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

 

[truecrimepath]

Not in Kendall! Not even in the State !

Also I’ve never driven a black car & I’ve never had blonde hair

But have you worn a fat suit like big momma.

 

[31550]

"Because I didn't take him there," the woman replied.

Enough said.

 

[Awakening]

The photos are correct. It was spoken about many times today in court today ( I was there ) about the photos.

Time to let it go.

" We accept that as last point of reference. Logical starting point the last photo"

Well hallelujah we finally have an answer. Why couldn’t the media or police confirm this? Thanks always intrigued for being intrigued.

 

[Kurve]

In fairness to her it's accepting the full extent of evidence even though much may now be irrelevant..To do otherwise is to cherry pick. Peter thought what he saw was relevant because of a suspicious woman but perhaps it was where he was and the time.

The car heard has been narrowed down to 10.08 to 10.13. ....3 min drive she SHOULD be at Cobb & co at 10.11 to 10.16.

I'm intrigued at how they can be so precise in their timeline..They are working off something

CCTV of vehicles might have assisted with some of the timeframes for some of the truckies movements

 

[truecrimepath]

The photos are correct. It was spoken about many times today in court today ( I was there ) about the photos.

Time to let it go.

" We accept that as last point of reference. Logical starting point the last photo"

How did they determine it. Physical features or IT.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

How did they determine it. Physical features or IT.

They don't have to give us reasons. It was confirmed. End of story.

 

[Wallace52]

Enough said.

That’s what I was thinking. She knows he’s not there because she didn’t take him there, as she said.

 

[Wallace52]

Well hallelujah we finally have an answer. Why couldn’t the media or police confirm this? Thanks always intrigued for being intrigued.

They should have written to us directly at Big Footy.com. How rude!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The photos are correct. It was spoken about many times today in court today ( I was there ) about the photos.

Time to let it go.

" We accept that as last point of reference. Logical starting point the last photo"

So talked about in court. Wow. Ok.. 9.37 is IT.. now I recall 31550 was kind enough to locate what activities happened just after the photos....
About 15 minutes I estimate. That means 9.53 before anything happened. The timeline remains tight..you'd expect at least 17 minutes to revive him/ deal with it meaning the SFR car trip of 10.10. it's not a lot of time but the window could be 20 min perhaps before FF arrives home.. 5 min to hide leaving a radius of 7.5 min drive away from house for location.

Cobb & co was 3 min radius..I had thought that perhaps Cobb & co was designed as a hit and run cover up. Now that location Is instead a ruse then the true location has to be off BC Rd somewhere..Too much traffic to be seen there

 

[js47]

So, here’s the thing. When I first started looking at the case, I really thought yeah he’s involved somehow. And then I spent time in court observing them, being around them, listening to the court matters in front of them, seeing how they responded to things said in court and evidence being presented - and I really got a creepy feeling.

I can’t explain it but I felt like I knew who the person was who was responsible for W disappearance.

And I don’t think it is the FF.

I’ve made an attempt to research the case, to get all of the facts - and to try as much as I could to get a sense of who the foster parents are, not just on any day but on their worst days.

I think the FF is cranky, he’s angry, he’s a bit of a grump - but I don’t think he’s involved at all with William’s disappearance and there’s never been talk of charges on him related to William.

The thing that makes the most sense to me is if the foster mother has done something she shouldn’t have, like moved William’s body, like not calling 000 at the appropriate time, then he’s not “in the know” about what she’s done. And neither are the other 9 close members of her family.

Thanks Wallace I have read so much and I have spent so much time in Kendal/CH. But thanks for your insight into physical observation.

 

[js47]

Balderdash. The person who moved him can.
There may also be a witness who just hasn't come forward for reasons known only to them.

IMO the witness who has not come forward does not think they are a witness

 

[Underarrest_]

William Tyrrell's foster mum sobs after hearing secret phone call

The inquest into William Tyrrell's 2014 disappearance heard a secretly recorded phone call in which it was claimed his foster mum talked to a friend about 'a skeleton' in a clearing'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[31550]

That’s what I was thinking. She knows he’s not there because she didn’t take him there, as she said.

And she couldn't envisage any other way he could get there. Despite being adamant he was taken. It was a great question and she tripped up on her answer and was immediately flustered.

 

[Earls Smother]

And she couldn't envisage any other way he could get there. Despite being adamant he was taken. It was a great question and she tripped up on her answer and was immediately flustered.

That's pretty disingenuous.

If you take literally what she has said, and it was from a person under no pressure, then yes, it doesn't sound great.

When you are refuting direct inferences being put to you in a pressure situation, then your answers are going to directly relate to the theme of the questioning.

Did you take him there? No
If we look there will we find him? No
Why won't we find him? Because I didn't take him there.

It is utterly ridiculous and biased to assume that is anything but a person being deliberately confused by the questioning.
They were trying to break her into admitting she hid the body and they couldn't. They confused the shit out of her no doubt, but 99% of us would be the same in that situation.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

That's pretty disingenuous.

If you take literally what she has said, and it was from a person under no pressure, then yes, it doesn't sound great.

When you are refuting direct inferences being put to you in a pressure situation, then your answers are going to directly relate to the theme of the questioning.

Did you take him there? No
If we look there will we find him? No
Why won't we find him? Because I didn't take him there.

It is utterly ridiculous and biased to assume that is anything but a person being deliberately confused by the questioning.
They were trying to break her into admitting she hid the body and they couldn't. They confused the shit out of her no doubt, but 99% of us would be the same in that situation.

Exactly. Spot on!

 

[Awakening]

They should have written to us directly at Big Footy.com. How rude!

Exactly right!!!!

 

[31550]

...
If we look there will we find him? No

An innocent person would answer "I don't know", or "How would I know?" IMO

There were plenty of other questions she answered with "I don't know " or "I don't remember.'

 

[Eaglette01]

They don't have to give us reasons. It was confirmed. End of story.

who is the "they" you are referring to ? ?

******************************

which photo ?
which exact time ?

 

[Awakening]

William Tyrrell's foster mum sobs after hearing secret phone call

The inquest into William Tyrrell's 2014 disappearance heard a secretly recorded phone call in which it was claimed his foster mum talked to a friend about 'a skeleton' in a clearing'

www.dailymail.co.uk

“Ms Callan asked the foster mother why she hadn't revealed to police until five days after the disappearance that on that morning she had driven her mother's car to the local driving school on Batar Creek Road in Kendall, before she had even dialled Triple-0 to report him missing.

'Do you accept when you took the drive to the riding school you could have dumped William's body. Did you take his body to the riding school?'

When the foster mother tearily replied, 'No' twice, her lawyer raised an objection, to which the Crimes Commissioner Michael Barnes told Ms Callan, 'okay, put it it her, did she do it.'“

 

[31550]

“Ms Callan asked the foster mother why she hadn't revealed to police until five days after the disappearance that on that morning she had driven her mother's car to the local driving school on Batar Creek Road in Kendall, before she had even dialled Triple-0 to report him missing.

'Do you accept when you took the drive to the riding school you could have dumped William's body. Did you take his body to the riding school?'

When the foster mother tearily replied, 'No' twice, her lawyer raised an objection, to which the Crimes Commissioner Michael Barnes told Ms Callan, 'okay, put it it her, did she do it.'“

So what was her answer to why she waited 5 days before revealing the drive?

How did she explain taking the drive before dialling 000?

Why wasn't she asked to explain taking the drive BEFORE even looking for William in the house or garden or down the street?

Why wasn't she asked why she drove all the way to the riding school if William was only gone 5 minutes?

Why wasn't she asked why she told FF, “He was here 5 minutes ago“, when clearly he had been missing much longer?

Why wasn't she asked why she told the 000 operator at 10:55 that they had been looking for about 20 minutes?

Why wasn't she asked why she was drinking tea when FF came home instead of looking for William?

 

[Earls Smother]

An innocent person would answer "I don't know", or "How would I know?" IMO

There were plenty of other questions she answered with "I don't know " or "I don't remember.'

"I don't know" in the context of the questioning would not have been a good answer IMO.

That could easily be interpreted as, "I put him there but I don't know whether you will find him".

 

[31550]

"I don't know" in the context of the questioning would not have been a good answer IMO.

That could easily be interpreted as, "I put him there but I don't know whether you will find him".

"No" is a worse answer. How could she possibly know whether they would find him there or not?

 

[Wallace52]

"No" is a worse answer. How could she possibly know whether they would find him there or not?

You would expect her to say “I have no idea.”

Or like maybe “you should look wherever you need to look because I would love to have my son home.”

 

[Kurve]

William Tyrrell's foster mum sobs after hearing secret phone call

The inquest into William Tyrrell's 2014 disappearance heard a secretly recorded phone call in which it was claimed his foster mum talked to a friend about 'a skeleton' in a clearing'

www.dailymail.co.uk

The FM I've noticed, cries when she's confronted with evidence that may be incriminating.

I don't like that statement she made about finding a skeleton in a clearing, it's very specific. Too specific. From her position, she's put forward an abduction from the beginning and he was moved out of the area. Why would she assume he'd be found as a skeleton in a clearing?

Not conclusive of course but my spideys twitched when I read it.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That's pretty disingenuous.

If you take literally what she has said, and it was from a person under no pressure, then yes, it doesn't sound great.

When you are refuting direct inferences being put to you in a pressure situation, then your answers are going to directly relate to the theme of the questioning.

Did you take him there? No
If we look there will we find him? No
Why won't we find him? Because I didn't take him there.

It is utterly ridiculous and biased to assume that is anything but a person being deliberately confused by the questioning.
They were trying to break her into admitting she hid the body and they couldn't. They confused the shit out of her no doubt, but 99% of us would be the same in that situation.

Agree entirely. Even if I'm innocent my response would be filled with expletives..