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

 

[shorsky]

Ok thanks, maybe had asked about paper night before if she already knew he was going into town in the morning.

Uumm - that initially sounded feasible - until I remembered that they arrived around 9pm to a house occupied by an elderly woman who was recovering from ‘something’.

They no doubt had 2 sleeping children to be carried to bed (do I correctly recall early on that FGM said of FM call re arriving early - ‘she would do everything’.)
Were there beds to be made on arrival etc

Was FGM even awake / greeting them or did they try to creep in quietly.

There are so many unknowns - hopefully they’re only to us. Hopefully Investigation team have covered all of our questions & more ( if not, I have so many more bigger questions!)

 

[shorsky]

It's background, but not recent. That is all based on Jubelin's 2016 interview with FM which lasted 2.5 hours (including breaks), and covered not only the time between the photos and the 000 call, but also detailed background of the fosters and their relationship, and how William and his sister came into their care.

So, Jubelin probably spent under an hour on the actual critical timeline, and doesn't seem to have questioned FM at all about the drive. It's the drive which doesn't fit the timeline at all. Jubelin went over several possible scenarios, including balcony fall, driveway accident, etc. But neither of these would fit with the FM drive in her mother's car.

The sequence of events by ARB above seems about right to me, and the best explanation of why GO phone call went unanswered is that everyone was out on the driveway for bike riding or whatever around 9am.

FF had to have been gone for the bike riding, or there wouldn't have been room in the driveway. Makes sense that he unloaded the bikes before leaving, if he hadn't already done so the night before. But they wouldn't have been able to ride bikes if his car was still there.

Maybe FGM was doing dishes and didn't watch the bike riding. Maybe after William 'deliberately crashed his bike into the garden' and finished playing 'Mummy Monster', and refusing to climb the 'great climbing tree', then they all went inside via the back verandah to get set up for drawing and card making.

This explains the position of William's shoes - facing the house. He would have taken them off before going in, and they would have been placed on the verandah facing the door. This is how people place shoes when they are taken off before entering a house. When he went outside to do the drawing he was then barefoot, as per the photos.

Maybe they went outside again onto the verandah around 9:15 or 9:20am? This would be enough time for William to get bored with drawing, roll the dice incorrectly and start roaring like a tiger by 9:37.
Then something happens, but what?

There is nothing certain in the timeline until around 10:30am, but by then FM has taken her drive (I think) and FF has returned. It's about 40 minutes unexplained. It's also consistent with FGM saying she was out on the verandah for "about an hour" (from 9:20 to 10:20, at which time she says she went looking for FM). FGM is covering whatever happened by saying she was out there the whole time, but there's not enough activity to fill an hour IMO. Maybe she knew FM was gone for a while in her car, and made tea in anticipation of her return?

One question which has not been satisfactorily answered (IMO) is when and how William put his shoes on again? If he 'suddenly' jumped off the deck, then he didn't put them on himself. Yet, the shoes disappeared with William somehow.

Hope you forgive me for the breaking up of your comments - just my crazy processing.

I like your prepositions, suggestions and your time lines - except you’ve not provided a time from which it started - and I think that’s an important consideration

 

[31550]

Hope you forgive me for the breaking up of your comments - just my crazy processing.

I like your prepositions, suggestions and your time lines - except you’ve not provided a time from which it started - and I think that’s an important consideration

I think we have to take the 9:37 photos as proof of life, as they haven't been proven otherwise.
Sorry if this wasn't clear. So for me the critical timeline is between 9:30 and the police arrival at ~11:05am.

There are two agreed points in this timeline - the FF arrival back at FGM house around 10:30am, and the 000 call at 10:57.

I don't believe the FM drive can be logically and consistently explained within this timeline.
In Chumley's book she says the drive was after FM spoke to AMS, but that was around 10:40am as AMS could hear FF. There wouldn't have been time for FM to walk down and back up Benaroon, go for the drive, then be back to make the 000 call at 10:57am. Also, why take FGM car instead of FF car?

More likely for me the drive was made before FF returned. But this does not fit with 'only gone 5 minutes'.
And FM said she frantically searched the house and garden first - this puts William's 'disappearance' back much closer to the 9:37 timeline beginning - not 5 minutes but more like 40-45 minutes. That's not a mistake someone makes easily.

Solve the drive, and solve the timeline.

 

[js47]

I think I can clear up the tea discrepancy at least. First pot of tea with FM FGM L and William on patio.
As tea seams to be a ritual, when FF arrived home and there was a lot of ‘commotion’ the FGM may have taken FD inside and made tea. IMO there isn’t any thing sinister with tea drinking.

The car had to have been driven. Pol evidence of a ‘warm bonnet’. The BIG question HOW FAR WHERE WHY
AND WHEN?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I think we have to take the 9:37 photos as proof of life, as they haven't been proven otherwise.
Sorry if this wasn't clear. So for me the critical timeline is between 9:30 and the police arrival at ~11:05am.

There are two agreed points in this timeline - the FF arrival back at FGM house around 10:30am, and the 000 call at 10:57.

I don't believe the FM drive can be logically and consistently explained within this timeline.
In Chumley's book she says the drive was after FM spoke to AMS, but that was around 10:40am as AMS could hear FF. There wouldn't have been time for FM to walk down and back up Benaroon, go for the drive, then be back to make the 000 call at 10:57am. Also, why take FGM car instead of FF car?

More likely for me the drive was made before FF returned. But this does not fit with 'only gone 5 minutes'.
And FM said she frantically searched the house and garden first - this puts William's 'disappearance' back much closer to the 9:37 timeline beginning - not 5 minutes but more like 40-45 minutes. That's not a mistake someone makes easily.

Solve the drive, and solve the timeline.

In where's William Tyrrell podcast the drive happens before FF arrives back home.....hence the question "Do you have W?". 3 min there and then return..carry and hide. So all up has to be minimum 15 possibly 18 min which working backwards means 10.15 -10.20 when she set off.

That leaves 9.37 to 10.15/20 or 38/43 minutes to:

Find W dead / unconscious
Try to resuscitate
Resolve he is dead and not coming back
Deal with emotional effect
Decide to hide & resolve where
Grab shoes to throw or hide in house
Carry to car

And most importantly it's random chance when. It's illogical to think it happened immediately after 9.37 ...too convenient. Most people couldn't even deal with first 4 in that time let alone the practical effects of implementing. It is ridiculously tight. AND there was no time constraint because the time to report was her decision alone and could be easily delayed.

I really struggle to accept 9.37 for these reasons. Say he went around cnr at 9.45....a further 5 min to realise he's quiet then 3 minutes to find. The start time is then 9.53 to 10.15/20 to do that full list plus hide him in amongst the brush grappling with access, waiting for a break in traffic too. The trip and return is 6 min alone. it's improbable. The traffic analysis by Stormbird had many more cars than I thought along BC Rd. Did a calculation at time and worked out there would likely be 2-3 cars pass her whilst she was there. Perhaps one has come forward but not confirmed

It logistically doesn't add up.

 

[LRitz]

Just checking, did FGM say she didn’t see FF at all before he left? I thought she asked him to pick up the paper for her.

Did FGM see FF on Friday morning?
Depends who you listen to. Stories and narratives differ so I think IMO we have no idea. And IMO is pointless trying to solve this or try and be logical.

FM statement signed on 14 Sept (day3): 15. ......We had late breaky around 8:30......MFC had some toast with us and he was getting ready for his meeting. Mum also had breakfast with us. 16.MFC left the house around 9ish…….MFC was running a bit late.
FGM walkthrough ( discussed many times before) has FF leaving at 8:00.

They both can't be right. (Though he could have left early at 8:00 or before and come back and left again at 9:00 but this does not make sense either as FGM does not say she saw FF. Wasting time on too many what ifs IMO)

My thoughts only: FGM saying leaving at 8:00, was not sticking to the "party line" of departure around 9:00. Confusion? But her other intention was clear, that FF left and William was still at the house having breakfast - therefore William could not have left with FF, supporting FF alibi.

 

[31550]

In where's William Tyrrell podcast the drive happens before FF arrives back home.....hence the question "Do you have W?". 3 min there and then return..carry and hide. So all up has to be minimum 15 possibly 18 min which working backwards means 10.15 -10.20 when she set off.

That leaves 9.37 to 10.15/20 or 38/43 minutes to:

Find W dead / unconscious
Try to resuscitate
Resolve he is dead and not coming back
Deal with emotional effect
Decide to hide & resolve where
Grab shoes to throw or hide in house
Carry to car

And most importantly it's random chance when. It's illogical to think it happened immediately after 9.37 ...too convenient. Most people couldn't even deal with first 4 in that time let alone the practical effects of implementing. It is ridiculously tight. AND there was no time constraint because the time to report was her decision alone and could be easily delayed.

I really struggle to accept 9.37 for these reasons. Say he went around cnr at 9.45....a further 5 min to realise he's quiet then 3 minutes to find. The start time is then 9.53 to 10.15/20 to do that full list plus hide him in amongst the brush grappling with access, waiting for a break in traffic too. The trip and return is 6 min alone. it's improbable. The traffic analysis by Stormbird had many more cars than I thought along BC Rd. Did a calculation at time and worked out there would likely be 2-3 cars pass her whilst she was there. Perhaps one has come forward but not confirmed

It logistically doesn't add up.

If you accept that the drive happened BEFORE FF returns home, then how do you explain it? Surely you search the house and garden first? Then on foot down Benaroon drive. Then back to the house to get keys and car, tell FGM you are going. Then all the way to riding school and back, so that you are back to meet FF in the carport and ask him if he has William?
If the drive was before FF returns then there isn't time to "look for William" before the drive, which means she DIDN'T look for William, which means he didn't need looking for. IMO

 

[stormbird]

In case anyone hasn't seen the video "7th anniversary of William Tyrrell's disappearance" (5:06 minutes) - I don't know how to link to it directly but it's in News.com.au / NCA NewsWire, 12 Sep 2021.

The video shows detectives and a forensic services officer revisiting the "riding school" area (which the video calls Location #2). They're prominently examining satellite maps - which made me wonder whether that's where their new information had come from, leading to the Big Dig a few months later in Nov/Dec 2021. Otherwise... why are they making such a big deal about the maps?

IMO the Cobb & Co corner is not as open as the Witness podcast says. The buildings on nearby properties are quite a distance away and there are lots of trees around. But also the area does seem like a stupid place for a POI to be hiding evidence when there would have been better alternatives (including just going further along Cobb & Co Road).

 

[Angry Red Bull]

If you accept that the drive happened BEFORE FF returns home, then how do you explain it? Surely you search the house and garden first? Then on foot down Benaroon drive. Then back to the house to get keys and car, tell FGM you are going. Then all the way to riding school and back, so that you are back to meet FF in the carport and ask him if he has William?
If the drive was before FF returns then there isn't time to "look for William" before the drive, which means she DIDN'T look for William, which means he didn't need looking for. IMO

Sure. They knew. But they did run the abduction hoax as you outlined. That was the suggested sequence. if she met neighbours started searching down street and then came back to take car ( as was outlined) then she would already have started to bring attention to herself..WT was already loaded in car so that the confusion would hide she was actually going too far down road with her car. She can't have alerted either FGM or FD. Every step from that point was possibly scrutinized. An unexpected trip in her car incriminating. A car trip in plain sight for the intention of finding W perfect to hide the lie

And hidden by....." He cant possibly have come this far" silly me

Yes time was wrong which is why I struggled to accept 9.37

If the photo is wrong and she made a separate trip earlier then the second trip as part of hoax was to hide something like the shoes as afterthought

The critical thing is cadaver scent. At 97% accuracy if it was there at Cobb & co and also in car then slam dunk 9.37..if it wasn't as we are led to believe then much further away not in search zone and likely false times on edited photos. Simple pivot. For me the time is too tight for 9.37 to be possible but that's my opinion only

 

[31550]

Sure. They knew. But they did run the abduction hoax as you outlined. That was the suggested sequence. if she met neighbours started searching down street and then came back to take car ( as was outlined) then she would already have started to bring attention to herself..WT was already loaded in car so that the confusion would hide she was actually going too far down road with her car. She can't have alerted either FGM or FD. Every step from that point was possibly scrutinized. An unexpected trip in her car incriminating. A car trip in plain sight for the intention of finding W perfect to hide the lie

And hidden by....." He cant possibly have come this far" silly me

Yes time was wrong which is why I struggled to accept 9.37

If the photo is wrong and she made a separate trip earlier then the second trip as part of hoax was to hide something like the shoes as afterthought

So, I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your logic.
If the drive was before 10:30 then she 'knew' he wasn't just 'missing'? Do we agree on that?

So the purpose of the drive was therefore not to look for William, but something else? Do we agree on that, or do you think the drive never happened?

And if we agree so far, isn't it a simpler explanation, applying Occam's razor, that an accident or incident caused William's death after 9:37 and the drive was part of a coverup attempt, which took place between 9:40 and 10:30?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So, I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your logic.
If the drive was before 10:30 then she 'knew' he wasn't just 'missing'? Do we agree on that?

So the purpose of the drive was therefore not to look for William, but something else? Do we agree on that, or do you think the drive never happened?

And if we agree so far, isn't it a simpler explanation, applying Occam's razor, that an accident or incident caused William's death after 9:37 and the drive was part of a coverup attempt, which took place between 9:40 and 10:30?

I think it happened as I outlined above either

The drive wasn't to find W. Either it was to actually hide him ( already loaded in car) if 9.37bis correct or was to throw shoes away if it was earlier 9.37 being fake to get rid of shoes etc.. is a second trip

Occam's razor. I don't believe she had enough time between 9.53 say and 10.20 to know he's dead and deal with aftermath..Death of a child is a major thing. It's not something you rush if you don't need to

 

[stormbird]

In where's William Tyrrell podcast the drive happens before FF arrives back home.....hence the question "Do you have W?". 3 min there and then return..carry and hide. So all up has to be minimum 15 possibly 18 min which working backwards means 10.15 -10.20 when she set off.

That leaves 9.37 to 10.15/20 or 38/43 minutes to:

Find W dead / unconscious
Try to resuscitate
Resolve he is dead and not coming back
Deal with emotional effect
Decide to hide & resolve where
Grab shoes to throw or hide in house
Carry to car

And most importantly it's random chance when. It's illogical to think it happened immediately after 9.37 ...too convenient. Most people couldn't even deal with first 4 in that time let alone the practical effects of implementing. It is ridiculously tight. AND there was no time constraint because the time to report was her decision alone and could be easily delayed.

I really struggle to accept 9.37 for these reasons. Say he went around cnr at 9.45....a further 5 min to realise he's quiet then 3 minutes to find. The start time is then 9.53 to 10.15/20 to do that full list plus hide him in amongst the brush grappling with access, waiting for a break in traffic too. The trip and return is 6 min alone. it's improbable. The traffic analysis by Stormbird had many more cars than I thought along BC Rd. Did a calculation at time and worked out there would likely be 2-3 cars pass her whilst she was there. Perhaps one has come forward but not confirmed

It logistically doesn't add up.

Re traffic: post 8,062 (previous thread) or here's a link direct to the Traffic Impact Assessment that was in a development application.

Angry Red Bull: sorry, I meant to post the links when you mentioned them recently but forgot. The way that I get links to posts here when using an iphone is to hold (press?) the post number at the top-right corner of the post (e.g. #3,762 on this post) and choose "Copy Link".

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Re traffic: post 8,062 (previous thread) or here's a link direct to the Traffic Impact Assessment that was in a development application.

Angry Red Bull: sorry, I meant to post the links when you mentioned them recently but forgot. The way that I get links to posts here when using an iphone is to hold (press?) the post number at the top-right corner of the post (e.g. #3,762 on this post) and choose "Copy Link".

Thank you kindly. I'm prehistoric. But can learn stuff.

 

[31550]

I think it happened as I outlined above either

The drive wasn't to find W. Either it was to actually hide him ( already loaded in car) if 9.37bis correct or was to throw shoes away if it was earlier 9.37 being fake to get rid of shoes etc.. is a second trip

Occam's razor. I don't believe she had enough time between 9.53 say and 10.20 to know he's dead and deal with aftermath..Death of a child is a major thing. It's not so something you rush if you don't need to

I agree that in the case of an accident (e.g. accidental fall from the balcony), then there would be a much longer period while assessing injuries etc, and the natural reaction would be to seek assistance rather than hide anything. Even in the case of accidental, immediate death, the immediate reaction would not be to cover up.

So, IMO, more likely explanation is that it wasn't a pure accident. Perhaps William was pushed off the balcony, or perhaps he was struck. A punishment gone too far, or an over-reaction to his behaviour? Then, the immediate reaction is, "He's dead - how am I going to explain this? It's XXX fault, so I need to move him somewhere that either he won't be found, OR XXX cannot be implicated. This conclusion only takes a few minutes. But she may not have left until around 10:20. Perhaps the plan was to move him further away, but FM was interrupted by FF's "home in 5" text? Then there is the problem that possibly someone saw the drive, so it is explained away as "looking for William"?

 

[31550]

Re traffic: post 8,062 (previous thread) or here's a link direct to the Traffic Impact Assessment that was in a development application.

Angry Red Bull: sorry, I meant to post the links when you mentioned them recently but forgot. The way that I get links to posts here when using an iphone is to hold (press?) the post number at the top-right corner of the post (e.g. #3,762 on this post) and choose "Copy Link".

Interesting. Traffic data is from 4 years after William disappeared, at which time there was significantly more development along BCR. Also, very little traffic on BCR beyond Benaroon Drive. On a Friday morning in 2014 it's conceivable that no more than one or two vehicles would go past the riding school area during a 30-minute window. That's how I read it anyway.?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

⁸

Interesting. Traffic data is from 4 years after William disappeared, at which time there was significantly more development along BCR. Also, very little traffic on BCR beyond Benaroon Drive. On a Friday morning in 2014 it's conceivable that no more than one or two vehicles would go past the riding school area during a 30-minute window. That's how I read it anyway.?

Between 8 and 9 41 Vehicles total north bound or southbound on BC Rd ..she would have been there parked for approx 7 minutes...A car every 1' 30" approx .so there should have been 4 vehicles passed by whilst there all things being equal. Even allowing lack of symmetry in flow there still would be perhaps 2 cars.

She chose a conspicuous place. It must have been to possibly use the cover of a car hit and run.

 

[js47]

In case anyone hasn't seen the video "7th anniversary of William Tyrrell's disappearance" (5:06 minutes) - I don't know how to link to it directly but it's in News.com.au / NCA NewsWire, 12 Sep 2021.

The video shows detectives and a forensic services officer revisiting the "riding school" area (which the video calls Location #2). They're prominently examining satellite maps - which made me wonder whether that's where their new information had come from, leading to the Big Dig a few months later in Nov/Dec 2021. Otherwise... why are they making such a big deal about the maps?

IMO the Cobb & Co corner is not as open as the Witness podcast says. The buildings on nearby properties are quite a distance away and there are lots of trees around. But also the area does seem like a stupid place for a POI to be hiding evidence when there would have been better alternatives (including just going further along Cobb & Co Road).

The maps have GPS so they can record where they are and what grid has been searched probably

 

[LRitz]

Sure. They knew. But they did run the abduction hoax as you outlined. That was the suggested sequence. if she met neighbours started searching down street and then came back to take car ( as was outlined) then she would already have started to bring attention to herself..WT was already loaded in car so that the confusion would hide she was actually going too far down road with her car. She can't have alerted either FGM or FD. Every step from that point was possibly scrutinized. An unexpected trip in her car incriminating. A car trip in plain sight for the intention of finding W perfect to hide the lie

And hidden by....." He cant possibly have come this far" silly me

Yes time was wrong which is why I struggled to accept 9.37

If the photo is wrong and she made a separate trip earlier then the second trip as part of hoax was to hide something like the shoes as afterthought

The critical thing is cadaver scent. At 97% accuracy if it was there at Cobb & co and also in car then slam dunk 9.37..if it wasn't as we are led to believe then much further away not in search zone and likely false times on edited photos. Simple pivot. Fir me the time is too tight for 9.37 to be possible but that's my opinion only

Do we disregard altogether all of FGM's walkthrough? (The longer version was posted previously.) FGM looks well and gives lots of detail and good short term memory. It is just days after so I think closer to the event would be more accurate. FGM says she follows FM immediately down the side of the house to the road and sees (surprisingly) neighbour AM. Did FGM still have on her blue slippers. If this happened AM would be looking out for William and you would think would see FGM's car being driven. But AM said she was approached only later by FM and FF was already back. IMO this is not confusion but deliberate obfuscation IMO. ARB did you mention "hoax".

 

[LRitz]

From memory, I think some article somewhere said or showed the area of interest was about where the "MFC" is written on the fire trail in the Sep 2014 ma
caption: "A map of homes around Benaroon Drive, where William Tyrrell went missing, which was tendered at the inquest." From News.com.au, 31 March 2019

Interesting. It does remind us that the area was both a search area for a lost child and also a potential crime scene. The police had a balancing act. But as the fosters must have been on the list of suspects from the start, maybe FF should have been excluded from the search. Not to judge, hindsight makes us all experts.

 

[js47]

FGM walk through, ‘…and this is where it happened’.
Why not we were all out here William ran around the corner and that is what happened’ for me.

FM may have gone for a drive to head FF off before he got home. She had alerted neighbours. She may have headed towards Kendall but then turned around and waited near Cob and B Roads no one saw her.

If people saw her that is an alibi.

As for the shoes FF was looking for them on the track (walk through) he was told not to go to by pol. Alles.

 

[Lady O]

So, I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your logic.
If the drive was before 10:30 then she 'knew' he wasn't just 'missing'? Do we agree on that?

So the purpose of the drive was therefore not to look for William, but something else? Do we agree on that, or do you think the drive never happened?

And if we agree so far, isn't it a simpler explanation, applying Occam's razor, that an accident or incident caused William's death after 9:37 and the drive was part of a coverup attempt, which took place between 9:40 and 10:30?

If you apply Occams Razor to the problem, the obvious answer is that the photos were taken at 7.37 as per the time on the camera, not the corrected time.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Do we disregard altogether all of FGM's walkthrough? (The longer version was posted previously.) FGM looks well and gives lots of detail and good short term memory. It is just days after so I think closer to the event would be more accurate. FGM says she follows FM immediately down the side of the house to the road and sees (surprisingly) neighbour AM. Did FGM still have on her blue slippers. If this happened AM would be looking out for William and you would think would see FGM's car being driven. But AM said she was approached only later by FM and FF was already back. IMO this is not confusion but deliberate obfuscation IMO. ARB did you mention "hoax".

When you have doubt about evidence you gravitate to that which you can accept and won't be polluted. The independent neighbours accounts.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

AMS testified that she was outside her house when approached by FM who was visibly upset and said words to the effect "he's either hit his head and cant hear me or he's been taken".

That is consistent with FGM walkthrough .Interesting the choice of words though. You would KNOW if your son had hit his head of not and likewise whether that caused hearing loss. Very incriminating remark. Also Incriminating that the first choice is either of those and NOT be has wandered off!!!