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]

I am going to line up the ducks.

Car is driven on a journey that is long enough to heat up the Bonnet.

FM initially tells police she did not drive anywhere

She admits to a drive to the riding club. ( not long enough to heat the bonnet)

She is not seen near the riding club.

Police focus on that site.

Was this a Red Herring planted in 2014 to protect the fact the car had been driven? She had known the police officer had checked the car in front of her.

Did anyone actually see her drive the car on Benaroon drive.?

 

[Lady O]

Doesn't she say a skeleton when they are "clearing" the bush. This is implying that the body was will hidden in the first place and not easy to find, until there is major clearing.

Yes. " 'I'm saying he’ll never be found in 200 years time and if they do any clearing and they'll find his bones.'" Again, it's her awkward way of speaking. "Clearing" is knocking down trees and scrub. So very different to the quote that "he will be found in a clearing", taken to mean that the body is in a place where trees and scrub have been removed, whereas she meant he will be found in (the process of) clearing (trees and scrub)

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Doesn't she say a skeleton when they are "clearing" the bush. This is implying that the body was will hidden in the first place and not easy to find, until there is major clearing.

The terminology she uses to describe a possible location and how he may be found may be critical..they are often called " embedded confession" in witness statement analysis. That's where the perpetrator actually tells you where he is hidden but obscures it as being innocent deflection remark. Peter Hyatt did an analysis of McCanns and concluded Gerry gave an embedded confession of how Maddie died

What exactly did she say? I've seen the part about clearing. What was context? Where can I find it? I think it may be very critical where an alleged perpetrator is speculating how W may be found one day and in highly emotional state (at that time reflecting on her memory of what she did)..

 

[31550]

Would there be anywhere around the cemetery where William may have been hidden either permanently or temporarily? FM drove somewhere, maybe not into the bush as the car would have been dirty. Maybe she turned left on Ellendale and took him to the cemetery area. She would be there in a minute. The cemetery is accessible by vehicle from the other side. This would explain why nobody witnessed her on Batar Creek Road, including Peter the truckie. Maybe when the 000 operator asked about "Ellendale", this was triggering, so she pretended not to know the name of the street? Then years later, recounting the drive, she originally says she turned "left", and needed to be corrected that the riding school was "right" on BCR.
I don't know the layout of the cemetery or its surrounds. Not suggesting William is buried there, but maybe there was a suitable location to hide his body before moving it elsewhere.

 

[LRitz]

Oh well that gives her another month to think about where and when and why she went on her drive, and how to fit it to the rest of her narrative. Good luck with that.

Does she just say she initially forgot. Or she didn't forget the drive, but she forgot that she had not included it in her first signed statement. Slight difference. Hard to prove it was perjury.
Unless there is evidence of a specific question to FM such as, did you leave the property that morning before William disappeared?
There were other memory problems. Initially forgot the bike ride, the parked cars, and the u turn green car. But remembered the orange juice.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes. " 'I'm saying he’ll never be found in 200 years time and if they do any clearing and they'll find his bones.'" Again, it's her awkward way of speaking. "Clearing" is knocking down trees and scrub. So very different to the quote that "he will be found in a clearing", taken to mean that the body is in a place where trees and scrub have been removed, whereas she meant he will be found in (the process of) clearing (trees and scrub)

Was there also a remark about seemingly being bodies in gullies and or ravines or something? Something along those lines?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes. " 'I'm saying he’ll never be found in 200 years time and if they do any clearing and they'll find his bones.'" Again, it's her awkward way of speaking. "Clearing" is knocking down trees and scrub. So very different to the quote that "he will be found in a clearing", taken to mean that the body is in a place where trees and scrub have been removed, whereas she meant he will be found in (the process of) clearing (trees and scrub)

The speculation is supposedly what the abductor would have done. Her filling the gaps that it is perhaps land that currently has bush/ trees but which is capable of being rezoned and cleared is HIGHLY incriminating from statement analysis. She shouldn't know anything about where he may or may not be including he may even be 3 hrs north in some farmland paddock. It's indicative of where she placed him imo. He could be In a creek or river. He could be down a ravine in national park or buried in someone's backyard

No he is placed not buried in bushland that is capable to be cleared for residential use one day. Flat.

If I were SFR I would be going I over her history at Kendall with FGM to determine whether there were any regular places she went in and around the bush which became well known to her..People do what is familiar to them from their past experiences. Somewhere flat but high bush but still capable of navigating into from car access......and within 7.5 min drive of Benaroon drive.

Wherever it was imo it was thick enough that she snagged her hand penetrating to the point of placement.

What was that place that FA said there was cadaver stench at ? Was it within 7.5 min drive? Logan's crossing was it? How far away?

 

[31550]

Does she just say she initially forgot. Or she didn't forget the drive, but she forgot that she had not included it in her first signed statement. Slight difference. Hard to prove it was perjury.
Unless there is evidence of a specific question to FM such as, did you leave the property that morning before William disappeared?
There were other memory problems. Initially forgot the bike ride, the parked cars, and the u turn green car. But remembered the orange juice.

Read through the original 14 Sep Statement if you can. My precis follows.

She talks a lot about the history of William coming into care including the bios.
She goes into detail about the trip up, and the night before, early morning activities, breakfast and orange juice.
She talks about Mummy monsters, grazing her hand, the climbing tree,
Then drawing pictures, taking the photographs, going inside.
Then William going out again, then the dice rolling, the roaring, the Daddy Tiger.
Then William is missing.
Then she walks to the front of the garden, then around the house, then looks inside the house.
Then she says she got the text 'Home in 5' .
Then FF returns home.
THEN FF goes to the Millers, and FM goes down to see AMS.
She says AMS told her she (AMS) would go to the bus stop.
Then FM walks into the street 'a bit before BCR'.
Then thought "I have to call the police"
Then walks back up and dials 000.

NO mention of any drive. No mention of strange cars. No bike riding or crashing bikes. Note the sequence of events. Lots of detail about certain things.

I am a bit surprised that police did not seem to specifically question her about strange cars or people in the street. (The 000 operator was smart enough to, why not police?)

Why was the drive not mentioned in this statement? Did she just forget or was it incriminating?
Why was the bike riding / William crashing into the garden not mentioned? Did she forget or was it later done to explain damage to plants, possibly under the balcony?
Why were the three strange cars not in this statement? Forgotten, or were they needed to support an 'abduction' theory when it started to become obvious William did not leave the property on foot?

The problem this statement created for the FM was the sequence of events as described, simply does not allow room for a logical explanation of the drive. If the drive happened at all, it can only have been made BEFORE anyone was searching for William. Which means the drive was never looking for William. Which means it was the drive which probably removed William from the property.

 

[Earls Smother]

Lia Harris is so biased. I am surprised that the ABC allows her to be writing this case with such strong personal viewpoints on who’s innocent. IMO

Don't you see that you only think that because you are biased in the other direction?

Those who are convinced FM hid the body, have come to the end of this inquest with not much to hang their hats on. When people are relying on poorly worded phrases or odd third person conversations, you know there is a fair bit of straw clutching going on.

The point of the inquest was to reinforce the police case, preferably with at least a skerrick of hard evidence. There is no direct evidence whatsoever to support their belief. How can there be no evidence when she had such a small window of opportunity, with no prior planning, and a number of people in the immediate vicinity that she would have had to hide it from?

She would have to be the most quick-thinking criminal mastermind ever to pull it off. The fact that she is easily confused under questioning, cries when pressured, is still uncertain about the order of events - suggests she is anything but a composed criminal mastermind. It would be more concerning if every answer was perfect. It's much easier to come up with perfect answers sitting in front of a computer with time to think. If, after a decade, she started producing more suitable answers, it would look contrived and she would be criticised for it.

It is the sort of case where you can interpret her behaviour to suit your viewpoint. That is where the evidence comes in. They started with none and have wasted a lot of time, effort and money to get to this point, where they still have none.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The speculation is supposedly what the abductor would have done. Her filling the gaps that it is perhaps land that currently has bush/ trees but which is capable of being rezoned and cleared is HIGHLY incriminating from statement analysis. She shouldn't know anything about where he may or may not be including he may even be 3 hrs north in some farmland paddock. It's indicative of where she placed him imo. He could be In a creek or river. He could be down a ravine in national park or buried in someone's backyard

No he is placed not buried in bushland that is capable to be cleared for residential use one day. Flat.

If I were SFR I would be going I over her history at Kendall with FGM to determine whether there were any regular places she went in and around the bush which became well known to her..People do what is familiar to them from their past experiences. Somewhere flat but high bush but still capable of navigating into from car access......and within 7.5 min drive of Benaroon drive.

Wherever it was imo it was thick enough that she snagged her hand penetrating to the point of placement.

What was that place that FA said there was cadaver stench at ? Was it within 7.5 min drive? Logan's crossing was it? How far away?

Why would she say Cobb & co? Misdirection obviously but why? Either she was worried about being seen and wanted to cover for that ..so in same direction OR it was a total red herring to send them on wild goose chase? So up that track on Benaroon itself. But why wasn't he found if there? has to be far enough away that it wasn't covered in initial searches.

Did FF possibly do something with the body night of 12th to bury to negate cadaver scent?

SFR did renewed searches at house toward the end and I could never understand why. I think they recognise that 7.5 min drive isn't very far and cadaver stench should have given place away. So the body was buried shortly later ( possibly that night). Did the search teams work through the night? Or did they finish and start in morning again? FF wasn't home when police arrived on 13th a.m..That fact becomes significant imo

 

[31550]

Don't you see that you only think that because you are biased in the other direction?

Those who are convinced FM hid the body, have come to the end of this inquest with not much to hang their hats on. When people are relying on poorly worded phrases or odd third person conversations, you know there is a fair bit of straw clutching going on.

The point of the inquest was to reinforce the police case, preferably with at least a skerrick of hard evidence. There is no direct evidence whatsoever to support their belief. How can there be no evidence when she had such a small window of opportunity, with no prior planning, and a number of people in the immediate vicinity that she would have had to hide it from?

She would have to be the most quick-thinking criminal mastermind ever to pull it off. The fact that she is easily confused under questioning, cries when pressured, is still uncertain about the order of events - suggests she is anything but a composed criminal mastermind. It would be more concerning if every answer was perfect. It's much easier to come up with perfect answers sitting in front of a computer with time to think. If, after a decade, she started producing more suitable answers, it would look contrived and she would be criticised for it.

It is the sort of case where you can interpret her behaviour to suit your viewpoint. That is where the evidence comes in. They started with none and have wasted a lot of time, effort and money to get to this point, where they still have none.

I woudn't describe Harris as biased. But I find her reporting (and that of her entire media company) to be somewhat selective. They don't report all the facts fearlessly and impartially. They tell us what they want to tell us, and withhold other pieces of information for reasons known only to them.

The point of the inquest was most definitely not to reinforce the police case. That is not the role of the coroner, and your suggestion itself is an (unfair) accusation of bias. There is no police 'case', only a theory. The point of the inquest is to hear this theory, and the evidence supporting it or otherwise, and determine how well it fits against other possible theories to explain the circumstances of William's death. Nothing more or less. The coroner is not there to put the FM on trial, just hear her evidence, along with that of other witnesses, and that presented by investigators.

When Harris goes out of her way to tell us what there is no evidence of, but fails to tell us what there is evidence of, she is not acting as a responsible journalist, but pushing a selective viewpoint.

 

[31550]

Why would she say Cobb & co

I don't believe she did. I believe she just said 'riding school' in her walkthrough.

 

[Kurve]

There's evidence under suppression IMO and we won't hear about that unless the FM is charged and it proceeds through the courts.

 

[truecrimepath]

Don't you see that you only think that because you are biased in the other direction?

Those who are convinced FM hid the body, have come to the end of this inquest with not much to hang their hats on. When people are relying on poorly worded phrases or odd third person conversations, you know there is a fair bit of straw clutching going on.

The point of the inquest was to reinforce the police case, preferably with at least a skerrick of hard evidence. There is no direct evidence whatsoever to support their belief. How can there be no evidence when she had such a small window of opportunity, with no prior planning, and a number of people in the immediate vicinity that she would have had to hide it from?

She would have to be the most quick-thinking criminal mastermind ever to pull it off. The fact that she is easily confused under questioning, cries when pressured, is still uncertain about the order of events - suggests she is anything but a composed criminal mastermind. It would be more concerning if every answer was perfect. It's much easier to come up with perfect answers sitting in front of a computer with time to think. If, after a decade, she started producing more suitable answers, it would look contrived and she would be criticised for it.

It is the sort of case where you can interpret her behaviour to suit your viewpoint. That is where the evidence comes in. They started with none and have wasted a lot of time, effort and money to get to this point, where they still have none.

The police case to this point is nonsense. I agree people are clutching every nuance of her testimony and are turning an anthill into a mountain.

The only aspect I see as important is the warm bonnet and that she omitted the drive in her first statement. I think this is the only red flag imho.

We have two weeks of hearings in December. Are we going to hear any real evidence? As others have suggested are they clearing the decks? I guess we will have to wait a month.

 

[truecrimepath]

I remember the black eye in that photo, the day he went missing the bio mother was on FB saying it was a daycare injury. If it was, it would have been documented by the centre and if so that's probably why it’s never really been mentioned since it very first happened.

How many photos are there of him with a black eye. The iconic photo does not have a black eye.

 

[Kurve]

How many photos are there of him with a black eye. The iconic photo does not have a black eye.

She's been convicted of two assaults against a child, stalking and intimidation. One of these assaults was kicking, the other hitting with an implement.

These assaults she initially denied and tried to pass resulting bruising off as 'falling off a horse'.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The police case to this point is nonsense. I agree people are clutching every nuance of her testimony and are turning an anthill into a mountain.

The only aspect I see as important is the warm bonnet and that she omitted the drive in her first statement. I think this is the only red flag imho.

We have two weeks of hearings in December. Are we going to hear any real evidence? As others have suggested are they clearing the decks? I guess we will have to wait a month.

It was said in court with one poster present that 9.37 is accepted..Everything branches out from that. Cobb & co may not be relevant . That doesn't mean the essence is rubbish. I still most definitely believe FM was involved to extent suggested and on the day. Now 9.37 and a drive SFR speculate occurred 10.10.

To continue to suggest that the McDonald's trip is it when all evidence including the FGM saying 9 pm arrival and 9.30 to bed is to ignore clear majority evidence pointing to the fact they were there within time and stayed over night. The verandah isn't a staged event. It's real. The children heard playing is likely real POL just after 9 as is the last photo now and at 9.37. I don't dismiss that it's possible that edits could occur but don't think they did given the focus on the car trip they say was 10.10 which seems accurate in timeline recreation which seems to loosely coincide with Crabbes recollection. They jumped to Cobb & co which appears wrong. The FM is very cunning manipulator. She wanted that red herring probably to keep safe she was on the road at that time but headed elsewhere though same direction in case she was seen and had to defend the trip as she now is doing.

 

[stormbird]

The above question is for you alwaysintrigued.
Along with some questions Eaglette01 post in reply to you here
If you are unable to tell us because of any non-publication order related to this matter, that's understandable.

alwaysintrigued, can I just add we're not trying to harass you (I hope not; I'm not). If you can't give any other information about the photos or just don't want to, no problem, thanks for what you told us already.

Just explaining my own questioning: for an answer to be presented along the lines of "just trust us, you don't need to know" sounds more like something the police would say, not the counsel or coroner.

 

[Earls Smother]

I woudn't describe Harris as biased. But I find her reporting (and that of her entire media company) to be somewhat selective. They don't report all the facts fearlessly and impartially. They tell us what they want to tell us, and withhold other pieces of information for reasons known only to them.

The point of the inquest was most definitely not to reinforce the police case. That is not the role of the coroner, and your suggestion itself is an (unfair) accusation of bias. There is no police 'case', only a theory. The point of the inquest is to hear this theory, and the evidence supporting it or otherwise, and determine how well it fits against other possible theories to explain the circumstances of William's death. Nothing more or less. The coroner is not there to put the FM on trial, just hear her evidence, along with that of other witnesses, and that presented by investigators.

When Harris goes out of her way to tell us what there is no evidence of, but fails to tell us what there is evidence of, she is not acting as a responsible journalist, but pushing a selective viewpoint.

Ok I should have used "test the theory" rather than reinforce, but I was looking at it from the viewpoint of what the police would like to have seen. As in, to reinforce their theory with some evidence.

So what is there direct, factual evidence of, that she should be reporting? Not biased construing of wording or phrases, or personal interpretation of timelines, but actual evidence that will stand up in court.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Don't you see that you only think that because you are biased in the other direction?

Those who are convinced FM hid the body, have come to the end of this inquest with not much to hang their hats on. When people are relying on poorly worded phrases or odd third person conversations, you know there is a fair bit of straw clutching going on.

The point of the inquest was to reinforce the police case, preferably with at least a skerrick of hard evidence. There is no direct evidence whatsoever to support their belief. How can there be no evidence when she had such a small window of opportunity, with no prior planning, and a number of people in the immediate vicinity that she would have had to hide it from?

She would have to be the most quick-thinking criminal mastermind ever to pull it off. The fact that she is easily confused under questioning, cries when pressured, is still uncertain about the order of events - suggests she is anything but a composed criminal mastermind. It would be more concerning if every answer was perfect. It's much easier to come up with perfect answers sitting in front of a computer with time to think. If, after a decade, she started producing more suitable answers, it would look contrived and she would be criticised for it.

It is the sort of case where you can interpret her behaviour to suit your viewpoint. That is where the evidence comes in. They started with none and have wasted a lot of time, effort and money to get to this point, where they still have none.

The starting position is profile..97% of child abductions are by people known. It wasn't their home and no one knew they were going so the only people known is FPs..The street has hardly any cars go into it by people who don't live there. That restricts the pool more. It wasn't opportunistic unless the person had reason to be there. They don't. Death of a child is proven statistically to be 500% more likely with non bio parents. They are proven to be dysfunctional parents proven to aggressive discipline / abuse..FM then lied about cars, lied about U turn man, came forward with the car trip late, and made a 000 report almost immediately when the average time AFTER searching is in fact statistically 2 hours. She then drove 1.3 klm looking for a boy who on her testimony had been missing for only 5 min and without knowing he even left the property or was hiding..You then have the incriminating remarks about perhaps he hit his head and cant hear me, falling of a chair, bouncing out of his skull to round the profile to make it likely that there is less than 1% chance it ISN'T FM .

If he went missing the first thing you'd do is ring FF and order him home to help..she didn't..why? Because he was dead in her presence. Then a major argument it seems between FGM Abd FM causing estrangement. Why? Because FGM was forced to support her daughter hiding a dead child.....seems the obvious answer

That's why my focus remains her/ them because of those statistics. That isn't rubbish or flawed thinking. Quite the opposite

If I were a juror presented with this evidence i'd vote guilty on COG reasoning. Even it appears the Cobb & co visit was a lie .....she went elsewhere

 

[Lady O]

Would there be anywhere around the cemetery where William may have been hidden either permanently or temporarily? FM drove somewhere, maybe not into the bush as the car would have been dirty. Maybe she turned left on Ellendale and took him to the cemetery area. She would be there in a minute. The cemetery is accessible by vehicle from the other side. This would explain why nobody witnessed her on Batar Creek Road, including Peter the truckie. Maybe when the 000 operator asked about "Ellendale", this was triggering, so she pretended not to know the name of the street? Then years later, recounting the drive, she originally says she turned "left", and needed to be corrected that the riding school was "right" on BCR.
I don't know the layout of the cemetery or its surrounds. Not suggesting William is buried there, but maybe there was a suitable location to hide his body before moving it elsewhere.

That area I think was pretty thoroughly searched in the day(s) after he disappeared. It would have been an obvious place for him, had he wandered away, as they were going to the cemetery to visit FGF's grave that day.

 

[Earls Smother]

The starting position is profile..97% of child abductions are by people known. It wasn't their home and no one knew they were going so the only people known is FPs..The street has hardly any cars go into it by people who don't live there. That restricts the pool more. It wasn't opportunistic unless the person had reason to be there. They don't. Death of a child is proven statistically to be 500% more likely with non bio parents. They are proven to be dysfunctional parents proven to aggressive disciple/ abuse..FM then lied about cars, lied about U turn man, came forward with the car trip late, and made a 000 report almost immediately when the average time AFTER searching is in fact statistically 2 hours. She then drive 1.3 klm looking for a boy who on her testimony had been missing for only 5 min and without knowing he even left the property or was hiding..You then have the incriminating remarks about perhaps he hit his head and cant hear me, falling of a chair, bouncing out of his skull to round yo the profile to make it likely that there is less than 1% chance it ISN'T FM .


That's why my focus remains her/ them because of those statistics. That isn't rubbish or flawed thinking. Quite the opposite

I agree statistically, and if we used statistics she was gone from the start.

Even the Coroner with the lesser burden of 'balance of probability' could easily find guilt based on statistics.

The rare cases of unexplained disappearances create huge interest and discussion, because by their nature, they can't be solved easily and quickly. The ones like Cleo from the tent are very rare in 2 ways - 1) the offence itself, and 2) once you get past the first 48-72 hours, it usually takes years of investigation to get anywhere.

What you hope for, (given not solving in first 72 hours) is that all other alternatives can be ruled out, so you are left with nothing but random abduction. That can then be the focus of the investigation. This case hasn't followed that path - 2 alternatives have remained on the table for a decade.

It can't be said anymore that this is a 97-3 case. I don't know how you put percentages to it, but I would be very surprised if every police officer involved was even on the same page. They need to rule one of them in or out categorically, and this inquest certainly doesn't appear to be ruling the FM in.

 

[31550]

Ok I should have used "test the theory" rather than reinforce, but I was looking at it from the viewpoint of what the police would like to have seen. As in, to reinforce their theory with some evidence.

So what is there direct, factual evidence of, that she should be reporting? Not biased construing of wording or phrases, or personal interpretation of timelines, but actual evidence that will stand up in court.

There are discrepancies in FM's account of events, which she has yet been unable to explain or account for.
They have been highlighted here, and the lack of explanation is incriminating.
But none of these have been discussed by Harris, (or Box, or other 'journalists').
On the other hand, these people are happy to report on the FMs criticism of the police, at length.

It was the coroner's decision to listen to evidence from Peter the truckdriver, not the police.
The police specifically requested that Lonergan give evidence to the inquest. The DC declined, and her reasons have not been published.
The coroner is controlling what evidence is heard, both privately and publicly.
Journalists are criticising police because 'there is not evidence of this or that', but police have not been given full opportunity to present the entirety of their evidence, only what the coroner has deemed the inquest should hear.

For journalists to suggest that "there is no evidence of this" or "no evidence of that", is selective reporting. They don't know what evidence there is and there isn't. They don't know what the police would have liked to deliver via Lonergan to the inquest. They can only report on what they see and hear. The coroner is only hearing evidence believed to directly impact on the circumstances of William's death. Journalists are painting a picture of police persecuting an innocent FM which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to the inquest. The coroner needs to establish how William died if possible. If his body was interfered with after he died, that is a secondary matter primarily for the police, and is not of interest to the coroner at least until cause of death has been established.

There has been evidence brought up at the inquest which repudiates much of the FM testimony (including the discrepancies and contradictions in her various statements). But journalists haven't discussed this at all. It's selective reporting.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I agree statistically, and if we used statistics she was gone from the start.

Even the Coroner with the lesser burden of 'balance of probability' could easily find guilt based on statistics.

The rare cases of unexplained disappearances create huge interest and discussion, because by their nature, they can't be solved easily and quickly. The ones like Cleo from the tent are very rare in 2 ways - 1) the offence itself, and 2) once you get past the first 48-72 hours, it usually takes years of investigation to get anywhere.

What you hope for, (given not solving in first 72 hours) is that all other alternatives can be ruled out, so you are left with nothing but random abduction. That can then be the focus of the investigation. This case hasn't followed that path - 2 alternatives have remained on the table for a decade.

It can't be said anymore that this is a 97-3 case. I don't know how you put percentages to it, but I would be very surprised if every police officer involved was even on the same page. They need to rule one of them in or out categorically, and this inquest certainly doesn't appear to be ruling the FM in.

You don't convict people on probabilities. You can on COG lies like C Dawson who sits in prison for lies told without a body or a witness or forensic evidence.

 

[31550]

You don't convict people on probabilities. You can on COG lies like C Dawson who sits in prison for lies told without a body or a witness or forensic evidence.

Coroner finds on balance of probability.