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

 

[alwaysintrigued]

What makes you think he saw something?

His behaviour was odd agreed. He was mildly cognitively impaired.. I watched the GJ interview with him.. My opinion was he was straight as a lace truthful. Straight no answers without elaboration. No hint of deception either. Mmmmmm, I think it is a dead end. There is also the issue he had with Postie harrassing her. The FGM thought he was odd and asked LE to check on him.


What I will say is that IF FM has no involvement then it has to be someone there or a reason to be there. PS fits that mould. But where did he put him? why wasn't W found?

My observations watching him give evidence in court over many hours / days. I don't think he is cognitively impaired at all, thou he might appear so to others. I'd more describe him as bit eccentric. A lot of his answers were evasive IMO

You saw a small part of a long interview with GJ. His answers at the inquest were not straight forward & often differed when asked the same questions again.

I don't think he took William personally, but I do think he may have seen something. He had met William a couple of times before & talked of the "bond" William had with the FF, but when asked if he knew that the FGM had grandchildren he answered he was not sure. One Eg

He knew everything that went on in that street IMO

All JMO

 

[alwaysintrigued]

He is wasn’t fired. He resigned. And it’s not fair to say that about Scott Cook.

*

It wasn't Scott Cook . It was Detective Craig Lambert

Mr Jubelin also recounted a confrontation between himself and Detective Sergeant Craig Lambert on July 31, 2018. Mr Lambert was officer in charge of William's disappearance and Mr Jubelin oversaw him as investigation supervisor.

'Ranting and ravings': ex-Tyrrell detectives pulled apart after heated argument, court told

William, 3, was wearing a Spider-Man suit when he vanished from his foster-grandmother's home in the NSW Mid North Coast town of Kendall on September 12, 2014.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Kurve]

He was fired because his 2IC white-anted him after an argument about the direction of the case. They then used his illegal listening devices to force what they had already chosen. My opinion

I think GJ was misguided but I never doubt his commitment to the case.

They had to get rid of Jubelin to try and solve the case imo. It's a very big deal to do that to a high profile, well regarded homicide detective.

He embarrassed the brass by guaranteeing the fosters had nothing to do with William's disappearance and the $1 million reward could be safely posted, Crime Stoppers, NSW Police put their full backing behind the WW campaign.

He could have quietly been moved off the case, instead they charged him for something that really isn't a big deal through an investigation in to a missing 3yo. IMO.

 

[31550]

I don't think he took William personally, but I do think he may have seen something.

Possibly, but based on what I've seen and heard of Savage, he'd be a terrible witness in a courtroom. Lawyers would tear him apart and trip him up on his own words.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

I just don’t agree with any of this.

Craddock opinion is his opinion. The podcast presenter’s take or angle is his take or angle.

And as he says “you don’t know what you don’t know.”

I disagree. It's Mr Craddock's job to present the facts to the Coroner. He knows what the facts are & summarised them after the inquest starting up again 4 years later from when it was closed in Oct 2020!

 

[Earls Smother]

Firstly Earls Smother this is not a personal comment or criticism or comment that you are being sneaky or disingenuous. I am simply offering a an reply to your argument.

In case some one was asking what is a motte-and-bailey - it is a medieval type of fort with a motte ( a tower that is easy to defend) surrounded by an area a bailey ( around the tower that is much more difficult to defend).
A motte-and-bailey argument is when two points are put out - one easy to defend (the motte) and one hard to defend (the bailey).
Example:
Bailey: Crystals can be used to treat cancer.
Motte: Sick people need hope.
Combine the two - you agree that people need hope and treatment gives hope so therefore crystals should be used to treat cancer.
When there is agreement with the motte, the motte is somehow linked to the bailey and falsely claim that you have won the point.

Motte: FGM statements are erratic and unreliable. Many would agree
Bailey: FGM has dementia. Disagree, no proof and she is not showing any signs
Combine the two. Agree that FGM is unreliable witness and people with dementia are unreliable. So you must agree that it is likely FGM had dementia.

That's all well and good, but no-one knows she didn't have the early signs of dementia.

I don't see that it matters though - her information seemed erratic and unreliable regardless of why.

For me, there is too much focus on what the FGM and the FM have said. The order of these early things was never going to solve the case. They are unreliable testimonies, probably largely due to stress and panic. I don't see that who made tea, or what FM did before or after the drive is particularly relevant. It is only relevant to back up opinions. The evidence should have caught up with the FM by now if she was involved.

The continual searches and finding of nothing, are more relevant than who said what at the beginning IMO.

 

[31550]

They had to get rid of Jubelin to try and solve the case imo. It's a very big deal to do that to a high profile, well regarded homicide detective.

He embarrassed the brass by guaranteeing the fosters had nothing to do with William's disappearance and the $1 million reward could be safely posted, Crime Stoppers, NSW Police put their full backing behind the WW campaign.

He could have quietly been moved off the case, instead they charged him for something that really isn't a big deal through an investigation in to a missing 3yo. IMO.

Not to mention a few $ in compo to Spedding as well.

 

[Kurve]

Not to mention a few $ in compo to Spedding as well.

After what he did to Spedding, Jubelin's got a real nerve jumping out to make comments like this in defence of the fosters:

"There's lines that you don't cross. And I ask myself the question, what if they've got it wrong?"

 

[Earls Smother]

I just don’t agree with any of this.

Craddock opinion is his opinion. The podcast presenter’s take or angle is his take or angle.

And as he says “you don’t know what you don’t know.”

So you don't think those 5 things are factual?

 

[Earls Smother]

Yeah I know sorry we already covered that - see above

No worries. I started where I left off.

 

[31550]

After what they did to Spedding, Jubelin's got a real nerve jumping out to make comments like this in defence of the fosters:

"There's lines that you don't cross. And I ask myself the question, what if they've got it wrong?"

I think this explains why the police are taking (what I consider to be) a soft line with regards to the FM involvement. They have offered up several olive branches, "We know you are a good mother who loved William and would never have hurt him, but what if there was an accident and you were scared of losing FD ... "? "You can tell us what happened and there won't be any consequences (NSWCC indemnity)".
If you compare this approach to the ones taken with Savage and Spedding they are chalk and cheese IMO.
But to me the 'pure accident/coverup' is a less likely scenario. There is no good reason to cover up a genuine accident, if all the above is true. The evidence (albeit largely circumstantial) points to a more sinister scenario IMO.

 

[stormbird]

That she was asked about 3 phones & the commissioner, Mr Barnes ordered those phones to be produced, <snipped>

alwaysintrigued, I'm wondering about this:

"she [FM] was asked about 3 phones & the commissioner, Mr Barnes ordered those phones to be produced"

Was Mr Barnes ordering FM to produce the phones? (How could anyone could do that after so much time and the death of one of the phone owners?!) Or was he talking to the police? Or a lawyer? Or... what?

I don't understand why he'd want the phones, either, or (if they were needed) why the NSWCC wouldn't have had them already. Presumably the Crime Commission can compel anyone to give them anything, so it seems strange to me that the order would have been issued at a hearing and not earlier.

Did the order for the phones make sense when heard in context? Thanks.

 

[Earls Smother]

I don't know it was him but there was an acknowledged fist fight between the two because of disagreement about direction of the case..no need to make an allegation .....it is public record that happened..I embellish the rest that he was then white - anted but given they were physically fighting and GJ was then punted you can fill the gaps. I did.

The guy he had an altercation with was a former boxer or martial arts guy. Not cool

Wasn't Cook his boss? Not the guy. It was from his underlings

It's interesting that 2 senior police officers, who have access to all the same information, could be so adamant about different directions to pursue. Just shows it is very much a case that is opinion-based, in lieu of no concrete evidence either way.

 

[31550]

So Craddock has been rather pedantic in his determination of the timeline surrounding the photos.
Why is he not equally pedantic about pinning down the timeline of the FM drive?
When is he stating this happened in the sequence of events?
How does it fit with the 10:35 FF return, and the 10:57 000 call for example?
How does this fit with Peter the truck-driver's movements?
How does this fit with the 'definitive' Facebook posts?
How does it fit with telephone data?

 

[alwaysintrigued]

alwaysintrigued, I'm wondering about this:

"she [FM] was asked about 3 phones & the commissioner, Mr Barnes ordered those phones to be produced"

Was Mr Barnes ordering FM to produce the phones? (How could anyone could do that after so much time and the death of one of the phone owners?!) Or was he talking to the police? Or a lawyer? Or... what?

I don't understand why he'd want the phones, either, or (if they were needed) why the NSWCC wouldn't have had them already. Presumably the Crime Commission can compel anyone to give them anything, so it seems strange to me that the order would have been issued at a hearing and not earlier.

Did the order for the phones make sense when heard in context? Thanks.

The FM was asked questions around the phones & her drive ( her mobile, her mothers mobile & the home phone ) & she couldn't say with certainty when she had them, ie before the drive, on the drive, after the drive etc.

It went like this :

SC : Call for the three phones to be produced.
Mr Barnes : I make an order for the three phones be produced.

It may have been a bit of frustration on the part of the NSW CC too I think IMO

No it didn't really make sense to me, as I thought surely you have these already.
IMO the FM wasn't fazed by this either.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The FM was asked questions around the phones & her drive ( her mobile, her mothers mobile & the home phone ) & she couldn't say with certainty when she had them, ie before the drive, on the drive, after the drive etc.

It went like this :

SC : Call for the three phones to be produced.
Mr Barnes : I make an order for the three phones be produced.

It may have been a bit of frustration on the part of the NSW CC too I think IMO

No it didn't really make sense to me, as I thought surely you have these already.
IMO the FM wasn't fazed by this either.

Interesting that she couldn't remember WHEN she had them. It implies she had them all at one point. So I pose the question why would someone collect the phones? The possible answer is when someone wants to control communication.

 

[passball]

Has anyone checked the FGF's grave? Possibly buried with FGF?
Maybe carried or taken by bike, WITHOUT shoes

 

[31550]

Interesting that she couldn't remember WHEN she had them. It implies she had them all at one point. So I pose the question why would someone collect the phones? The possible answer is when someone wants to control communication.

Sounds like to me they have some activity tracking on one of the phones and wanted to know if this phone was with FM or not when it was tracked so they could confirm her position. Or she may have been witnessed with a 'phone' in her hand but no certainty about which one. Or they have evidence to suggest one of the phones may have had it's SIM changed.

 

[31550]

Has anyone checked the FGF's grave? Possibly buried with FGF?
Maybe carried or taken by bike, WITHOUT shoes

FGF was buried seven months earlier. Are you suggesting someone dug it up and nobody noticed?

 

[Kurve]

The FM was asked questions around the phones & her drive ( her mobile, her mothers mobile & the home phone ) & she couldn't say with certainty when she had them, ie before the drive, on the drive, after the drive etc.

It went like this :

SC : Call for the three phones to be produced.
Mr Barnes : I make an order for the three phones be produced.

It may have been a bit of frustration on the part of the NSW CC too I think IMO

No it didn't really make sense to me, as I thought surely you have these already.
IMO the FM wasn't fazed by this either.

The FM admits to taking or having in her hands three phones at one point?

 

[stormbird]

The FM was asked questions around the phones & her drive ( her mobile, her mothers mobile & the home phone ) & she couldn't say with certainty when she had them, ie before the drive, on the drive, after the drive etc.

It went like this :

SC : Call for the three phones to be produced.
Mr Barnes : I make an order for the three phones be produced.

It may have been a bit of frustration on the part of the NSW CC too I think IMO

No it didn't really make sense to me, as I thought surely you have these already.
IMO the FM wasn't fazed by this either.

If this was all on audio not video (?) maybe they were calling for the phones to be shown to FM to identify?

 

[31550]

The FM admits to taking or having in her hands three phones at one point?

Was this while she was waving at the semitrailer driver, or driving the car, or making / drinking tea?

 

[stormbird]

Interesting that she couldn't remember WHEN she had them. It implies she had them all at one point. So I pose the question why would someone collect the phones? The possible answer is when someone wants to control communication.

But it's hard enough to imagine FM grabbing the car keys and taking off in the car without being noticed by FGM and FD (if they didn't notice). To add a whole new activity before or after the keys but before driving - going through the house to get FGM's mobile and either one or both cordless handsets... it's just bizarre this is even a suggestion, IMO. How would she have carried all this stuff to the car - did she have big pockets? a shopping bag? balancing them on her head?

 

[Kurve]

But it's hard enough to imagine FM grabbing the car keys and taking off in the car without being noticed by FGM and FD (if they didn't notice). To add a whole new activity before or after the keys but before driving - going through the house to get FGM's mobile and either one or both cordless handsets... it's just bizarre this is even a suggestion, IMO. How would she have carried all this stuff to the car - did she have big pockets? a shopping bag? balancing them on her head?

Handbag maybe.

My handbags were always quite big when my kids were around that age, I'd only switch out if I had a dinner or a function on and the kids weren't going.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

Has anyone checked the FGF's grave? Possibly buried with FGF?
Maybe carried or taken by bike, WITHOUT shoes

Really are you serious?

Sounds like to me they have some activity tracking on one of the phones and wanted to know if this phone was with FM or not when it was tracked so they could confirm her position. Or she may have been witnessed with a 'phone' in her hand but no certainty about which one. Or they have evidence to suggest one of the phones may have had it's SIM changed.

I don't think so IMO

The FM admits to taking or having in her hands three phones at one point?

No she didn't

If this was all on audio not video (?) maybe they were calling for the phones to be shown to FM to identify?

It was video