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

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I have seen many discussion regarding time of photo. I really don't know, and I have just let everyone else slog it out. My suggestion was for someone to go to the house around the 12th Sept on sunny and cloudy days and take a few snaps. I am not suggesting were the light source was from, or angle or height. But why not a small weak flash close enough to just impact Williams eyes. The light would not be strong enough to light up the whole area. Some of those camera flashes are a rectangle shape built into the camera. I can see the roof reflection in the windows, not sure of the significance. i can see shadows of the table legs and the pink drink bottle which all seem to correspond to me. I think it would be quite bright at that time of year from 7:30 onwards. Drink Bottle - SH for shadow and R for reflection. It is clearly a reflection on the shiny deck as you can also see the colours of the bottle. The main light is brighter on Williams left side of his face (i.e the right side of the photo as you look at it). His right cheek is in a bit of a shadow.

Edit: sorry somehow my attached files are added to yours. Told you Im not IT.

I've pointed out previously that there is strong shadow from planter stand legs back toward the photographer which can only arise from the light on wall direction of that back wall just off verandah where we located what appears as a light high on wall. I suspect it was on and created those shadows and may also have been the unnatural light source detected with water bottle.

Yes I firmly believe that light was on and reflecting on wall and affecting shadows on verandah itself

There is another such light (matching to that one) that was just above the clothes line off the verandah in opposite direction. I have no idea whether it was on but given the other one possibly was you wonder whether that one also was on too

Of course these being on, if they were, contributes to the narrative of time being earlier than 9.37. Earlier more gloomy put outside lights on. Possible.

All this has been provided in my responses to TCP already which inexplicably have been ignored instead preferring to suddenly NOW find an unnatural light source or two on that back verandah where before he has insisted there were none. If he had confirmed what I had deduced it would make obvious the blatant deficiencies of his total light direction shadow analysis....which for purposes of vanity he simply can't do.

I don't care about vanity or who may be right or wrong. I care about solving the case and whosoever can contribute credible evidence to that end.

People who are disingenuous whilst simultaneously seeking to maintain an aura of superiority p*ss me off. Want to ridicule me directly TCP? and I'll call you an arrogant narcissistic fool to your face. Grow up

My mother has been admitted to hospital yesterday with 3 separate TIAs (which I presume you know about TCP being a neurosurgeon) so I'm in no mood to deal with DHs

 

[Wallace52]

I've pointed out previously that there is strong shadow from planter stand legs back toward the photographer which can only arise from the light on wall direction of that back wall just off verandah where we located what appears as a light high on wall. I suspect it was on and created those shadows and may also have been the unnatural light source detected with water bottle.

Yes I firmly believe that light was on and reflecting on wall and affecting shadows on verandah itself

There is another such light (matching to that one) that was just above the clothes line off the verandah in opposite direction. I have no idea whether it was on but given the other one possibly was you wonder whether that one also was on too

Of course these being on, if they were, contributes to the narrative of time being earlier than 9.37. Earlier more gloomy put outside lights on. Possible.

All this has been provided in my responses to TCP already which inexplicably have been ignored instead preferring to suddenly NOW find an unnatural light source or two on that back verandah where before he has insisted there were none. If he had confirmed what I had deduced it would make obvious the blatant deficiencies of his total light direction shadow analysis....which for purposes of vanity he simply can't do.

I don't care about vanity or who may be right or wrong. I care about solving the case and whosoever can contribute credible evidence to that end.

People who are disingenuous whilst simultaneously seeking to maintain an aura of superiority p*ss me off. Want to ridicule me directly TCP? and I'll call you an arrogant narcissistic fool to your face. Grow up

My mother has been admitted to hospital yesterday with 3 separate TIAs (which I presume you know about TCP being a neurosurgeon) so I'm in no mood to deal with DHs

I’m very sorry to hear about your mum.

And it takes years of researching this case to even start to understand it. You’ve been looking at this case for a very long time and your thoughts and views carry a lot of weight (to me) because you know just about as much as it’s possible to know (as a non law enforcement person).

 

[alwaysintrigued]

alwaysintrigued, if you were at the inquest when Snr Cst Rowley was on the stand, can you remember whether he said anything about the temperature of cars or tea cups (or anything else he might have checked that showed whether the cars or cups had been used recently)? Thank you.

Not that I re-call.

 

[31550]

alwaysintrigued, if you were at the inquest when Snr Cst Rowley was on the stand, can you remember whether he said anything about the temperature of cars or tea cups (or anything else he might have checked that showed whether the cars or cups had been used recently)? Thank you.

The other critical piece of forensic evidence available immediately at the crime scene (besides the warm tea cups and warm car bonnet) was the wound on FMs hand.
Did police ever examine it to confirm that it was a scratch from vegetation or a graze from a fall, and not a bite mark from a 3YO's mouth, or some sort of defensive wound? I think not.
This is just another piece of direct forensic immutable evidence discarded way too early IMO.
It would have given a true indication of whether there was perhaps some sort of physical altercation between FM and another person, possibly William.
A good cop would spot things like this which are out of the ordinary.
They would count the dishes in the sink, look at knives and forks, cups and glasses to determine how many ate breakfast. Examine the contents of the rubbish bins, laundry hampers. Look in the bathroom for wet / dirty towels, pill containers, etc. Immediately look at phones and computers. Take detailed photos of the verandah and surrounding areas.
How much of this was actually done, and what were the results?

 

[Kurve]

Why not just say, ‘his shoes are here, he obviously didn’t have them on’ ??

It would have been a different kind of investigation from the start if he'd had no shoes on. He wouldn't have even made it to the road on that block with no shoes on.

Also its my understanding that Const Rowley was there very quickly after the 000 call so I doubt there was time for her to drive off ( unseen) then

There's a discussion about this in Part 1, the FM said she went out in the car after the alarms were raised he was missing. Nobody appears to have seen her then but she probably did because she'd have assumed she was seen. That car drive was not to remove William it was for some other reason.

If William was removed by her, it was before the alarms went up.

Therefore, she drove out twice.

 

[31550]

It would have been a different kind of investigation from the start if he'd had no shoes on. He wouldn't have even made it to the road on that block with no shoes on.



There's a discussion about this in Part 1, the FM said she went out in the car after the alarms were raised he was missing. Nobody appears to have seen her then but she probably did because she'd have assumed she was seen. That car drive was not to remove William it was for some other reason.

If William was removed by her, it was before the alarms went up.

Therefore, she drove out twice.

There was no time between FF return (10:35) and the 000 call for a drive. FM went to see AMS, then down Benaroon and back on foot. (Supposedly also searched the house - 'we've looked everywhere') before dialling 000 at 10:54. FM statement says it was while she was searching the front yard for William she received the 'home in 5' text.

So the 'first' drive (if there was more than one) must have been before FFs return (confirmed by warm car bonnet). Which proves it was not 'looking for William'. Why else drive to the riding school before searching the garden and street?

If there was a second drive it was after police arrived. A risky thing to do if you are disposing of evidence. So I am skeptical about there being a second drive. It's the first drive which is very suspicious.

But agree the question about shoes is also suspicious. Why no answer? Or was the answer edited out of the 000 recording. It sounds like the question 'triggered' something with FM. If she had moved the body in the drive perhaps she did forget the shoes? They may have been hidden somewhere quickly before Rowley arrived. As indicated above I don't think an extensive search of the house was done on the day - they looked for William but not for other evidence. (FF might have easily disposed of shoes the next morning while he was out 'looking for William on his own'). Also the throwaway comment from FF in his walkthrough - "he may have lost a shoe" is supicious.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I’m very sorry to hear about your mum.

And it takes years of researching this case to even start to understand it. You’ve been looking at this case for a very long time and your thoughts and views carry a lot of weight (to me) because you know just about as much as it’s possible to know (as a non law enforcement person).

Thank you kindly. Heart on sleeve sad ATM. Hopefully ok

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Did a further test in my car. The heat gauge takes only about 8 min to rise to mid position which then takes 1 hour to dissipate parked off and in shade.

 

[Kurve]

There was no time between FF return (10:35) and the 000 call for a drive. FM went to see AMS, then down Benaroon and back on foot. (Supposedly also searched the house - 'we've looked everywhere') before dialling 000 at 10:54. FM statement says it was while she was searching the front yard for William she received the 'home in 5' text.

If she's responsible, IMO there was time. It only takes a couple of minutes to drive three or four blocks to turn around and come straight back. If she passed the cops or FF, she's simply out looking for William.

Edit: It's only 450 metres from 48 Benaroon Drive to the corner of Batar Creek Road.