Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 3 * Coroner's Hearings Concluded

[Kurve]

Continued from PART 2

Criminal charges:

• 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

Please type names out in full for those who are not covered by suppression orders.

For those covered by suppression orders, 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
FA - Frank Abbott
MW - Michelle White
SFR - Strike Force Rosann
AMS - Anne Maree Sharpley
CCR - Cobb and Co Road
GO - Geoff Owens
One even reduced bike riding to - BR
COG - Consciousness of guilt. Like WHO KNEW?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Exactly. Controlling the narrative. Maybe FGM was calculating in revealing W had parents who might have not wanted him to be adopted. Maybe this was done with agreement.

All part of controlling the narrative to it's conclusion. Yes

 

[LRitz]

In what ways (apart from calling him that little boy) did she indicate in your view that FPs hadn't wanted to adopt W?

Sorry if not clear.

I mean the biological parents or mother may not have wanted the foster carers to adopt.
FM could not spread rumors about William as a foster child. But maybe FGM could. Then FM makes a well publicized fuss about this to the police. Rather than just to FGM.

 

[Merlina]

IMO

I get really worried that there are people still believing in the FM's narrative. I don't get that, never will.

There weren't just holes, it kept constantly changing.

IMO

I agree. I actually don't find FM, FF or FGM credible. After I watched and listened to their various interviews and walk-throughs, it was my opinion that all three knew that William was deceased.

I don't normally follow true crime but this is what got me interested. If I was investigating, that's where my focus would be.

All my opinion and speculation only.

 

[31550]

Followers of this case might be interested in watching the movie, "The UFO Movie They Don't Want You to See", featuring Brian Dunning, an American writer who focuses on science and skepticism.

Not that I think UFOs have anything to do with William Tyrrell. Just interested in what constitutes a scientific and logical approach to an investigation, and how various theories or explanations of phenomena and events should be evaluated.

Dunning's approach to evaluating evidence follows this methodology:

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof for wild theories is greater than normal, not lower. Evidence needs to be robust and verifiable. Consider the simplest explanations first.
• Critical examination of evidence. The evidence needs to be examined, not just accepted at face value.
• Expert Analysis Experts come from many different fields. It's important to involve experts from all fields, not just those that support a particular theory. But the experts must also be independently objective.
• Debunking Myths - separate fact from fiction. Myths spread among people sometimes more readily than truth. Just because a large number of people believe something, doesn't mean it is a fact.
• Apply logical reasoning - theories and explanations must be complete and logically consistent with verifiable, reproduceable evidence, and make sense within themselves, without contradiction.

One of the examples given was the Ariel School UFO Incident, which took place in Ruwa Zimbabwe in 1994. 62 pupils at the Ariel School reported seeing one or more silver craft descend from the sky and land on a field near their school. Some of the children claimed that creatures dressed in black approached them and communicated telepathically. The students all drew pictures of the encounter. An expert witness, Dr John Mack, a Pulitzer prize-winning psychiatrist conducted interviews with the children and concluded they were telling the truth.

Applying the above methodology, Dunning reveals the following:

• Despite 62 children reporting seeing the UFO, another 200-plus children at the same school at the same time reported seeing absolutely nothing. It was not the entire school. These children were not poor African kids, but mostly children of wealthy white settlers, with access to media, radio, television, and Sci-Fi movies etc. (Critical examination, debunking myth)
• Two days before the incident there were numerous media and TV reports of a fireball in the sky in Zimbabwe, contributing to heightened UFO mania. Astronomical analysis showed this fireball coincided with the re-entry of the Zenit-2 rocket from the Cosmos 2290 satellite launch. (critical examination, expert analysis, logical reasoning)
• Although John Mack was a credentialled psychiatrist, he had previously worked with 'alien abductees', and published 2 books on alien abduction. When he interviewed the children it was some time after the event, and he interviewed them in groups, not individually. Dunning contends that Mack may have 'led' the child witnesses in giving their group account. Mack later fell out of favour with his academic colleagues over his beliefs. Dunning also points out that proper investigative technique would require interviewing each witness separately without giving them opportunity to collaborate. Hence Dunning contends the children's evidence is polluted. (Expert analysis, critical examination, logical reasoning).
• Apart from the children's testimony, no physical evidence was ever produced. (Extraordinary claims).

Applying this theory to William:

• There is no evidence that anything 'extraordinary' happened to William, so there's probably a simple explanation for what happened.
• The evidence which does exist (phone records, receipts, witness accounts) all needs to be critically examined, not just accepted at face value.
• Experts in many various fields need to be engaged to evaluate the evidence and evaluate all the theories -
• Various narratives which are false / illogical / impossible need to be debunked and called out as myths, no matter how many times they may have been repeated in the media, or how many people believe them (E.g. "The FF left at 9.30" or "Everyone was happy" or even, "I got in Mums car and drove to the riding school"). If there is no verifiable evidence for these things then they cannot be taken as fact.
• Logical reasoning - if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

 

[Earls Smother]

Followers of this case might be interested in watching the movie, "The UFO Movie They Don't Want You to See", featuring Brian Dunning, an American writer who focuses on science and skepticism.

Not that I think UFOs have anything to do with William Tyrrell. Just interested in what constitutes a scientific and logical approach to an investigation, and how various theories or explanations of phenomena and events should be evaluated.

Dunning's approach to evaluating evidence follows this methodology:

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof for wild theories is greater than normal, not lower. Evidence needs to be robust and verifiable. Consider the simplest explanations first.
• Critical examination of evidence. The evidence needs to be examined, not just accepted at face value.
• Expert Analysis Experts come from many different fields. It's important to involve experts from all fields, not just those that support a particular theory. But the experts must also be independently objective.
• Debunking Myths - separate fact from fiction. Myths spread among people sometimes more readily than truth. Just because a large number of people believe something, doesn't mean it is a fact.
• Apply logical reasoning - theories and explanations must be complete and logically consistent with verifiable, reproduceable evidence, and make sense within themselves, without contradiction.

One of the examples given was the Ariel School UFO Incident, which took place in Ruwa Zimbabwe in 1994. 62 pupils at the Ariel School reported seeing one or more silver craft descend from the sky and land on a field near their school. Some of the children claimed that creatures dressed in black approached them and communicated telepathically. The students all drew pictures of the encounter. An expert witness, Dr John Mack, a Pulitzer prize-winning psychiatrist conducted interviews with the children and concluded they were telling the truth.

Applying the above methodology, Dunning reveals the following:

• Despite 62 children reporting seeing the UFO, another 200-plus children at the same school at the same time reported seeing absolutely nothing. It was not the entire school. These children were not poor African kids, but mostly children of wealthy white settlers, with access to media, radio, television, and Sci-Fi movies etc. (Critical examination, debunking myth)
• Two days before the incident there were numerous media and TV reports of a fireball in the sky in Zimbabwe, contributing to heightened UFO mania. Astronomical analysis showed this fireball coincided with the re-entry of the Zenit-2 rocket from the Cosmos 2290 satellite launch. (critical examination, expert analysis, logical reasoning)
• Although John Mack was a credentialled psychiatrist, he had previously worked with 'alien abductees', and published 2 books on alien abduction. When he interviewed the children it was some time after the event, and he interviewed them in groups, not individually. Dunning contends that Mack may have 'led' the child witnesses in giving their group account. Mack later fell out of favour with his academic colleagues over his beliefs. Dunning also points out that proper investigative technique would require interviewing each witness separately without giving them opportunity to collaborate. Hence Dunning contends the children's evidence is polluted. (Expert analysis, critical examination, logical reasoning).
• Apart from the children's testimony, no physical evidence was ever produced. (Extraordinary claims).

Applying this theory to William:

• There is no evidence that anything 'extraordinary' happened to William, so there's probably a simple explanation for what happened.
• The evidence which does exist (phone records, receipts, witness accounts) all needs to be critically examined, not just accepted at face value.
• Experts in many various fields need to be engaged to evaluate the evidence and evaluate all the theories -
• Various narratives which are false / illogical / impossible need to be debunked and called out as myths, no matter how many times they may have been repeated in the media, or how many people believe them (E.g. "The FF left at 9.30" or "Everyone was happy" or even, "I got in Mums car and drove to the riding school"). If there is no verifiable evidence for these things then they cannot be taken as fact.
• Logical reasoning - if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

What you seem to be implying here, is that random abduction is an extraordinary event. Whilst of course it is, so is an accidental or reckless death being covered up by a parent or parents.

Abductions, unlike alien visitations, have actually happened. How often has a mother (foster or otherwise) been found to have covered up her sons death by hiding the corpse? It too, would be considered extraordinary.

The simplest explanation is he wandered off. That was thoroughly investigated by experts and no evidence was found, hence it was deemed to have not occurred.

Neither of the other 2 remaining options have any evidence to support them, so they both remain on the table. Similiarly, neither option can be debunked as false via any supporting evidence or expert analysis.

IMO, it is not unusual to have no evidence when there is an abduction. People either see things or they don't. Again IMO, it is unusual to not uncover any evidence at all, in the case of a death, removal of a body in a vehicle, disposal of the body relatively nearby, and then not incriminating oneself for a decade despite surveillance by police.

An alien visitation having no evidence, logically says it didn't happen. That can't be said of an abduction, and in fact, makes it more likely to have happened than the alternative, where evidence would be more expected to exist.

 

[31550]

What you seem to be implying here, is that random abduction is an extraordinary event. Whilst of course it is, so is an accidental or reckless death being covered up by a parent or parents.

Nope. That's your inference.

The implication is that whatever happened can most probably be explained simply, rather than relying on an exceptional set of circumstances, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

i.e. Let's not go assuming (as a first premise at least) that there was a massive conspiracy involving changing clocks on cameras, or inventing elaborate cover stories, or swapping mobile phones or vehicles, ... etc etc. when there is no direct evidence that any of these things have happened. Let's explore all the possible 'simple' explanations for how William came to 'go missing', until they can be eliminated as inconsistent with the actual physical evidence.

Let's beware of accepting 'common knowledge' as fact unless it can be proven by verifiable evidence.

An abduction is possible, but there's no evidence of it happening - no direct verifiable evidence of people or cars in the street that didn't belong there.

Wandered off is possible but there's no evidence of it happening - no scent detected by dogs off the property.

An accident or incident is possible - and there is some evidence which might support this - hand injury to FM for example.

 

[Underarrest_]

Followers of this case might be interested in watching the movie, "The UFO Movie They Don't Want You to See", featuring Brian Dunning, an American writer who focuses on science and skepticism.

Not that I think UFOs have anything to do with William Tyrrell. Just interested in what constitutes a scientific and logical approach to an investigation, and how various theories or explanations of phenomena and events should be evaluated.

Dunning's approach to evaluating evidence follows this methodology:

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof for wild theories is greater than normal, not lower. Evidence needs to be robust and verifiable. Consider the simplest explanations first.
• Critical examination of evidence. The evidence needs to be examined, not just accepted at face value.
• Expert Analysis Experts come from many different fields. It's important to involve experts from all fields, not just those that support a particular theory. But the experts must also be independently objective.
• Debunking Myths - separate fact from fiction. Myths spread among people sometimes more readily than truth. Just because a large number of people believe something, doesn't mean it is a fact.
• Apply logical reasoning - theories and explanations must be complete and logically consistent with verifiable, reproduceable evidence, and make sense within themselves, without contradiction.

One of the examples given was the Ariel School UFO Incident, which took place in Ruwa Zimbabwe in 1994. 62 pupils at the Ariel School reported seeing one or more silver craft descend from the sky and land on a field near their school. Some of the children claimed that creatures dressed in black approached them and communicated telepathically. The students all drew pictures of the encounter. An expert witness, Dr John Mack, a Pulitzer prize-winning psychiatrist conducted interviews with the children and concluded they were telling the truth.

Applying the above methodology, Dunning reveals the following:

• Despite 62 children reporting seeing the UFO, another 200-plus children at the same school at the same time reported seeing absolutely nothing. It was not the entire school. These children were not poor African kids, but mostly children of wealthy white settlers, with access to media, radio, television, and Sci-Fi movies etc. (Critical examination, debunking myth)
• Two days before the incident there were numerous media and TV reports of a fireball in the sky in Zimbabwe, contributing to heightened UFO mania. Astronomical analysis showed this fireball coincided with the re-entry of the Zenit-2 rocket from the Cosmos 2290 satellite launch. (critical examination, expert analysis, logical reasoning)
• Although John Mack was a credentialled psychiatrist, he had previously worked with 'alien abductees', and published 2 books on alien abduction. When he interviewed the children it was some time after the event, and he interviewed them in groups, not individually. Dunning contends that Mack may have 'led' the child witnesses in giving their group account. Mack later fell out of favour with his academic colleagues over his beliefs. Dunning also points out that proper investigative technique would require interviewing each witness separately without giving them opportunity to collaborate. Hence Dunning contends the children's evidence is polluted. (Expert analysis, critical examination, logical reasoning).
• Apart from the children's testimony, no physical evidence was ever produced. (Extraordinary claims).

Applying this theory to William:

• There is no evidence that anything 'extraordinary' happened to William, so there's probably a simple explanation for what happened.
• The evidence which does exist (phone records, receipts, witness accounts) all needs to be critically examined, not just accepted at face value.
• Experts in many various fields need to be engaged to evaluate the evidence and evaluate all the theories -
• Various narratives which are false / illogical / impossible need to be debunked and called out as myths, no matter how many times they may have been repeated in the media, or how many people believe them (E.g. "The FF left at 9.30" or "Everyone was happy" or even, "I got in Mums car and drove to the riding school"). If there is no verifiable evidence for these things then they cannot be taken as fact.
• Logical reasoning - if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

So there was no UFO?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Let's not assume anything..let's instead use the EVIDENCE we have to paint a picture of what happened. I have. The most critical indication of WHAT is WHO was there at the time he went missing. We are told it was the Foster family alone...and if that were true it expands outcomes to many choices that we've been grappling with since 2014. Status quo. But if it's not true as I now know it's not then it focuses outcomes to one possibility alone with minor variations on theme. Whether the explanation is a simple one or an elaborate one based on hoaxes, alibis, time deception, false narratives automatically follows from the first premise of WHO was there and WHY that was not made known from 12th September 2014 and even now has been kept secret

I hadn't expected this outcome. But I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and hide from it.

 

[31550]

Let's not assume anything..let's instead use the EVIDENCE we have to paint a picture of what happened. I have. The most critical indication of WHAT is WHO was there at the time he went missing. We are told it was the Foster family alone...and if that were true it expands outcomes to many choices that we've been grappling with since 2014. Status quo. But if it's not true as I now know it's not then it focuses outcomes to one possibility alone with minor variations on theme. Whether the explanation is a simple one or an elaborate one based on hoaxes, alibis, time deception, false narratives automatically follows from the first premise of WHO was there and WHY that was not made known from 12th September 2014 and even now has been kept secret

I hadn't expected this outcome. But I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and hide from it.

I'm not sure what EVIDENCE there is to prove anyone other than FM, FGM and William's sister were there.
What EVIDENCE (subject to critical examination, expert analysis, and logical reasoning) proves anyone else was there?
Without any evidence, why pursue this as a theory in preference to other theories which are simpler and more probable?

 

[Underarrest_]

Let's not assume anything..let's instead use the EVIDENCE we have to paint a picture of what happened. I have. The most critical indication of WHAT is WHO was there at the time he went missing. We are told it was the Foster family alone...and if that were true it expands outcomes to many choices that we've been grappling with since 2014. Status quo. But if it's not true as I now know it's not then it focuses outcomes to one possibility alone with minor variations on theme. Whether the explanation is a simple one or an elaborate one based on hoaxes, alibis, time deception, false narratives automatically follows from the first premise of WHO was there and WHY that was not made known from 12th September 2014 and even now has been kept secret

I hadn't expected this outcome. But I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and hide from it.

With lack of evidence or at the least knowing of all evidence, we know that the foster family left for Kendall on the Thursday which put them in Kendall a day early, they were seen at MacDonalds on cctv, photos were allegedly taken that morning, FF’s car was driven pass the cctv at 9ish that morning, FF filled a script at 10.18am and two phone calls were made too and from two tradies that morning.

 

[31550]

With lack of evidence or at the least knowing of all evidence, we know that the foster family left for Kendall on the Thursday which put them in Kendall a day early, they were seen at MacDonalds on cctv, photos were allegedly taken that morning, FF’s car was driven pass the cctv at 9ish that morning, FF filled a script at 10.18am and two phone calls were made too and from two tradies that morning.

Agreed.
There would also be phone / internet records to indicate the whereabouts of FF (or at least his phone) during the morning. These would be considered verifiable proof.
There would (possibly) also be phone records / pings / messages sent to and from FM phone that morning, which might locate her phone at certain times.
There is the 000 phone call which was recorded, and possibly witnessed by neighbours.

Then, a bit further down the evidentiary scale are the verifiable eyewitness accounts - interactions between two people which both can confirm (e.g Rowley seeing the FF come out of the bathroom, FM talking to AMS, AMS talking to Savage, or the Crabbs talking to each other about hearing the postie). We can be reasonably confident these things happen as they involve at least one independent witness, and both parties agree they happened. The exact timing of these things may be uncertain, but they are verifiable events.

Then there are unverified witness accounts. Their evidentiary strength depends on the 'quality' of the witness. For example, if Rowley says he felt the car bonnet and it was warm, we can probably take this as being true. Chapman seeing a boy in a Spiderman suit, however, might not be. The Crabbs probably heard a car at some time, but we don't know which car or when. The FM may or may not have remembered seeing cars.

 

[Merlina]

Agreed.
There would also be phone / internet records to indicate the whereabouts of FF (or at least his phone) during the morning. These would be considered verifiable proof.
There would (possibly) also be phone records / pings / messages sent to and from FM phone that morning, which might locate her phone at certain times.
There is the 000 phone call which was recorded, and possibly witnessed by neighbours.

Then, a bit further down the evidentiary scale are the verifiable eyewitness accounts - interactions between two people which both can confirm (e.g Rowley seeing the FF come out of the bathroom, FM talking to AMS, AMS talking to Savage, or the Crabbs talking to each other about hearing the postie). We can be reasonably confident these things happen as they involve at least one independent witness, and both parties agree they happened. The exact timing of these things may be uncertain, but they are verifiable events.

Then there are unverified witness accounts. Their evidentiary strength depends on the 'quality' of the witness. For example, if Rowley says he felt the car bonnet and it was warm, we can probably take this as being true. Chapman seeing a boy in a Spiderman suit, however, might not be. The Crabbs probably heard a car at some time, but we don't know which car or when. The FM may or may not have remembered seeing cars.

Just to add to the list of direct evidence for FF's location that morning: apart from the physical evidence of phone pings, cctv and internet logins, police should have at least some eyewitnesses such as the online meeting participant, chemist staff and general store staff.

 

[31550]

Paul Savage was also a POI for Jubelin.

And subsequently cleared.

 

[Merlina]

The FF alibi was thoroughly checked out.. he was away from.8.40 to 10.33.

What we do t know is where he was between 8 and 8.40.

I would say we don't know where FF was at any time prior to 8:40. Why do you say between 8 and 8:40?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The FGM made a mistake of saying FF left at 8. She started to say she told opening time of Chemist in walk through ( faux pas) but stopped herself ..he says same thing in his 14th sept statement but can't be sure they spoke to each other ..so they both accept FGM had the cognitive ability to inform that detail. At same time she says he has to leave REALLY early emphasizing it . It was a conscious choice knowing the opening time was 1 hour later!! FF and FM both say 8.40..I highly suspect that because of what she knew FGM was told to say she wasn't even up when he left but she didn't change the actual time like they did revealing in effect he left at 8. Then 3 at breakfast and changes immediately to 4..Neither W nor FF were there at 8 imo.

The only credible evidence of hearing children was Wilson who said BEFORE she left at 8.30 approx to do errands. I think she heard them at or about the time of photo which I believe was 7.39

 

[31550]

The FGM made a mistake of saying FF left at 8. She started to say she told opening time of Chemist in walk through ( faux pas) but stopped herself ..he says same thing in his 14th sept statement but can't be sure they spoke to each other ..so they both accept FGM had the cognitive ability to inform that detail. At same time she says he has to leave REALLY early emphasizing it . It was a conscious choice knowing the opening time was 1 hour later!! FF and FM both say 8.40..I highly suspect that because of what she knew FGM was told to say she wasn't even up when he left but she didn't change the actual time like they did revealing in effect he left at 8. Then 3 at breakfast and changes immediately to 4..Neither W nor FF were there at 8 imo.

The only credible evidence of hearing children was Wilson who said BEFORE she left at 8.30 approx to do errands. I think she heard them at or about the time of photo which I believe was 7.39

There are problems with logic and deduction if you rely on some of a witness testimony being truthful and some of it being untruthful.
None of the FGM testimony can be verified, so we have to discard the whole thing, not selectively choose the bits which support a particular narrative or theory. This would be confirmation bias.

Expert analysis is required to establish that a witness might be 'leaking' in their testimony. I agree that the 3 or 4 for breakfast, and other comments seem like leakage, but we are not experts. I want to know what the experts think.

Similarly your opinion about 7.39, which I don't share. This can only be verified by a qualified expert. At this stage we are assuming SFR used experts to analyse the photos and timestamps, but we haven't seen a report from experts. So it's probable that the photos were 9.37 as stated by the coroner as there is no direct evidence proving otherwise, and that's the simplest and most plausible version.

 

[31550]

There are no logic flaws. In fact If you want to strip everything away and start from scratch then the one glaring issues is always that 8 to 8.45 period..

Not really. There is no reason to believe he was anywhere other than FGM house between 8.00 and 8.45. This is the simplest answer, and it's consistent with all known facts. There is no reason for him to be elsewhere. Nobody saw him or any cars leave the house during this period. His phone isn't pinging anywhere else as far as we know. No witnesses saw him anywhere else. Without any evidence suggesting he may have been elsewhere, the most likely thing is that he was where he said he was. It makes sense. I don't see any 'glaring issue'. Conversely, leaving the house during this period makes NO sense - what would be the reason, and what other facts support this reason, and do not support him being at FGM house at that time?

If you want to look for glaring issues in the FF whereabouts I would be looking at where FF was in the hours leading up to Wendy Hudson visiting the house early on the Friday morning, and where he was when she arrived. He is reported to have been 'out looking for William' on his own. THIS is an unusual event (perhaps even 'extraordinary'?) and it requires some explanation. Why was he allowed to leave the house on his own? Where did he go? Why?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Not really. There is no reason to believe he was anywhere other than FGM house between 8.00 and 8.45. This is the simplest answer, and it's consistent with all known facts. There is no reason for him to be elsewhere. Nobody saw him or any cars leave the house during this period. His phone isn't pinging anywhere else as far as we know. No witnesses saw him anywhere else. Without any evidence suggesting he may have been elsewhere, the most likely thing is that he was where he said he was. It makes sense. I don't see any 'glaring issue'. Conversely, leaving the house during this period makes NO sense - what would be the reason, and what other facts support this reason, and do not support him being at FGM house at that time?

If you want to look for glaring issues in the FF whereabouts I would be looking at where FF was in the hours leading up to Wendy Hudson visiting the house early on the Friday morning, and where he was when she arrived. He is reported to have been 'out looking for William' on his own. THIS is an unusual event (perhaps even 'extraordinary'?) and it requires some explanation. Why was he allowed to leave the house on his own? Where did he go? Why?

The reason to believe is 6 fold:

• A clear abduction hoax and with impossibly foolproof alibi that smacks of deception
• A clear understanding in my mind if nowhere else that a couple would be unlikely to act unilaterally
• A timeline where there was insufficient time to deal with emotional impact of a death let alone logistics of hiding a body
• Behavioural indications that imo indicate deception around 8 to 9 time period
• The undisclosed presence of another person on the premises immediately before W went missing
• Logic that as there was another person there that his involvement in taking W wouldn't be made obvious by taking that step too close to 000 report

You can certainly disagree. But I'll stick with my opinion

 

[passball]

The reason to believe is 6 fold:

• A clear abduction hoax and with impossibly foolproof alibi that smacks of deception
• A clear understanding in my mind if nowhere else that a couple would be unlikely to act unilaterally
• A timeline where there was insufficient time to deal with emotional impact of a death let alone logistics of hiding a body
• Behavioural indications that imo indicate deception around 8 to 9 time period
• The undisclosed presence of another person on the premises immediately before W went missing
• Logic that as there was another person there that his involvement in taking W wouldn't be made obvious by taking that step too close to 000 report

You can certainly disagree. But I'll stick with my opinion

I really hope all your hard work pays off.

The FPs have done a great job confusing everybody.
Why though? Mmmm

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I really hope all your hard work pays off.

The FPs have done a great job confusing everybody.
Why though? Mmmm

False narratives are always used to hide truth. What is the truth beneath these particular narratives? Because of WHAT they have hidden the choices are very limited now.

If something is entirely innocent then you won't need to hide it at all. When we know it's hidden then you can quickly surmise that criminality is involved consistent with the choice. Sad as that might be, it's the only explanation that is logical.

I had an in depth discussion with my partner yesterday. She said what if FPs actually told SFR but they kept it secret. That would possibly make sense but SFR wouldn't then pursue an accident with the vigor they have. No. Only one answer and it's not what I expected.

 

[Merlina]

I was looking at the images from the article that Angry Red Bull posted about back in Post #1300. I do see something in the reflections, although it's different to what you describe, ARB.

It's either pareidolia (word of the year!) or it's someone who was not meant to be there.
See what you think.

If you are looking at the image on your phone, it will probably help to increase your brightness setting.

I cropped it and adjusted saturation etc just using my phone's photo editor to try to bring out the reflection.

If it is something, I would expect (hope anyway!) that the investigators discovered it years ago when the photos were re-examined over the timestamp issue.

They should have found it very quickly if I could see it using such a poor quality image.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I was looking at the images from the article that Angry Red Bull posted about back in Post #1300. I do see something in the reflections, although it's different to what you describe, ARB.

It's either pareidolia (word of the year!) or it's someone who was not meant to be there.
See what you think.

If you are looking at the image on your phone, it will probably help to increase your brightness setting.

I cropped it and adjusted saturation etc just using my phone's photo editor to try to bring out the reflection.

If it is something, I would expect (hope anyway!) that the investigators discovered it years ago when the photos were re-examined over the timestamp issue.

They should have found it very quickly if I could see it using such a poor quality image.

I haven't looked into the science behind it but much of reflections on glass create anomalous objects. That is a challenge to discern those from real objects. What Ive learnt is that real objects such as human forms tend to keep this identify.. So If something doesn't look human it's probably not

 

[Jon#]

I was looking at the images from the article that Angry Red Bull posted about back in Post #1300. I do see something in the reflections, although it's different to what you describe, ARB.

It's either pareidolia (word of the year!) or it's someone who was not meant to be there.
See what you think.

If you are looking at the image on your phone, it will probably help to increase your brightness setting.

I cropped it and adjusted saturation etc just using my phone's photo editor to try to bring out the reflection.

If it is something, I would expect (hope anyway!) that the investigators discovered it years ago when the photos were re-examined over the timestamp issue.

They should have found it very quickly if I could see it using such a poor quality image.

Looks like pareidolia to me. I have a lot of treasure hunting friends in the US and its a very very common thing for people to think they see something which is something natural, just a reflection, a shadow etc.
Especially when they are looking for something in particular. People will see a carving in a rock indicating a treasure trail clue, but 99.9% of the time its just a natural erosion or shape caused by anything but human. They see something in a tree, some shape on a rock face from a distance, a shape or face in an old photo in the background or reflection on an old clock face, glass cabinet. Iv seen probably hundreds of are these something or look what I have found, which are nothing but because the person was expecting to see something they think and believe they did.
I see zero in that picture, and I went to the SMH to see the original posted one, to suggest anything human.
If there was something it would have been jumped all over like white on rice.
I do hope they discover what happened to poor William though.
Its a similar thing here with people wanting to find big cats. They actually find dog tracks but convince themselves they found a panther or puma track. Just recently this happened and several media outlets reported it. They're just big dog tracks and easily identified but, people want them to be big cats so they are.

Tradie's huge footprint find in back garden reignites wild Aussie theory

Certain details in the landscaper's discovery had him seriously questioning what was responsible.

au.news.yahoo.com

 

[Percel]

When it comes to assessing information to inform analysis, the Admiralty rating can be your greatest friend when weighting it.

 

[31550]

When it comes to assessing information to inform analysis, the Admiralty rating can be your greatest friend when weighting it.

Great, but even that is subjective, not empirical.