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

 

[31550]

The suppression orders on the Fosters being named, are primarily to protect the ID of the Foster Daughter (William's sister who is still a child) and possibly any of the other umpteen children that were ever in their care.

Some are and some aren't as I understand it. Also since she is no longer in their 'care', does her protection continue to extend to them?

 

[BFew]

Some are and some aren't as I understand it. Also since she is no longer in their 'care', does her protection continue to extend to them?

I expect that one way or another even if it doesn't currently, it will extend to all of them (who are still currently children), and probably to all those children who are not 18+, unless the 18+ ones (if there are any yet), explicitly don't want to continue to be covered into adulthood (giving the high profile of this case).

 

[Earls Smother]

9.37 isn't imo the last proof of life. POL requires independent confirmation. Even though it now appears that SFR accepts 9.37 we have done a deep dive here which says not only could edits be done but they wouldn't be detectable. The last proof of life was children heard playing just after 9 am. That now seems less likely given SFR theories on FM involvement and the 10.10 drive but clearly SFR have made mistakes else it would be solved.

It's possible that the trip started before 9.30 after heard playing POL and was heard/ finished with RETURN at 10.10.....the only time car was heard. That implies that Cobb & co is a ruse, that the trip was further afield, that edits did happen. What evidence? Well the evidence that NOTHING was found within the search zone including Cobb & co which together with persuasive COG behaviours appears possible. Also the evidence of Peter the truckie' not seeing FM where she supposedly went.

the window for death is just after when children were heard playing until possibly that car being heard which SFR has timed at 10.10. That's potentially 55 mins.

If children were heard by PS was it bike riding? Because if it was BR the Foster's have written out BR from all accounts until WWT podcasts. Why? That may account for SFR subpoena of those records, because of the anomaly.

Addendum: the evidence against 10.10 being return is the sound of gravel which means lower driveway

Craddock lists 9:37 as one of the accepted certainties.

The police accept that as fact.

If you don't want to, that's up to you, but I'm not engaging in nonsensical discussion around stuff that doesn't accept that.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

So what? William was alive at 9:37.

Flags couldn't be greener.

People would rather skip over that fact, which kinda makes any of their arguments / discussions before that time irrelevant IMO

Paul Savage also had a perfect view of anyone going up that fire trail. He heard children playing coming from the FGM's hose after 09:02 while eating his toast & drinking his tea on his front porch. This IMO was when the kids were riding their bikes on the driveway.

The photos were requested to be looked at by Swift ( bio dad lawyer at the time ) on the 2/9/2019 & the Coroner & Craddock agreed & than what do you know, the coroner releases 5 more photos showing the white on the back of William's Spider-man suit etc on the 12/9/2019 ( 5yr anniversary) - why would she do that if she thought the photos still may have had an incorrect timestamp??......I suggest to you that she knew they were correct when she released the 2nd lot of photos.



Edited to add links re photos

Confusion over time famous last photo of William Tyrrell was taken

An investigation has been launched into the last known photograph of missing boy William Tyrrell, following...

www.9news.com.au

Coroner releases unseen William Tyrrell photos taken the day he vanished

Five years to the day since William Tyrrell vanished without a trace, the NSW Coroner has released new phot...

www.9news.com.au

 

[31550]

I expect that one way or another even if it doesn't currently, it will extend to all of them (who are still currently children), and probably to all those children who are not 18+, unless the 18+ ones (if there are any yet), explicitly don't want to continue to be covered into adulthood (giving the high profile of this case).

I meant, "Will the orders continue to extend to the fosters themselves?"

 

[LRitz]

9.37 isn't imo the last proof of life. POL requires independent confirmation. Even though it now appears that SFR accepts 9.37 we have done a deep dive here which says not only could edits be done but they wouldn't be detectable. The last proof of life was children heard playing just after 9 am. That now seems less likely given SFR theories on FM involvement and the 10.10 drive but clearly SFR have made mistakes else it would be solved.....

The children heard playing is not an eye witness of William. As mentioned previously, it could have been just one child, FD who was playing.
Possible but not certain.
No one, as far as I know, saw William that morning, other than the family.

 

[passball]

Ok this is a bit of a long story but bear with me. It refers to tracking cars and phones turned off.

In the Joe Tripodi, a NSW politician, case Tripodi drove Sydney to Wellington NSW to see Tony Kelly, about 5 hours in 2013. Attached news article. Before ICAC:....
"Tripodi was asked if he had told his former staffer and friend Rocco Leonello the reason ''you turned off your phone was because you didn't want anybody to track you as to where you were that day?''..."

So investigation knew he had the phone with him. They knew he drove to Wellington.They knew the phone was off. I am not sure if it was stated that they knew about his drive with his sat nav, or how exactly they came to these conclusions. Any way, it was a real gotcha moment.
Worth reading the article. It is a classic Kate McClymont reporting.

And more recently reported "...His (Obeid's) trial with Tripodi and Kelly is slated to start on May 12, 2025, with an estimate of nine weeks..." 2013 to 2025. The wheels of justice certainly turn slowly in NSW

Former NSW Labor trio to face corruption trial next year

One-time party powerbroker Eddie Obeid and his former political allies Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly have been charged with misconduct in public office.

www.smh.com.au

Why do I feel that Wellington has been mentioned in this case?

 

[BFew]

Craddock lists 9:37 as one of the accepted certainties.

The police accept that as fact.

If you don't want to, that's up to you, but I'm not engaging in nonsensical discussion around stuff that doesn't accept that.

You're probably going to look a right fool, if at some point either the Police, Prosecution, Defence, Coronial staff, or credible enough media experts on the case, come out with not accepting that as a fact at some point in the future.

Will you accept it, if they change their mind on this issue, or continue to have blind faith in their original take on this?

 

[31550]

Craddock lists 9:37 as one of the accepted certainties.

The police accept that as fact.

If you don't want to, that's up to you, but I'm not engaging in nonsensical discussion around stuff that doesn't accept that.

Not all the discussion is nonsensical, but most of it is.
What people need to get their heads around is that, even if manipulation of the photos and timestamps is theoretically possible, the suggestion that this was done in this case is, by natural extension, a suggestion that the fosters (and possibly others) are involved in a pre-planned, masterful, and intricate criminal conspiracy to get rid of a 3YO boy under the noses of the entire country, and have managed to somehow get away with this for ten years despite one of the largest manhunts and missing persons investigations in this nation's history. It's becoming ridiculous.

 

[BFew]

The police accept that as fact.

All of them?

 

[stormbird]

This is something I have seen repeated & repeated as fact. Is there any evidence that the FGM had dementia at the time William went missing? I think by the time the inquest started, she may have been experiencing signs of dementia, she was not called as a witness that I know of. I guess she could have been in a closed court session?

There are several things in the FGM video that are not correct IMO

Like she was down on the road talking to Anne Marie before the FM called police. Anne Marie never said she talked to the FGM in her testimony ( I think this may have happened much later, if it happened ) Also she says the FF was not there that morning when she got up, he was, he just didn't have breakfast with them all IMO.

The FGM also says that the FF arrived when she was walking back up ( after supposedly talking to Anne Marie ) & that somehow he already knew.

Her times are way off IMO

re: "Anne Marie never said she talked to the FGM in her testimony (I think this may have happened much later, if it happened)"

alwaysintrigued, if this is ok, a few questions about Anne Maree's testimony at the second day of the inquest (26 March 2019)?

Did Anne Maree mention anything about an elderly couple in a car driving along the road? (In FGM's walk-through, FGM said they stopped and FGM said to them: 'Have you seen this little boy?' My transcript in post 7,943, previous thread)

And did Anne Maree mention whether there were any vehicles in her own driveway? If so, was anyone else at her house? (FGM said there were two cars, "But that's usual, they're quite often there." My transcript in post 7,944, previous thread)

Thank you.

 

[Earls Smother]

You're probably going to look a right fool, if at some point either the Police, Prosecution, Defence, Coronial staff, or credible enough media experts on the case, come out with not accepting that as a fact at some point in the future.

Will you accept it, if they change their mind on this issue, or continue to have blind faith in their original take on this?

You already look a right fool by not accepting it.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

Could FM have driven away from the house to make a phone call.

Maybe went there for better reception. How bad was the mobile reception at the FGM's house? FF claims the reason he went to Lakewood to make his work call is to get better reception. The 000 call is with the FGM's landline. She could have used another phone, or just changed SIM cards in her phone so it would not show up on her phone records. She then changes SIM back, and throws the burner sim out of the car. And it is never found. Needle in a haystack.

The question is why make a call that she does not want tracked? Possible IMO, to contact FF and check in on him and find out his expected return time.

Than that would be on the FF's log of received calls, which the police & the Coroner has.

Everyone knows!
The owners were away. Number 52, next door, able to see FGM's house and probably have view of back deck where the drawing took place. And see if anyone drove from 48 towards the dirt road into the state forest. But they did not see anything, because they were not there.

I bet FGM knew they were away. The other neighbours knew because they were collecting their mail. On Friday someone was able to fetch a key to unlock the house to search, in case William had somehow got into the empty locked house. When did FF find this out? That is not known, but as you said he is aware of it in his walk-through which is some days later. Possible FF and FM knew this before Friday.

Red Flags: the other neighbours across the road always, like clock work, leave in the morning around 8 for exercise. So the two house that could see cars leave 48, especially in the direction of the dirt road are not there between about 8:00 am and 9:30.

Yep Mr Crabb

9.37 isn't imo the last proof of life. POL requires independent confirmation. Even though it now appears that SFR accepts 9.37 we have done a deep dive here which says not only could edits be done but they wouldn't be detectable. The last proof of life was children heard playing just after 9 am. That now seems less likely given SFR theories on FM involvement and the 10.10 drive but clearly SFR have made mistakes else it would be solved.

It's possible that the trip started before 9.30 after heard playing POL and was heard/ finished with RETURN at 10.10.....the only time car was heard. That implies that Cobb & co is a ruse, that the trip was further afield, that edits did happen. What evidence? Well the evidence that NOTHING was found within the search zone including Cobb & co which together with persuasive COG behaviours appears possible. Also the evidence of Peter the truckie' not seeing FM where she supposedly went.

the window for death is just after when children were heard playing until possibly that car being heard which SFR has timed at 10.10. That's potentially 55 mins.

If children were heard by PS was it bike riding? Because if it was BR the Foster's have written out BR from all accounts until WWT podcasts. Why? That may account for SFR subpoena of those records, because of the anomaly.

Addendum: the evidence against 10.10 being return is the sound of gravel which means lower driveway

So you know more than the Police, the Coroner & the NSW CC. I don't think so.

Not true, the FM spoke about the bike riding ( at length ) in her evidence in March 2019. The WWT podcasts did not start till June 2019.

That has not yet been proven to the public.

Hopefully the Dec 16-20, 2025 next inquest session, or Dan Box podcasts between now and then, can further reduce the likelihood that William was no longer alive at 9:37am, to make it easier to rule out a whole lot of other possibilities and potential perpetrators, and make it easier to prosecute whoever might be responsible for William's having gone missing (and his likely death).

Doesn't need to be proven to the public, needs to be proven to the Coroner. It has been proven to the public thou as it's been stated as a fact / certainty at the inquest both by Mr Craddock & Sophie Callan ( NSW CC )

Craddock lists 9:37 as one of the accepted certainties.

The police accept that as fact.

If you don't want to, that's up to you, but I'm not engaging in nonsensical discussion around stuff that doesn't accept that.

I totally agree.

 

[Earls Smother]

Not all the discussion is nonsensical, but most of it is.
What people need to get their heads around is that, even if manipulation of the photos and timestamps is theoretically possible, the suggestion that this was done in this case is, by natural extension, a suggestion that the fosters (and possibly others) are involved in a pre-planned, masterful, and intricate criminal conspiracy to get rid of a 3YO boy under the noses of the entire country, and have managed to somehow get away with this for ten years despite one of the largest manhunts and missing persons investigations in this nation's history. It's becoming ridiculous.

Exactly. They were on the verge of adopting him, but they despised him so much that they travelled to the countryside to murder him and dispose of his body, never to be found (until 200 years later in a clearing).

 

[alwaysintrigued]

re: "Anne Marie never said she talked to the FGM in her testimony (I think this may have happened much later, if it happened)"

alwaysintrigued, if this is ok, a few questions about Anne Maree's testimony at the second day of the inquest (26 March 2019)?

Did Anne Maree mention anything about an elderly couple in a car driving along the road? (In FGM's walk-through, FGM said they stopped and FGM said to them: 'Have you seen this little boy?' My transcript in post 7,943, previous thread)

And did Anne Maree mention whether there were any vehicles in her own driveway? If so, was anyone else at her house? (FGM said there were two cars, "But that's usual, they're quite often there." My transcript in post 7,944, previous thread)

Thank you.

No she didn't. She was the only one home. She also said that the FM knocked on the door of #35 ( the FM did not remember this ) and no one answered.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

BFew, why is it that you have chosen not to to relay any of the information to your fellow long term posters, that you heard & saw at the inquest, but fully expect & ask me to?? ( which I have done & happy to do, despite being belittled - says a whole lot more about me than you btw )

Really odd behavior IMO, but just maybe there is nothing you heard that supports your view....

*

 

[LRitz]

People would rather skip over that fact, which kinda makes any of their arguments / discussions before that time irrelevant IMO

Paul Savage also had a perfect view of anyone going up that fire trail. He heard children playing coming from the FGM's hose after 09:02 while eating his toast & drinking his tea on his front porch. This IMO was when the kids were riding their bikes on the driveway.

The photos were requested to be looked at by Swift ( bio dad lawyer at the time ) on the 2/9/2019 & the Coroner & Craddock agreed & than what do you know, the coroner releases 5 more photos showing the white on the back of William's Spider-man suit etc on the 12/9/2019 ( 5yr anniversary) - why would she do that if she thought the photos still may have had an incorrect timestamp??......I suggest to you that she knew they were correct when she released the 2nd lot of photos.

If nothing happened before 9:37 the time of the last photo - Why are there errors and inconsistencies in the statements of what happened before this. Yes, I can see you could say FF left about 9 when he actually left at 8:50, or breakfast was for 20 minutes or 30 minutes and it was a bit longer and be slightly off.

But there are major problems and inconsistencies. FM does not say they rode their bikes after breakfast. She says FD is inside "doing some stuff" with FGM. If FM plays outside with William after breakfast that is only one child playing not children. FM says this is when she grazed her hand. If they finish breakfast and then make phone call to Bill the repair man an 9:05 and are playing for 10 minutes with just William, then FD joins them outside it is 9:15. FM specifically says this is when both children playing out the front on the grass, climbing trees, playing monster, spinning. This activities could take 10 minutes which leaves no time to ride the bikes before they are back on the deck to start drawing.

FGM does not say she did "stuff" with FD. She does not say she watched the kids play or ride their bikes. She says she did the dishes. She still has her slippers on at 9:37. Did she go down the drive way in her slippers.

You don't know that PS had a perfect view of the fire trail all morning.

 

[Wallace52]

Some are and some aren't as I understand it. Also since she is no longer in their 'care', does her protection continue to extend to them?

Yes. It will continue indefinitely.

 

[truecrimepath]

You already look a right fool by not accepting it.

Have you looked at how it can be done?

Before being so certain read this article. It is one of many on the subject. You may not be aware of the discussion.

Electronic verification of JPEG files is just not reliable. Can't be detected by experts with certainty. Easy to do even without specialist software. The evidence presented so far is that they have verified the photos electronically using EXIF/Metadata.

https://shutter-count.com/cameras/can-exif-data-be-changed-or-faked/

That's why I believe physical verification using light, shadows to verify time and even date, as well as physical attributes of subjects is key to getting this right.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

If nothing happened before 9:37 the time of the last photo - Why are there errors and inconsistencies in the statements of what happened before this. Yes, I can see you could say FF left about 9 when he actually left at 8:50, or breakfast was for 20 minutes or 30 minutes and it was a bit longer and be slightly off.

But there are major problems and inconsistencies. FM does not say they rode their bikes after breakfast. She says FD is inside "doing some stuff" with FGM. If FM plays outside with William after breakfast that is only one child playing not children. FM says this is when she grazed her hand. If they finish breakfast and then make phone call to Bill the repair man an 9:05 and are playing for 10 minutes with just William, then FD joins them outside it is 9:15. FM specifically says this is when both children playing out the front on the grass, climbing trees, playing monster, spinning. This activities could take 10 minutes which leaves no time to ride the bikes before they are back on the deck to start drawing.

FGM does not say she did "stuff" with FD. She does not say she watched the kids play or ride their bikes. She says she did the dishes. She still has her slippers on at 9:37. Did she go down the drive way in her slippers.

You don't know that PS had a perfect view of the fire trail all morning.

Did you hear the evidence given by the FM at the inquest?

The FM said they rode the bikes after the FF left, around 9am or shortly after, the Foster Family's car was not there at the time.

They were inside & outside frequently that morning.

I see no reason that the FGM would not walk on concrete in her slippers, arounf the carport & on the driveway.

 

[truecrimepath]

If nothing happened before 9:37 the time of the last photo - Why are there errors and inconsistencies in the statements of what happened before this. Yes, I can see you could say FF left about 9 when he actually left at 8:50, or breakfast was for 20 minutes or 30 minutes and it was a bit longer and be slightly off.

But there are major problems and inconsistencies. FM does not say they rode their bikes after breakfast. She says FD is inside "doing some stuff" with FGM. If FM plays outside with William after breakfast that is only one child playing not children. FM says this is when she grazed her hand. If they finish breakfast and then make phone call to Bill the repair man an 9:05 and are playing for 10 minutes with just William, then FD joins them outside it is 9:15. FM specifically says this is when both children playing out the front on the grass, climbing trees, playing monster, spinning. This activities could take 10 minutes which leaves no time to ride the bikes before they are back on the deck to start drawing.

FGM does not say she did "stuff" with FD. She does not say she watched the kids play or ride their bikes. She says she did the dishes. She still has her slippers on at 9:37. Did she go down the drive way in her slippers.

You don't know that PS had a perfect view of the fire trail all morning.

If you look at the Wendy Hudson statement, even that version is actually different to what she says in her initial statement. The car journey was not included as you know. How can you forget the drive.

 

[Kurve]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Unless or until the question of the time of the Spiderman images is raised as in dispute through the Coroners inquiry, we need to accept they were taken at around 9.37am.

Strongly suggest we move on.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

Have you looked at how it can be done?

Before being so certain read this article. It is one of many on the subject. You may not be aware of the discussion.

Electronic verification of JPEG files is just not reliable. Can't be detected by experts with certainty. Easy to do even without specialist software. The evidence presented so far is that they have verified the photos electronically using EXIF/Metadata.

https://shutter-count.com/cameras/can-exif-data-be-changed-or-faked/

That's why I believe physical verification using light, shadows to verify time and even date, as well as physical attributes of subjects is key to getting this right.

I am yet to see whether the police have actually done this. I have used my skills to do this and I come to the conclusion that the photos were not taken that morning. I would to love to have an expert review to either confirm or refute my work. That's why I have written to the police and the coroner.

As I have said before, if the time is true according to physical examination by experts then I believe William was probably but not certainly abducted. If they have been faked, then William died while in the custody of his foster parents.

The Metadata that the police have used is not going to answer that question with certainty. They need to take it further and prove it one way or another.

Mr Craddock has spoken about people contacting them & wasting their time

 

[stormbird]

No she didn't. She was the only one home. She also said that the FM knocked on the door of #35 ( the FM did not remember this ) and no one answered.

alwaysintrigued, did Anne Maree alert any neighbours other than Paul Savage at No. 43 before the first police officer arrived at 11:06am? I've read that the man who was mowing the lawn - Shannon at No. 12 - saw that first police car drive past and asked Anne Maree what was going on, but had she talked to other neighbours before that? Thanks again.

 

[alwaysintrigued]

If you look at the Wendy Hudson statement, even that version is actually different to what she says in her initial statement. The car journey was not included as you know. How can you forget the drive. It is not plausible. Nothing to do with PTSD.

The business about seeing the two phantom cars from the driveway while riding bikes is also interesting. 'Mummy who is that in the car'. Can you actually even see that spot from the driveway, through the trees. I am currently assessing this.

I'll save you the time
Incorrect, she was talking about a car she saw turn into the Miller's ( nextdoor ) , reverse out & drive off.