Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * FM guilty of assault & intimidation

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Suppression orders are in force, please use the following to indicate:

FM - Foster Mother
FF - Foster Father
FGM - Foster Grandmother
FD - Foster Daughter
FPs - Foster Parents

Up to you if you wish to refer to them as former fosters but please write it in full, strictly using the above initials. No deviations.

Other initials posters will use informally but should not are:

BCR - Batar Creek Road
MW - Michelle White
SFR - Strike Force Rosann
AMS - Anne Maree Sharpley
One even reduced bike riding to - BR :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
We might find out more in December but if Laidlaw can't appear, we may not hear what the evidence was that launched the massive dig on Batar Creek Road, which was under the Coroner's directions.

The "evidence" could have simply been that that's where she said she drove to. She may have been seen by some secret witness, but she had admitted to it anyway. It's not like they dug somewhere completely different to where she said she went.

The Coroner directed the dig to determine one way or the other whether the police theory had legs IMO.
 
They are clearly not listening to anything the police actually say. They have used nothing but opinion to interrogate someone at the NSW crime commission. A body that was set up to investigate organised crime. What a terrible abuse of power. We badly need a bill of human rights in
Not sure who you mean by 'they'?
The deputy coroner is listening to the police. She may not support the theory being put to her. That's her prerogative.
She declined to hear from Lonergan. We don't know why.

The coroner has nothing to do with the NSWCC. NSWCC was set up to do more than just investigate organised crime. However I do agree it is interesting that NSWPOL sought to engage NSWCC in this particular case. Even more interesting is that they seem to have come up with donuts, although only time will tell. The NSWCC seems to have spent most of their time investigating the assault, and very little time investigating William's disappearance - very strange.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Its a coronial inquest. It needs to be conducted by law.
How do we know it's 'predominantly public?'
And its purpose is not 'to disclose stuff publicly'.
It is simply to determine the means and manner by which William deceased. Nothing more, nothing less.

There was one closed session?

I think had it continued on Friday for example, closed to the public, the journos would still have been all over it.
 
There was one closed session?

I think had it continued on Friday for example, closed to the public, the journos would still have been all over it.
Journalists are not privy to all evidence heard by the inquest, nor are they permitted to report on all evidence they do hear. The deputy coroner would have read the police brief, and other submissions in their entirety, and these will all be considered, even if not publicly revealed.
There is a lot more going on than what is written in the papers.
 
From the coroners perspective. It must first be decided if William is alive or dead, and then when and where he died.
There is enough evidence to suggest that he was alive at FGMs, and has been removed in a vehicle, not on foot.
When he was taken from the property you are assuming that he was already dead (or from previous discussion seriously injured, unconscious). No Proof. He could have been still alive when he left the property. IMO. No proof but, you don't want to entertain this possibility.
 
Journalists are not privy to all evidence heard by the inquest, nor are they permitted to report on all evidence they do hear. The deputy coroner would have read the police brief, and other submissions in their entirety, and these will all be considered, even if not publicly revealed.
There is a lot more going on than what is written in the papers.

You don't think there would have been leaks if there was anything of genuine interest?

The police have been made to look foolish IMO and would be leaking like a sieve to cover their arses if there was anything worth leaking.
 
When he was taken from the property you are assuming that he was already dead (or from previous discussion seriously injured, unconscious). No Proof. He could have been still alive when he left the property. IMO. No proof but, you don't want to entertain this possibility.
He certainly could have been alive and I never said otherwise. I just said the circumstances for him to have (innocently on behalf of the FM) left the property alive are highly improbable - a random opportunistic abduction at that exact time and place is almost inconceivable. On the balance of probabilities, sadly, he died at the property. And the FM is the most likely person to have moved him, having both the means, and the opportunity. For someone else to have moved him, you need to explain a probable means for them to get to the property, take William, and leave the property without being detected by anybody - IMO impossible. Hundreds of pages of discussion about this has not come up with one single plausible explanation for how William left the property without a trace in such a short period of time, with nobody seeing any cars come and go.
 
You don't think there would have been leaks if there was anything of genuine interest?

The police have been made to look foolish IMO and would be leaking like a sieve to cover their arses if there was anything worth leaking.
IMO we don't need leaks. All the evidence is there. As Ron Iddles would say, "The answer is in the file!"
The police actually have everything they need, or at least, everything they are likely to get until William is recovered.
They just haven't put all the pieces of the jigsaw together correctly.
They are still giving the FM the benefit of the doubt that she was a 'good mother', and acted entirely in William's interest.
And they don't have hard evidence to prove otherwise.
And because of this, they are treating the 'drive' as an innocent act.
Whereas I believe the drive had malicious intent.
 
The "evidence" could have simply been that that's where she said she drove to. She may have been seen by some secret witness, but she had admitted to it anyway. It's not like they dug somewhere completely different to where she said she went.

The Coroner directed the dig to determine one way or the other whether the police theory had legs IMO.

It might be but if it was, then I think we should know. Iirc, it coincided with information received through the Coroner's Inquiry and a child was removed from the Fosters care, then they were charged with assaults and intimidation, the FM subsequently convicted.
 
This is just adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 IMO.

How long do you think it would take to establish he very likely wasn't in the house or immediate garden vicinity outside the house? I reckon 30 seconds of calling his name inside the house. Then maybe 90 seconds doing a lap of the house outside, calling his name and looking as far as the eye can see in all directions.

Then decision time and mild panic. What are the worst things that can have happened? A fall - I would have seen him. He's wandered off - fear of swimming pool and drowning - I better look over a wider area quickly. He's been taken - maybe taken by someone on foot - so again, I better move faster than them to find him.

The car is a perfectly reasonable next option IMO. If he is around the house, it's ok because FGM is there for him. If he is hiding under a bed or behind a tree, that's a good result that will sort itself out without him needing to be found immediately. So, 2 minutes to arrive at the "jump in the car and look at a wider area" decision. Not everyone would do this, but it is quite feasible that someone would.

I agree with the general chronological order you have proposed. I 100% do not agree that because she drove very soon after realising he was missing, that she was not was not looking for him.
But my problem with drive by FM in FGM's car is
Why did both the FM and FGM not mention the car drive earlier. Why not just say ...and I quickly searched to the end of the street and on to BCR and turned around. As you mention it is a feasible and understandable option. Was she forgetful of hiding the drive, or was there no drive,
Why did FM not say to neighbour AMS that she had already driven past the bus stop and on to BCR, instead FM walked down to bus stop, and was covering ground she had already searched.
FGM's narrative does not allow time for the drive. FGM walkthrough is confusing who has FD while FM is searching on foot let alone in a car.
The longer time line between missing, immediate vicinity search, house search, and then drive would have given FM plenty of time to phone FF. Or time for FM to ask FGM to phone FF.
Sounds like truck driver Peter was possibly on BCR at a critical time. He remembers specific cars, but not FGM's car.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You don't think there would have been leaks if there was anything of genuine interest?

The police have been made to look foolish IMO and would be leaking like a sieve to cover their arses if there was anything worth leaking.
This is the whole problem. How much of what they are doing is self preservation rather than examining alternative possibilities? What I have seen this week is self preservation and attempts at damage control.
 
But my problem with drive by FM in FGM's car is
Why did both the FM and FGM not mention the car drive earlier. Why not just say ...and I quickly searched to the end of the street and on to BCR and turned around. As you mention it is a feasible and understandable option. Was she forgetful of hiding the drive, or was there no drive,
Why did FM not say to neighbour AMS that she had already driven past the bus stop and on to BCR, instead FM walked down to bus stop, and was covering ground she had already searched.
FGM's narrative does not allow time for the drive. FGM walkthrough is confusing who has FD while FM is searching on foot let alone in a car.
The longer time line between missing, immediate vicinity search, house search, and then drive would have given FM plenty of time to phone FF. Or time for FM to ask FGM to phone FF.
Sounds like truck driver Peter was possibly on BCR at a critical time. He remembers specific cars, but not FGM's car.
There was a drive, just not when she said she drove. Imho.

The problem is the hot bonnet. When did she find out the police officer checked the bonnet of the car?

This could be the reason for the change in statement.
 
If you go by the police theory why would FM risk William being in the car after alerting neighbours. What if one of the neighbours looked in the car. It’s a hatchback and easy to see through the windows.
Agree. Kids are known to play in cars. FD could have opened the car door. Maybe FGM does not lock her car in such a quiet street.
 
They are clearly not listening to anything the police actually say. They have used nothing but opinion to interrogate someone at the NSW crime commission. A body that was set up to investigate organised crime. What a terrible abuse of power. We badly need a bill of human rights in Australia.

The Qld Crime Commission was very successful, working with the Coroner, in obtaining the evidence to charge the foster father of Tia Leigh Palmer for her murder in 2016. Without their powers Rick Thorburn may not have been held to account.

It should be noted too that the Thorburn family not only took in foster kids but they had a daycare business on their property.
 
The "evidence" could have simply been that that's where she said she drove to. She may have been seen by some secret witness, but she had admitted to it anyway. It's not like they dug somewhere completely different to where she said she went.

The Coroner directed the dig to determine one way or the other whether the police theory had legs IMO.
This is true, why would FM tell police where she went and if she was seen wouldn’t she move to another area. (unless seen walking out from somewhere and it was too late.)
Not sure why police have focused on this area.
 
Agree. The time settled on by Det. Beecroft was around 10.10.

If I was coming back up Benaroon Drive in the car after not finding WT down the road I would go to the end of the street and do a U-turn looking for him there whilst I was in the car and then return to the carport. If she did this the Crabbes would have heard the car turn on the gravel. The only thing that doesn't fit is FGM's car probably does not sound like the posties car.
And what about FM including that small side street in her drive. Or the other (left) direction on BCR.
But the narrative (haven't you been paying attention 99 😂) is William only goes down hill like water - FF. He does not go up hill - FGM. So this is the reason FM did not drive up to the end Benaroon past the unoccupied house at 52
 
The Qld Crime Commission was very successful, working with the Coroner, in obtaining the evidence to charge the foster father of Tia Leigh Palmer for her murder in 2016. Without their powers Rick Thorburn may not have been held to account.

It should be noted too that the Thorburn family not only took in foster kids but they had a daycare business on their property.
👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼

Thank God those in the Thorburn family who were responsible for harming Tia Leigh were held to account. What an horrific case.

And I am thankful that they no longer run a daycare business in their property.
 
Totally disagree. No-one knows whether he had put his shoes on or not.

She mentioned a hit to the head, as it is one of the major things you would be concerned about if you are not finding him quickly. For me, a fall and hit to the head, drowning in a neighbour's pool and someone taking him, would be worst case scenarios without much time to think. Wandering into the bush also right up there, particularly if there were snakes around.

Mentioning something is not COG behaviour, it is normal human reaction to fear the worst as time goes on.
I disagree, a hit to the head is not the first thing you would think of. Wandering off, yes. Snake bite yes, hiding yes. It is odd that she mentions this first, as does the foster father.
 
There was a drive, just not when she said she drove. Imho.

The problem is the hot bonnet. When did she find out the police officer checked the bonnet of the car?

This could be the reason for the change in statement.
Is the hot bonnet even a thing? Where is Rowley's statement? Was it hot or warm? How warm? When did he feel it? Did he open the bonnet? I believe it happened but I've never seen the proof in context. I also wonder if the drive only entered the narrative after the FM was made aware of Rowley's statement.
 
He certainly could have been alive and I never said otherwise. I just said the circumstances for him to have (innocently on behalf of the FM) left the property alive are highly improbable - a random opportunistic abduction at that exact time and place is almost inconceivable. On the balance of probabilities, sadly, he died at the property. And the FM is the most likely person to have moved him, having both the means, and the opportunity. For someone else to have moved him, you need to explain a probable means for them to get to the property, take William, and leave the property without being detected by anybody - IMO impossible. Hundreds of pages of discussion about this has not come up with one single plausible explanation for how William left the property without a trace in such a short period of time, with nobody seeing any cars come and go.

The case is not unique in that aspect. There are other known abductions where no-one has a clue what has happened and there becomes nothing really to discuss.

The amount of discussion is pretty unique because multiple scenarios remain on the table. Imagine this place if it existed for the Chamberlain case.
 
He certainly could have been alive and I never said otherwise. I just said the circumstances for him to have (innocently on behalf of the FM) left the property alive are highly improbable - a random opportunistic abduction at that exact time and place is almost inconceivable. On the balance of probabilities, sadly, he died at the property. And the FM is the most likely person to have moved him, having both the means, and the opportunity. For someone else to have moved him, you need to explain a probable means for them to get to the property, take William, and leave the property without being detected by anybody - IMO impossible. Hundreds of pages of discussion about this has not come up with one single plausible explanation for how William left the property without a trace in such a short period of time, with nobody seeing any cars come and go.
Again I don't think you are following what I am suggesting. The crime scene could be elsewhere. I am not saying who is guilty though. We know there were 3 adults at the house that day.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * FM guilty of assault & intimidation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top