarding photos.. That they were proven correct.. That they were proven incorrect.and become COG evidence..That it is accepted that edits can be made without detection. Then the photos aren't proof of life at all because they can be manipulated. It becomes uncorroborated evidence from the very people you expect were involved.

There have been videos provided that say it's relatively easy to edit..at one stage I even put a forensic guys assertion edits are impossible to detect if in possession of people who did them. I don't think it's necessarily black and white like that but I remain convinced that IF FPs were involved it could only be with those edits. If they weren't it was abduction.

 

[31550]

If they weren't it was abduction.

Why not 'accident'/coverup?