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

 

[stormbird]

According to my source, a 'Police Officer at Port Macquarie command' , they were not actually considered suspects in the early part of the investigation at all. The focus was entirely on the biological family. This was a priveleged conversation I had with them well before Jubelin taking over. He (and his colleagues) were of the opinion that the senior investigating officer was incompetent, who got to where he was by pounding the flesh (a Politician ascending the ranks).

There was none of the normal activity to treat either Benaroon drive or even the FF home in Sydney as a crime scene, for months. This conversation I had with him started as I showed him something I picked up on the property across the street on google maps that looked odd. The house was put on the market as well soon after the disappearance. He was surprised I had picked this up as the location in Benaroon drive had not been identified at that stage. ( I just worked out where it was by the description.)

truecrimepath, if you're saying that you (as a civilian?) visited the police station in Port Macquarie to give them something you'd spotted on Google Maps and then whoever took your report told you that the foster family "were not actually considered suspects in the early part of the investigation at all. The focus was entirely on the biological family", I think that's not believable, no offence. That might be what the officer said to you, I just don't believe (my guess only) that the Mid North Coast LAC dismissed the fosters quickly: here's Supt Fehon quoted by the Daily Telegraph on 03 Jan 2015:

"Everyone involved in the case and even those not involved still remain a possibility as having something to do with what has occurred."

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...l/news-story/46b94ee67cf7e7c2cb4ba6a276388da8

Or are you talking about police from Sydney?

 

[31550]

For those that insist on me spoon feeding them about the following photo. It is taken between 9am and 9.30 am.
View attachment 2154273


Now look at the FGM walkthrough. It was not 2015 but up to a week following the disappearance. Look at the white furniture in the following video.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/n...illiam-Tyrrell-spent-final-going-missing.html

Does not prove that the still photo was taken at the same time. I think the still photo was taken much later.

 

[31550]

According to my source, a 'Police Officer at Port Macquarie command' , they were not actually considered suspects in the early part of the investigation at all. The focus was entirely on the biological family. This was a priveleged conversation I had with them well before Jubelin taking over. He (and his colleagues) were of the opinion that the senior investigating officer was incompetent, who got to where he was by pounding the flesh (a Politician ascending the ranks).

There was none of the normal activity to treat either Benaroon drive or even the FF home in Sydney as a crime scene, for months. This conversation I had with him started as I showed him something I picked up on the property across the street on google maps that looked odd. The house was put on the market as well soon after the disappearance. He was surprised I had picked this up as the location in Benaroon drive had not been identified at that stage. ( I just worked out where it was by the description.)

Agree totally that the early part of the investigation was inept and tunnel-visioned. No crime scene established. Evidence corrupted. No quarantine. No road blocks. People allowed to come and go as they pleased. Witnesses left to collaborate, share stories and observations. Too much elapsed time before proper statements were taken. Possible witnesses were never interviewed (No-one ever knocked on Ron Chapman's door and he was only a few blocks away).

 

[js47]

So, did you try driving say 2km, leaving the car running for 20-30 mins and driving back 2km?

Good point but that length of time some one would have driven past.
So far apart from the elusive truck driver there does not seem to be anyone.
If she went AFTER FF arrived home then that would be strange as FF had just driven past there. Why would she hang around for 20 minutes with the car running?

 

[Earls Smother]

What stands out for me in the Chapman walk-through is when a blue sedan drives down Laurel Street behind Ron while he's talking, he pauses when looking towards where that car has gone (the intersection with Batar Creek Road), as if he's thinking "Is that the second car?!" He doesn't say that, and doesn't explain why he pauses, he just looks towards the intersection for a few seconds... then resumes talking. He might have paused for any other reason too, obviously, but if he did stop to look at that blue car to consider what he was seeing, IMO he seems like a good observant witness. From about 7:40 minutes in the video "William Tyrrell inquest walkthrough with neighbour who saw two cars on day of disappearance", which is midway through the article in News.com.au, 31 Aug 2019:

https://www.news.com.au/national/ns...t/news-story/7fb2360c3f8f78958bc884ad7f179d63

Even if Ron's account is believable, the child in the first vehicle might not have been William though, and if Ron saw them at 10:45 am that's probably a long time after William was last seen at FGM's:

"Det Beacroft told the court she believes William disappeared between 10.05am and 10.15am."

- from a tweet by @LiaJHarris at an inquest hearing, 20 Aug 2019

Yes, it's very difficult for police in this situation.

What sort of person do you place more credence in? Is he reliable because he is a local, which means he notices things that are out of place? Or is he a bit likely to muddle things because he is of an age where that can happen?

Individuals here can claim to have ruled out what he thinks he saw, but that doesn't make it fact. So far he has been right though, when he says they won't find him looking in that forest.

 

[Lady O]

Nobody changed the 'created' time. SFR came up with a 'corrected' time after forensic analysis. We do know that police were given the photos and camera a day or two after William went missing, not on the actual day. Wendy Hudson reported seeing the photos on the 12th but I am not convinced she actually did. The time discrepancy was discussed at the first coronial inquest. SFR and council assisting the coroner accepted that the photos were taken at 9:37. This was questioned by William's father's legal representative. The coroner ordered further analysis of the photos to clarify this. But the position of SFR has not changed in ten years. They believe the photos were taken at 9:37, and that is not going to change now. This was also explained in Ally Chumley's book. I get that it is confusing and somewhat complicated, but really, if you take the time to understand how digital timestamps and EXIF data work, then I think you will find the explanation quite plausible and acceptable. You will also realise that deliberate manipulation of digital photo data by non-experts is quite difficult and easily detected and a dangerous thing to do if you are trying to deceive expert forensic investigators.

Sorry, yes I misspoke. I meant whoever added the 'corrected' time. So you are saying SFR did this and not the fosters? This makes it quite simple then. All you have to do is tell the Police that it was taken at 9.37 and they change it for you! Very convenient. No deception required, they just accept your word for it.

 

[31550]

Sorry, yes I misspoke. I meant whoever added the 'corrected' time. So you are saying SFR did this and not the fosters? This makes it quite simple then. All you have to do is tell the Police that it was taken at 9.37 and they change it for you! Very convenient. No deception required, they just accept your word for it.

Again I don't think you understand what is meant by 'corrected time'. It's a concept used by the investigators. It's not a piece of data which can be manipulated by anyone. Take the time to read the various sources which are available. This will avoid jumping to illogical conclusions.

 

[stormbird]

Yes, it's very difficult for police in this situation.

What sort of person do you place more credence in? Is he reliable because he is a local, which means he notices things that are out of place? Or is he a bit likely to muddle things because he is of an age where that can happen?

Individuals here can claim to have ruled out what he thinks he saw, but that doesn't make it fact. So far he has been right though, when he says they won't find him looking in that forest.

Re: "So far he has been right though, when he says they won't find him looking in that forest."

Earls Smother, I don't remember that. When did Ron say it and what was the context?

 

[truecrimepath]

truecrimepath, if you're saying that you (as a civilian?) visited the police station in Port Macquarie to give them something you'd spotted on Google Maps and then whoever took your report told you that the foster family "were not actually considered suspects in the early part of the investigation at all. The focus was entirely on the biological family", I think that's not believable, no offence. That might be what the officer said to you, I just don't believe (my guess only) that the Mid North Coast LAC dismissed the fosters quickly: here's Supt Fehon quoted by the Daily Telegraph on 03 Jan 2015:

"Everyone involved in the case and even those not involved still remain a possibility as having something to do with what has occurred."

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...l/news-story/46b94ee67cf7e7c2cb4ba6a276388da8

Or are you talking about police from Sydney?

December/Jan sounds about right, just after they started the renovations of their Sydney home,

No, a legally privileged conversation/discussion I had with a police officer from Port Macquarie LAC ( I am legally bound not to identify them, understand). It's not that they dismissed them, they did not even entertain the idea they could be involved. Little boy lost to abduction then it was opened up and other. I find it quite curious in the podcasts that the FM states the devices were seized when an insider tells me they were not until a significantly later time. That is what I was told by an insider. Mishandled completely. Why do you think the investigation is such a mess. Jubelin also refers to it.

 

[Earls Smother]

Re: "So far he has been right though, when he says they won't find him looking in that forest."

Earls Smother, I don't remember that. When did Ron say it and what was the context?

Nov 2021 interview with Brittany Chain, last paragraph.


'I may be an old man, but I'm not a blind man,' Mr Chapman, who is due to turn 83 next month, laughed.

'I'm still absolutely certain it was him. September 12 2014 is a day I will never forget.'

The retiree, who was born and raised in Kendall, told an inquest into William's disappearance and presumed death he was in the back seat of the gold or brown Landcruiser when it sped past his home about 10.45am the morning he vanished.

A second car was a short distance behind.

'The front of the car was by the gravel on the edge of the tarp,' a police walkthrough video shows Mr Chapman telling an officer.

In the seven years since William's disappearance, Mr Chapman claims he's 'never seen either car again'.

In a town as small as Kendall, home to just 1,141 residents, that is strange in and of itself.

'Everybody knows everybody here,' he said. 'I would've seen the cars again [if it was unrelated].'

If either car drove down his quiet street today, Mr Chapman is still confident he'd be able to identify them.

He recalled seeing the face of a boy in the back seat of the Landcruiser, unrestrained but not distressed, while windows in the second car were too tinted to see inside.

Mr Chapman shared this information with police years after he vanished, initially under the impression police were doing the rounds to speak with locals and would get to him when they had a chance.

In total, he gave detectives three detailed interviews sharing what he saw and a further two at a coronial inquiry in 2019.

Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame said she could not make a finding on the relevance of Mr Chapman's information or determine whether it was in fact William in the back seat.

Regardless of whether his testimony has in any way helped police, Mr Chapman is of the belief William's remains will not be found in the bush behind his late foster grandmother's home.

 

[js47]

Just a little bit of information.
In C Overington’s Book Missing William Page 280 in the copy I read she refers to Ron Chapman and Detective Beacrofts chat.
She asks him what his thoughts are about William’s FGM.
He told the detective that he would be kind about his comments.
He thought she was a ‘boss cocky’
He thought her word was law.
He thought that her husband was hen pecked.
I ask myself WHO was in charge of the narrative on the day William went missing.
The FGM may have not got it wrong. That might be why the FM’s narrative is sketchy.

 

[truecrimepath]

Just a little bit of information.
In C Overington’s Book Missing William Page 280 in the copy I read she refers to Ron Chapman and Detective Beacrofts chat.
She asks him what his thoughts are about William’s FGM.
He told the detective that he would be kind about his comments.
He thought she was a ‘boss cocky’
He thought her word was law.
He thought that her husband was hen pecked.
I ask myself WHO was in charge of the narrative on the day William went missing.
The FGM may have not got it wrong. That might be why the FM’s narrative is sketchy.

So why are police officers speaking to journalists? This is such a mess. The Coroner is going to hand down a report on the investigation and rightly so.

 

[truecrimepath]

truecrimepath, if you're saying that you (as a civilian?) visited the police station in Port Macquarie to give them something you'd spotted on Google Maps and then whoever took your report told you that the foster family "were not actually considered suspects in the early part of the investigation at all. The focus was entirely on the biological family", I think that's not believable, no offence. That might be what the officer said to you, I just don't believe (my guess only) that the Mid North Coast LAC dismissed the fosters quickly: here's Supt Fehon quoted by the Daily Telegraph on 03 Jan 2015:

"Everyone involved in the case and even those not involved still remain a possibility as having something to do with what has occurred."

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...l/news-story/46b94ee67cf7e7c2cb4ba6a276388da8

Or are you talking about police from Sydney?

watched the video, still concentrating on 'being lost in the bush' ... 3 months later. It is about then the Murder squad got involved and took over.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It's not a normal mother-son relationship.
But suppose there was an altercation and FM (or someone else) struck out at William or acted in some violent way which caused his death. There would be a period of time where those present would assess the situation, attempt resuscitation, think about what they were going to do etc. But this might only require 20 minutes or so. They are not going to stand around a dead 3YO boy doing nothing for 40 minutes! If the decision was made by the person or persons involved to 'cover-up' what had happened to avoid consequences, the plan might have only been put into action for a few minutes, when it was interrupted by the FF text message 'home in 5'. The plan may have been altered to protect FF from either knowing about the situation, or becoming an accessory to the situation. Maybe the plan was hastily changed at 10:30 to allow FM to return to the property to intercept FF?

Let's try reconstruct. You are now saying from FM testimony that the activities after after photos was 15 mim approx. That brings it to 9.52 am. The other time limit is now 10.40. The window is 48 mins assuming no lies

That imo remains logistically difficult especially because of knowing death, resuscitation, emotional trauma, logistical aspects to move.

For those that insist on me spoon feeding them about the following photo. It is taken between 9am and 9.30 am.
View attachment 2154273


Now look at the FGM walkthrough. It was not 2015 but up to a week following the disappearance. Look at the white furniture in the following video.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/n...illiam-Tyrrell-spent-final-going-missing.html

What? And the proof is inside your head? ....or in your expertise in applying sciences you aren't trained in?

Sorry TCP not good enough for me especially when you see shadows I can't even see let alone identify their direction....see sun shining on a dressing gown that to me is just blue.

No I'm not attacking you. This thread is postulating hypotheses for critical appraisal with evidence..none of what you've produced convinces me that the evidence you suggest exists actually does nor that it can be interpreted as you do. Sorry.

Maybe I'm wrong and you're right. And if you're proven right I'll be the first to apologise. Until then I'm not sold no matter how many lines you draw on a photo that represents proof in your head

 

[Earls Smother]

Just a little bit of information.
In C Overington’s Book Missing William Page 280 in the copy I read she refers to Ron Chapman and Detective Beacrofts chat.
She asks him what his thoughts are about William’s FGM.
He told the detective that he would be kind about his comments.
He thought she was a ‘boss cocky’
He thought her word was law.
He thought that her husband was hen pecked.
I ask myself WHO was in charge of the narrative on the day William went missing.
The FGM may have not got it wrong. That might be why the FM’s narrative is sketchy.

The information Ron provided is actually helpful to the Foster family's version of events.

The police would have some reason to be concerned if he was glowing in his praise for FGM i.e. he had some motive to try and assist her and her daughter out of some trouble.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

ARB who was the witness who saw FM driving. Is it someone other than the elusive truck driver? Do you have a source? I missed that.

Sorry. I've posted the link to article before just recently. I'll try find post number. It was allegedly a "witness that saw her driving in bush". I've assumed it was to Cobb & co because of focus there afterwards. The traffic analysis says that 41 cars per hour drive along BC Rd. Arguably there should be between 2 and 4 cars pass her in the short time (estimate 7 min) she would be there. She likely would be seen. The fact she made the elaborate story about a truck implies to me she was concerned about being seen so created story to cover herself.