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

 

[shorsky]

Yep and it may have caught them out. Note she didn’t use her mobile to make the 000 call either.

The mobile service at #48 was said to be quite poor at that time.

If that’s the case, perhaps they just don’t use their mobiles while there.

I visit some areas even today where my service is poor, so I just forget about my mobile phone. Anyone who urgently needed to make contact would know my whereabouts and use their land line.
It surprisingly refreshing - I just charge it prior to my return trip, when life returns to reality

 

[stormbird]

Some how I missed media articles that stated after the 2018 Cedar Loggers Lane search that Jubelin led they then went onto search Batar Creek Road in 2018 as well. Anyone read if anything of interest was found during these searches?

gymjam, could you be talking about the same search? 27 and 28 June 2018, along Batar Creek Road near the intersection with Cedar Loggers Lane? (I haven't seen anything about other 2018 searches on Batar Creek Rd.)

 

[shorsky]

Shows that it was definitely possible other people/cars were in the area and
how it’s possible William could have run down the slope never to be seen again.

Maybe he drove past his place and up the road further, perhaps to check out the house for sale at # 35 or whatever. … I think it quite possible that interested ‘prospects’ may have been parked in the street looking at the house.

Maybe it was Donohue’s car the Crabbe’s heard turn at end of street and head back … or any one of the potential buyers of #48.
FGM house had been sold - perhaps someone associated with new owner did a drive by to check it out

There’s endless possibilities - I just hope these things have all been checked out thoroughly. .. for William’s sake, and also to save face for the members of SFR.

 

[shorsky]

I don't have a link. The DPP refused to charge. I can't think of a reason other than total lack of evidence. If this is so controversial just delete my posts again.

This may help :

Last year, New South Wales police sought advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions over whether William Tyrrell’s foster mother could be charged over his 2014 disappearance.

Investigators subsequently asked the DPP to suspend their consideration of the case until after further hearings of the long-running coronial inquest into the toddler’s disappearance and presumed death.

As per:

William Tyrrell case takes a turn after 10 years as inquest hears new theory of his death

Detectives believe William accidentally fell from a balcony and died, coroner told, as foster mother tearfully denies disposing of body

www.theguardian.com

 

[shorsky]

Is the Inquest really concerned about how William died or is it searching for evidence that supports a finding that William is likely deceased?

The purpose of an Inquest is to determine the cause of death of an individual / individuals .

The Coroner then prepares a report. Said Report may contain any number of recommendations for further actions.

 

[31550]

Maybe he drove past his place and up the road further, perhaps to check out the house for sale at # 35 or whatever. … I think it quite possible that interested ‘prospects’ may have been parked in the street looking at the house.

Maybe it was Donohue’s car the Crabbe’s heard turn at end of street and head back … or any one of the potential buyers of #48.
FGM house had been sold - perhaps someone associated with new owner did a drive by to check it out

There’s endless possibilities - I just hope these things have all been checked out thoroughly. .. for William’s sake, and also to save face for the members of SFR.

My understanding is #35 did not go on sale until after William disappeared. #48 was not publicly on the market, it was either being prepared for sale or was under offer. It's not like there were 'for sale' signs up anywhere. It wasn't public knowledge.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What some state as facts to support their viewpoint, are not necessarily indisputable facts.

An example is William did not leave the property on foot. On here this is deemed fact, which of course limits discussion options. It cannot be 100% certain this is the case. The dogs are fallible and they hardly had pristine conditions to work in.

There is every chance he went at least to the edge of the road opposite number 35, maybe a bit further. GJ states that his sister likely was the last one to see him and said he was looking for daddy.

I can’t say this definitely happened, but nor can you say it definitely didn’t. This forum seems to have ruled this out as an acceptable discussion point. You seem to be the gatekeeper on insuring it is shouted down at every opportunity.

Your “facts” should not be more readily accepted just because you and a few others say so.

Tracking dogs are accurate at detecting scent 92%.They are less accurate in locating the person 15-20%.. The handler for Gov says the search was made difficult because of the 2 hrs travel time to Kendall. The scent dissipates. I have little doubt too that the search was exacerbated by the number of people there to look for William. Hundreds out searching..In detecting scent the dog has to sift through ALL the scents present and identify the one to find....William. needless to say the more people, the more polluted the scent trail. The handler also said that the terrain and undergrowth (Lantana) were also major hurdles. The poor dog had 30 ticks at the end..

Numerous articles quoting the police say that no scent was detected off the property..SFR have interpreted that together with the FM drive to suggest W was taken by car. That is a reasonable hypothesis. Early when abductors were suspected, it was interpreted to mean that an abductor took W.

Nothing is certain as a fact..we have to traverse a path that we each think will get us to the truth. For me, given what we DO know and the lead SFR give us with their choices I have landed on the conclusion he was taken off the property in a car. You are perfectly at liberty to traverse your path that concludes he wandered..I've explained why I have chosen my path..I'd like to understand why you think he wandered. What clues, if any, advocate that?

Everyone here is accepting of new theories because by accepting these theories we test the known facts and conclusions drawn just like the one regarding dog tracking and car transport.

 

[truecrimepath]

The mobile service at #48 was said to be quite poor at that time.

If that’s the case, perhaps they just don’t use their mobiles while there.

I visit some areas even today where my service is poor, so I just forget about my mobile phone. Anyone who urgently needed to make contact would know my whereabouts and use their land line.
It surprisingly refreshing - I just charge it prior to my return trip, when life returns to reality

The comment is whether the phone was on and with her. If off, how did she read the text message which she had claimed in her evidence?

 

[31550]

The comment is whether the phone was on and with her. If off, how did she read the text message which she had claimed in her evidence?

If the phone was on with an active SIM and #48 was in cell tower range, even intermittently, there would have been pings. However ping data is not included in the FM statement, so we don't know if this is the case. But SFR should know by now.
We don't know for sure WHEN she read the text message, and she doesn't explicitly say in her statements. According to the FF interview it was sent at 10:30. But he may have told her about it later, or she may have checked her phone later in the day and seen it.
We do know her phone was on and connected to the network at around 2:20pm on the Friday because the phone log shows an outgoing call then. Wendy Hudson also notes FM received a call on her mobile while she was talking to her (the exact time is not clear). Wendy also says in her statement that FM 'checked her phone' and said words to the effect that "it was just before [FF] texted me at 10:30". (This is in the formal statement - the written notes are slightly different).
So she became aware of the text message between 10:30 and around 1:30pm, but could be anywhere during this time.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You could easily make a case for certain posters being very protective of "their" environment.

That might raise the hackles of other posters who have a different viewpoint and are forced into tit for tat situations.

I've read a few comments such as just above "You can't just suddenly adopt this case as a new hobby and gather the wealth of information shared here .....the theories tested and rejected"

That is a pile of shit. Even the police themselves will run fresh eyes over cold cases. People learn about true crime via all sorts of avenues. A closed shop of 6 or 8 posters, constantly agreeing with each other, does nothing to challenge aspects of the case. People can become so set in their opinion, that they'll swear black and blue the police have got it wrong if they charge someone else.

The police theory that the FM did it seemed to be on the verge of progressing to charges. I'd argue it's further away from that following the recent inquest tranche. There may be a smoking gun that will be revealed in December, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yeah that was me. I stand by my comment 100%..it's not shit. The long term posters have TOGETHER worked through at least 30-40 + scenarios for what happened. We regularly disagreed ( still do) and there were tangents to theories some accepted others didn't ..Fresh opinions are always welcome. Fresh set of eyes yes. Articulate your theory with known facts and it will be tested as ALL theories have been. Don't take offence at the testing process because ALL have been subjected to it ....it's the manner by which the thread as a whole can assess merit of the theory. To describe it as being a gatekeeper to accepting new opinion is BS. I had a long running disagreement with 31550 about 9.37 am. Neither he or I or other long term posters keep you from articulating ANY theory you may have. We all want the truth and accept contributions to that end. You must understand though that virtually any theory has already been looked at so that historical analysis will be used as reference point. No gatekeeping..... just considered analysis that we draw upon. You disagree? Persuade us we were wrong or stand alone on your convictions. Both can happen and do happen

 

[Wallace52]

Sorry I have put an edit in to read the foster grandmother volunteered at the op shop.

Fabulous, that clears it up!!

 

[31550]

Yeah that was me. I stand by my comment 100%..it's not shit. The long term posters have TOGETHER worked through at least 30-40 + scenarios for what happened. We regularly disagreed ( still do) and there were tangents to theories some accepted others didn't ..Fresh opinions are always welcome. Fresh set of eyes yes. Articulate your theory with known facts and it will be tested as ALL theories have been. Don't take offence at the testing process because ALL have been subjected to it ....it's the manner by which the thread as a whole can assess merit of the theory. To describe it as being a gatekeeper to accepting new opinion is BS. I had a long running disagreement with 31550 about 9.37 am. Neither he or I or other long term posters keep you from articulating ANY theory you may have. We all want the truth and accept contributions to that end. You must understand though that virtually any theory has already been looked at so that historical analysis will be used as reference point. No gatekeeping..... just considered analysis that we draw upon. You disagree? Persuade us we were wrong or stand alone on your convictions. Both can happen and do happen

100%

Feel free to disagree, or put forward alternate theories. Opinions are welcome as long as they can be justified and are not dogmatic.

I have posted some things which were subsequently shown to be incorrect, and I was happy to be corrected and I accept when I do get things wrong. But try to be respectful to other people. And be mindful of the truth.

 

[Earls Smother]

Tracking dogs are accurate at detecting scent 92%.They are less accurate in locating the person 15-20%.. The handler for Gov says the search was made difficult because of the 2 hrs travel time to Kendall. The scent dissipates. I have little doubt too that the search was exacerbated by the number of people there to look for William. Hundreds out searching..In detecting scent the dog has to sift through ALL the scents present and identify the one to find....William. needless to say the more people, the more polluted the scent trail. The handler also said that the terrain and undergrowth (Lantana) were also major hurdles. The poor dog had 30 ticks at the end..

Numerous articles quoting the police say that no scent was detected off the property..SFR have interpreted that together with the FM drive to suggest W was taken by car. That is a reasonable hypothesis. Early when abductors were suspected, it was interpreted to mean that an abductor took W.

Nothing is certain as a fact..we have to traverse a path that we each think will get us to the truth. For me, given what we DO know and the lead SFR give us with their choices I have landed on the conclusion he was taken off the property in a car. You are perfectly at liberty to traverse your path that concludes he wandered..I've explained why I have chosen my path..I'd like to understand why you think he wandered. What clues, if any, advocate that?

Everyone here is accepting of new theories because by accepting these theories we test the known facts and conclusions drawn just like the one regarding dog tracking and car transport.

Agree as you say, it's a hypothesis. It's a totally reasonable conclusion to draw, but by no means fact.

Following the lead of SFR and their choices, would have caused an interested sleuth to jump all over the place in the past decade. We don't know that their current belief is the correct one.

 

[Wallace52]

Agree as you say, it's a hypothesis. It's a totally reasonable conclusion to draw, but by no means fact.

Following the lead of SFR and their choices, would have caused an interested sleuth to jump all over the place in the past decade. We don't know that their current belief is the correct one.

No we don’t know. But it’s just a matter of time before we will know.

And until then we will discuss, and we are doing a darn good job, collectively.

 

[Wallace52]

Except she verbally states in the “one last roar” podcast that she was relieved to have gotten the text and knew the FF was going to be home soon. Was this the reason for the subpoena?

I would say the subpoena is for the journalists’ notes and for the recordings that didn’t make it into the actual podcast. But imo.

 

[Earls Smother]

Yeah that was me. I stand by my comment 100%..it's not shit. The long term posters have TOGETHER worked through at least 30-40 + scenarios for what happened. We regularly disagreed ( still do) and there were tangents to theories some accepted others didn't ..Fresh opinions are always welcome. Fresh set of eyes yes. Articulate your theory with known facts and it will be tested as ALL theories have been. Don't take offence at the testing process because ALL have been subjected to it ....it's the manner by which the thread as a whole can assess merit of the theory. To describe it as being a gatekeeper to accepting new opinion is BS. I had a long running disagreement with 31550 about 9.37 am. Neither he or I or other long term posters keep you from articulating ANY theory you may have. We all want the truth and accept contributions to that end. You must understand though that virtually any theory has already been looked at so that historical analysis will be used as reference point. No gatekeeping..... just considered analysis that we draw upon. You disagree? Persuade us we were wrong or stand alone on your convictions. Both can happen and do happen

That's fine and well explained.

The bolded above is not possible. I think Craddock listed 5 known facts at the start of the recent tranche. The 9.37 photo was one, the FF text was another, a fairly obscure reference to Facebook posts and their relevance to people's locations was another. I can't be bothered going looking for the other 2, but they were not hugely defining.

That means a lot is open to conjecture. A fair bit of recent conjecture has been met with responses that suggest it has been previously ruled out. That can't possibly be the case in the real world.

 

[31550]

Agree as you say, it's a hypothesis. It's a totally reasonable conclusion to draw, but by no means fact.

Following the lead of SFR and their choices, would have caused an interested sleuth to jump all over the place in the past decade. We don't know that their current belief is the correct one.

Sniffer dog evidence notwithstanding, it's a fair distance from FGM house down to BCR.
Google Maps has it as an 8 minute walk (presumably for an adult).
William is little more than 3 Years Old, small for his age, suffers from asthma, is reportedly not a wanderer, is not familiar with the territory, and would probably be distracted by the bush surroundings rather than be heading directly and deliberately towards the main road.
We have already discussed how unlikely it is for random traffic to enter Benaroon Drive. It goes nowhere.
Nobody saw William leave FGM house. FM said he was gone "5 minutes, maybe 10".

How does William get far enough away from the house that he is never seen again if he is on foot?
The bush is very thick, and the immediate area was searched intensively from Day 1, and he was wearing bright blue/red clothing. The only easy exit route is down Benaroon Drive.

 

[31550]

That's fine and well explained.

The bolded above is not possible. I think Craddock listed 5 known facts at the start of the recent tranche. The 9.37 photo was one, the FF text was another, a fairly obscure reference to Facebook posts and their relevance to people's locations was another. I can't be bothered going looking for the other 2, but they were not hugely defining.

That means a lot is open to conjecture. A fair bit of recent conjecture has been met with responses that suggest it has been previously ruled out. That can't possibly be the case in the real world.

Did Craddock really reference "Facebook posts" as "known facts"? What was the context?

I guess if somebody posted something on Facebook about a missing boy in Kendall which was timestamped "10am" this would be significant.

But if it's something like "I know a guy who said his mate heard xxx and yyy" then not.

 

[31550]

Except she verbally states in the “one last roar” podcast that she was relieved to have gotten the text and knew the FF was going to be home soon. Was this the reason for the subpoena?

The police will know for sure when she actually received it from Telco. This I think is the reason for questioning about the phone and text message at the crime commission. It was deleted to hide the fact that she didn’t receive the message as stated.

If this theory is correct it suggests the story is concocted imho. The question then arises whether it was pre meditated before the FF left for his conference call.

If it can be shown she did not receive the message at 10:30 but at some time later, the question may be asked why not? Was it perhaps because she was not where she said she was?

 

[31550]

I guess you are saying that nothing the FM is stating is a fact and I can agree with that. So which are the real memories and which are the faulty ones?

We may never know for sure. But some memories are inconsistent with established facts so cannot be true. Better to assume nothing, believe nothing, challenge everything. ABC

 

[Earls Smother]

I guess you are saying that nothing the FM is stating is a fact and I can agree with that. So which are the real memories and which are the faulty ones?

I have no idea. Neither can the police and probably she doesn't even know for sure.

The thing is, the case doesn't really swing on what she has said. SFR can simply doubt and discount everything she has ever said, and then work with what they can establish from other means.

They are now working on the theory that she has mislead them in order to move a corpse undetected. They might want to actually come up with a corpse before attempting to show that it has been moved. How can any charges progress on what they have? They would need either an eyewitness, taped incriminatory conversation/s, or some form of confession to another person who has come forward.

 

[31550]

View attachment 2164760

The FD statement about where William went on the day(Wendy Hudson) is in the opposite direction to what has been claimed by the FGM. Does anyone know why.

One says towards the driveway and the other says down below the high verandah.

Was the FD coached to say this? Both can’t be right.

I don't believe FD told anyone William went in the opposite direction to what was claimed by FGM.
It doesn't say so in Wendy Hudson's statement. I haven't seen the FD statement (don't think it has ever been made public).
Do you have any proof for this claim?

 

[Earls Smother]

Sniffer dog evidence notwithstanding, it's a fair distance from FGM house down to BCR.
Google Maps has it as an 8 minute walk (presumably for an adult).
William is little more than 3 Years Old, small for his age, suffers from asthma, is reportedly not a wanderer, is not familiar with the territory, and would probably be distracted by the bush surroundings rather than be heading directly and deliberately towards the main road.
We have already discussed how unlikely it is for random traffic to enter Benaroon Drive. It goes nowhere.
Nobody saw William leave FGM house. FM said he was gone "5 minutes, maybe 10".

How does William get far enough away from the house that he is never seen again if he is on foot?
The bush is very thick, and the immediate area was searched intensively from Day 1, and he was wearing bright blue/red clothing. The only easy exit route is down Benaroon Drive.

I don't think anyone has said he got to BCR on foot.

It is only 70 metres downhill to the edge of Benaroon. The gap in the trees would push him towards where the 2 cars "may" have been. You say "We have already discussed how unlikely it is for random traffic to enter Benaroon Drive". That doesn't end the conversation because you say it's unlikely. Everything about the whole case is unlikely.

We know there was other non-local cars around. If we had definitive evidence via regos then those owners would have been spoken to. It seems the police have struggled to identify a number of cars/drivers. The 5 minutes (or likely a bit more, even FM admits that) provides a window of "unknown". Unless there was only gated access into Benaroon, no-one can be certain what has gone on.

While the doubt exists for alternative scenarios, combined with the lack of evidence to support the current police theory, it seems a very weak case for the FM IMO.

 

[Earls Smother]

Did Craddock really reference "Facebook posts" as "known facts"? What was the context?

I guess if somebody posted something on Facebook about a missing boy in Kendall which was timestamped "10am" this would be significant.

But if it's something like "I know a guy who said his mate heard xxx and yyy" then not.

Yes. In the context of your second paragraph, but didn't mention the people he was referring to.

 

[31550]

Yes. In the context of your second paragraph, but didn't mention the people he was referring to.

I'd be more than a little concerned if the deputy coroner starts treating random unattributed Facebook posts as irrefutable evidence of anything. We'll never solve this case that way.