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

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. 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

 

[BFew]

BFew, have I got this right? You're not sure what was said at the inquest so maybe you're not telling us the facts as they were presented, but now you're mocking the person who could?

Any inquest room posts I make in here using language like "something like", are used when I did not write down what I heard/saw as things were being spoken/seen in the inquest room, thus I probably can't reliably quote exactly what was said, as someone else in the inquest room who did.

Like the "official" media and other posters in here, there will likely be mistakes, mis-hearings, and omissions in what is written/typed/recollected (at the time or a later date) about what is heard/seen in the inquest room. Hopefully only minor/immaterial ones.

Happy to take a further back seat in this thread from now on and you'all can just feed off possibly more reliable sources, and I'll just assume that if none of the media report something from an inquest, then it is either subject to a non-disclosure order (and shouldn't even be mentioned in here), or is not important enough to be reported on.

 

[truecrimepath]

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.)

It looks increasingly likely what I was told by this Police officer was spot on.

 

[BFew]

Phones/ CC

Like Geoff Owen for instance who rang at 9.10 and the call went unanswered in circumstances where the FGM reports 8 times in police walk through.....there were no calls. Mmmmmmmm. When handset is taken from radio connection the call happens but doesn't ring I think.

The questioning is by CC.. It's a a bit random thing to ask. In a roundabout way they are suggesting that FM took phones to prevent communication. That in turn is consistent with the FGM witnessing whatever happened. That is the main reason you'd do that....to control comms .

We don't have any evidence of whether the phones were in her possession only her response which fails to confirm they were. it is interesting for it's random nature though..Did they have phone tower ping evidence? Are they suggesting it because they think the GO missed call was because she took headset away? This though is way different timeline..That said if the FGM phone was kept in a drawer there was simply no charge. Lie, truth who knows.

Perhaps there was a dispute between FM and FGM about reporting the death. To prevent FGM ringing police in her absence she took handset with her.

This is all speculative though..we don't know she had phones nor reason why CC asked the question

Not to forget that the over 4 hours of NSW Crime Commission "grilling" of the foster mother was an edited and redacted version of the actual 2 days of grilling. So what might appear as a bit random on the phones or other parts of the "grilling", could be solely due to what was edited/redacted out of the "grilling" recordings shown at the open inquest sessions.

 

[31550]

If there is an open finding can they sue the government for compensation for their experiences over the past 10 years?

Certainly not. An open finding simply means the coroner cannot determine exactly how William died. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
Of course they can try legal action - anyone can. But unlikely to be successful.

 

[BFew]

If there is an open finding can they sue the government for compensation for their experiences over the past 10 years?

I expect we will get the answer to that, not too long after any (if any) open finding is made at the conclusion of this inquest.

Possibly using an argument, that if someone can be made the sole suspect/ charged, prosecuted or successfully convicted for an alleged crime based on solely circumstantial evidence, that in some special cases, someone should likewise be able to be Government compensated based on solely circumstantial evidence.

 

[31550]

I expect we will get the answer to that, not too long after any (if any) open finding is made at the conclusion of this inquest.

Possibly using an argument, that if someone can be made the sole suspect/ charged, prosecuted or successfully convicted for an alleged crime based on solely circumstantial evidence, that in some special cases, someone should likewise be able to be Government compensated based on solely circumstantial evidence.

So you can sue the police for simply doing their job? (albeit not very well).
Don't think so. You would have to demonstrate it was done with malicious intent.

How would William's biological family go taking action against the State of NSW, (and FACS/DOCS, Young Hope and the fosters) for failing to take care of William, resulting in ten years of emotional trauma?

 

[truecrimepath]

The problem with not treating the house as a crime scene is that it increases the speculation in a detrimental way for everyone concerned including innocent parties.

The house should have been photographed including the verandah. The beds examined, the computers seized etc. This information may have implicated the ex fosters but could also have exonerated them.

 

[BFew]

The problem with not treating the house as a crime scene is that it increases the speculation in a detrimental way for everyone concerned including innocent parties.

The house should have been photographed including the verandah. The beds examined, the computers seized etc. This information may have implicated the ex fosters but could also have exonerated them.

I recall that as a result of lessons learnt in this William Tyrrell case, NSW Police have already changed they way they investigate and manage potential crime scenes in missing children cases. And that this change was reported in the media and somewhere on this thread.

 

[Wallace52]

Are they suggesting it because they think the GO missed call was because she took headset away? This though is way different timeline..

What time was GO’s call to FGM that went unanswered?

 

[31550]

I recall that as a result of lessons learnt in this William Tyrrell case, NSW Police have already changed they way they investigate and manage potential crime scenes in missing children cases. And that this change was reported in the media and somewhere on this thread.

Something about a stable door and a horse.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So you can sue the police for simply doing their job? (albeit not very well).
Don't think so. You would have to demonstrate it was done with malicious intent.

How would William's biological family go taking action against the State of NSW, (and FACS/DOCS, Young Hope and the fosters) for failing to take care of William, resulting in ten years of emotional trauma?

You can sue for malicious prosecution. There has to be malice and it the prosecution must be unreasonable without probable cause. FM has NEVER had an acceptable alibi. Therefore I suspect any action is doomed to failure..

It's possible an abduction took place but more possibly FM was involved. Neither unreasonable nor improbable

Addendum:
Spedding was successful because GJ had no reasonable cause to believe he was involved especially as he had a viable documented alibi

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What time was GO’s call to FGM that went unanswered?

I think it was 9.10

 

[31550]

I think it was 9.10

Yes, soon after FM rang Spedding and left a message.
Note that FM clearly knew where her mother's cordless phone was and how it worked, as she used it that very morning.

 

[Earls Smother]

Re the last couple of pages:

I thought I read/heard that she didn't take her phone with her in the car? To take all 3 phones would be ridiculous. What if FGM found William and needed to contact her? Surely if she did take it (or more than 1), the police would categorically know she travelled and at exactly what time she travelled? They may not be able to triangulate the exact location, but we would have nailed-down times, which we don't.

The FF having a medical episode after dinner is easily explained. Shock is designed to protect people initially. When the shock wears off, reality sets in. He probably was seeing news items on TV about it. Perfectly normal to be hit hardest some hours after the initial event. To use these things as potential indication of something more sinister is really ordinary IMO.

 

[31550]

Surely if she did take it (or more than 1), the police would categorically know she travelled and at exactly what time she travelled?

No they wouldn't. Only if the phone pinged multiple towers, and even then it would just be approximate. Better odds if she actually used the phone during the drive, but apparently she did not. The indications are that she did not even have her phone switched on until the afternoon when she was in contact with FACS.

 

[Earls Smother]

No they wouldn't. Only if the phone pinged multiple towers, and even then it would just be approximate. Better odds if she actually used the phone during the drive, but apparently she did not. The indications are that she did not even have her phone switched on until the afternoon when she was in contact with FACS.

Surely if the phone pings 1 tower, they would know what time that happened?

 

[31550]

Surely if the phone pings 1 tower, they would know what time that happened?

Yes but the phone will ping the tower from anywhere it is in range. Cannot pinpoint its location from a single ping.
In any case it seems her phone was switched off, so doesn't matter if she took it with her or not.

 

[truecrimepath]

Re the last couple of pages:

I thought I read/heard that she didn't take her phone with her in the car? To take all 3 phones would be ridiculous. What if FGM found William and needed to contact her? Surely if she did take it (or more than 1), the police would categorically know she travelled and at exactly what time she travelled? They may not be able to triangulate the exact location, but we would have nailed-down times, which we don't.

The FF having a medical episode after dinner is easily explained. Shock is designed to protect people initially. When the shock wears off, reality sets in. He probably was seeing news items on TV about it. Perfectly normal to be hit hardest some hours after the initial event. To use these things as potential indication of something more sinister is really ordinary IMO.

The crime commission did ask about the phones for a reason. Possibly they had cell data that morning.

 

[Earls Smother]

Yes but the phone will ping the tower from anywhere it is in range. Cannot pinpoint its location from a single ping.

I never said anything about location.

I said it would show that she travelled (i.e. moved) and at what time that was.

Have a look at what you quoted and actually respond to the content.

 

[31550]

I never said anything about location.

I said it would show that she travelled (i.e. moved) and at what time that was.

Have a look at what you quoted and actually respond to the content.

Have a look at what you asked and what I answered.
No, they would NOT know that she travelled OR what time she travelled. They would only know that her phone was on and within range of a certain tower (which could be 1km away or 10km away).
To know THAT she travelled, they would have to know the LOCATION of one or more pings.
A phone pings when it is on whether it is moving or not.
A phone does not ping when it is switched off.

 

[LRitz]

Not clear from Wendy Hudson's statement. Only that she was met by FM in the driveway at 6am and informed by FM that he "was out looking on his own".

To me this is bizarre. Either the command post was unmanned, or they just allowed him to go off on his own.
Since she says she was 'met by the FM in the driveway', and doesn't report any interaction or briefing from fellow police at the command post I can only assume they all went home for the night, and Wendy was the first one there at 6am Saturday morning. Anything could have happened that evening/night.

If he was on foot, he could have been checking to see, or concealing any tyre tracks from a Land Rover.
If he was in the car - new tracks would hide old ones.
I am sure someone knows the time of sunrise, first light, and that it would have been pretty bright at 6:am.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

If he was on foot, he could have been checking to see, or concealing any tyre tracks from a Land Rover.
If he was in the car - new tracks would hide old ones.
I am sure someone knows the time of sunrise, first light, and that it would have been pretty bright at 6:am.

Sunrise on 13th September 2014 at Kendall was 5.51 am.. the FF therefore had left in the dark or first light twilight because he wasn't there at 6.00 am.

Poor policing

 

[LRitz]

For that to happen the way you describe, a number of things have to fall into place.

The odds of someone discovering a deceased child and making an immediate decision to cover up and hide = 100/1.

The odds of telling partner overnight, who decides to protect wife and continue the charade = 100/1.

The odds of both of them being able to do this without leaving any forensic evidence = generously 20/1.

The odds of FF reaching his deceased son and being able to discard him like a piece of rubbish = 100/1.

The odds of Wendy Hudson having shit for brains and not noticing a car missing (which he would need) = 20/1.

Do you realise how ludicrous this sounds?

So you argue that the accident/ incident/ misadventure leading to death and then cover up is (practically) impossible. So therefore ..... there is another solution He must have been adducted.
Is this what you mean?

Sounds like a motte-and- bailey tactic.

 

[31550]

Sunrise on 13th September 2014 at Kendall was 5.51 am.. the FF therefore had left in the dark or first light twilight because he wasn't there at 6.00 am.

Poor policing

You would think someone who had a medical episode just hours before would be advised to stay home and rest.

 

[Lady O]

You would think someone who had a medical episode just hours before would be advised to stay home and rest.

Yes, and not go out into the bush alone and search for WT. Sounds like BS to me!