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?

 

[js47]

Did the FGM leave that first night in her car or did she get picked up?

Yes that is something I wondered. I thought she left in the afternoon and came back.
Weren’t the fosters in bed when the police paid a visit and they spoke to the FGM?
It is so confusing so many sources of information.
So they got back up to go to the command place?
I thought there was no one there because when the police arrived in the morning the FF was out.

 

[passball]

The FF suddenly realised about the trail?
I don’t know about that, I think they would have walked that before the 12th. To go and see the FGF.
FF in his walk through said he knew the trails.
Remember! They would have been going there for years. It WAS NOT THEIR FIRST VISIT.

That came out of FFs mouth in his walkthrough, he said that.
Which is why I said AS IF. He would have known about it.

 

[passball]

Yes that is something I wondered. I thought she left in the afternoon and came back.
Weren’t the fosters in bed when the police paid a visit and they spoke to the FGM?
It is so confusing so many sources of information.
So they got back up to go to the command place?
I thought there was no one there because when the police arrived in the morning the FF was out.

Was it this podcast that was taken by Police? Idk.

 

[passball]

Maybe the FPS went for a stroll after their home cooked dinner, wine, and happy pills.

 

[passball]

Didn’t the children collect leaves? I there seems to be a leave near him.

Doesn't look like a leaf between his fingers though.

 

[js47]

Doesn't look like a leaf between his fingers though.

Yes I did wonder about that but knowing little boys mmmm! It could be anything. I think it is innocent.

 

[craffles]

Can’t see this ever getting solved now. Poor William.

 

[passball]

Yes I did wonder about that but knowing little boys mmmm! It could be anything. I think it is innocent.

I'm nit picking now. Actually looks like a little dog biscuit

 

[js47]

Was it this podcast that was taken by Police? Idk.

No I don’t listen to podcasts. May be a book.

 

[js47]

Craffles before 16 July 1969, no one thought man would go to the moon. This will be solved.

 

[passball]

Craffles before 16 July 1969, no one thought man would go to the moon. This will be solved.

No, not the the moon conspiracy.

 

[Earls Smother]

It was a bit shocking to hear the former commissioner Mick Fuller say on the last podcast, that the statistics pointed to the carer/s being responsible for William's disappearance.

The immediate thought I had was "Far out, you'd want to have more than that on a case like this."

There was a lot of public and media pressure surrounding the case from very early on.

GJ (following Hans Rupp) was convinced it was random abduction, but jumped from suspect to suspect with questionable tactics.

The Dawson case was running parallel and had similiar public interest thanks to Hedley Thomas. The NSWPOL looked silly in that case, for not focusing closer to home from the beginning. A strategic decision, probably from very high up, was made to re-focus on the 97% historical likelihood of family involvement in William's case. GJ had to go in their minds, and did.

The conflicting stories and the originally unmentioned car trip, certainly provided circumstantial fodder. It seems clear that they deliberately chose to re-focus, rather than be guided by any new information or evidence. The opinion of those of us in the bleachers varies according to one thing - whether you accept that versions of the same event can be muddled under the trauma of the situation.

I read Sly and Andrew Rule's chapter in 'Rats' on Eloise Worledge recently. I will quote a couple of paragraphs below:

"People under extreme stress can have different recollections of the same events. Statements taken from armed robbery victims or witnesses to car accidents can and do vary wildly for innocent reasons.

It is not necessarily remarkable therefore, that Lindsay and Patsy Worledge would give confusing and, at times, conflicting versions of what happened the morning their daughter disappeared."

Anyone with an awareness of that case, could have developed a leaning towards the father being involved, if they chose to pick holes in the conflicting versions. Vicpol have always been satisfied he had no involvement. It seems you can be stressed and confused and uncertain about details in Victoria, but if it happens in NSW, you must be guilty.

I've never understood why a taskforce of multiple investigators, have to all focus on the one theory at the same time. It forces them to believe they are on the right track in order to maintain motivation. In my opinion, they have spent a hell of a lot of time barking up one tree, when they could have had smaller teams of detectives barking up different trees simultaneously.

 

[31550]

There was a lot of public and media pressure surrounding the case from very early on.

GJ (following Hans Rupp) was convinced it was random abduction, but jumped from suspect to suspect with questionable tactics.

The Dawson case was running parallel and had similiar public interest thanks to Hedley Thomas. The NSWPOL looked silly in that case, for not focusing closer to home from the beginning. A strategic decision, probably from very high up, was made to re-focus on the 97% historical likelihood of family involvement in William's case. GJ had to go in their minds, and did.

The conflicting stories and the originally unmentioned car trip, certainly provided circumstantial fodder. It seems clear that they deliberately chose to re-focus, rather than be guided by any new information or evidence. The opinion of those of us in the bleachers varies according to one thing - whether you accept that versions of the same event can be muddled under the trauma of the situation.

I read Sly and Andrew Rule's chapter in 'Rats' on Eloise Worledge recently. I will quote a couple of paragraphs below:

"People under extreme stress can have different recollections of the same events. Statements taken from armed robbery victims or witnesses to car accidents can and do vary wildly for innocent reasons.

It is not necessarily remarkable therefore, that Lindsay and Patsy Worledge would give confusing and, at times, conflicting versions of what happened the morning their daughter disappeared."

Anyone with an awareness of that case, could have developed a leaning towards the father being involved, if they chose to pick holes in the conflicting versions. Vicpol have always been satisfied he had no involvement. It seems you can be stressed and confused and uncertain about details in Victoria, but if it happens in NSW, you must be guilty.

I've never understood why a taskforce of multiple investigators, have to all focus on the one theory at the same time. It forces them to believe they are on the right track in order to maintain motivation. In my opinion, they have spent a hell of a lot of time barking up one tree, when they could have had smaller teams of detectives barking up different trees simultaneously.

The comparison with the Worledge case is both fair and unfair:

Fair: Because there was prima facie evidence for the involvement of the family, particularly the father, which was initially overlooked or ignored: the door being left open, the light left on then switched off (by the abductor?), the flyscreen cut from the inside but not used as a method of exit, the marital problems the Worledges had, and some doubts cast on Lindsay Worledge's mental state ... and of course the case has never been solved.

Unfair: Because it was nearly 50 years ago, and back then child abductions and child sexual abuse were not widely publicised or discussed, so were (at least seen as) very rare, and certainly police practices and investigative techniques were quite primitive. No technology like mobile phones, computers or internet, no GPS, no DNA etc. etc. These days we have specialist squads armed with technology and a set of standard practices for dealing with this type of case.

It's not really a NSW vs VIC thing IMO. Both states have their share of unsolved crimes. I think it is a pertinent observation that in NSW, there seems to be more political interference in these particular crimes, but maybe that's my Vic bias? I'm also a big Ron Iddles fan and he happens to be a Victorian.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Almost certainly a car was involved.
He couldn't get out of sight under his own steam, and an adult carrying him (or wheeling him) would also not get very far without being seen or heard. Not to the end of Benaroon Drive. There had to be a car which left Benaroon Drive. Which means somebody drove it in and out that morning.

As for the FF early morning search - this should never have been allowed to happen. If he insisted on leaving the property he should have been accompanied by a police officer. The house and its occupants should have been quarantined and thoroughly searched before anyone was allowed to leave.

If he wandered it wouldn’t have been far…….the asthma….the shoes…..AND he would have been found.

It’s possible he has an altercation with FM and he stormed off to find FF to overturn the FM but he would need to have made it all the way to BCR to be likely available to be abducted. Someone would have seen him before he got there. Unlikely. And why wasn’t there a scent trail to follow? Car use

No. I think perhaps he stormed off and she followed and there was even more intense altercation

What causes a boy to be “bouncing out of his skull”….which I construe as leakage of his mode of death. A fall sure. A head strike with object perhaps but no bouncing there. A car hit yes possible. You may bounce. Plausible possibility. W went off in search of FF after an argument. FM tried to stop him and followed him to get him back in car but hit him with FGM car propelling him…..bouncing. The direction would have been car port not around the corner though unless he went that corner and FM went to car and met up on road where he ran in front of FGM car. Mmmmmmm. That’s plausible. Take him inside and never recovers. So why not report an accident? Perhaps the regular discipline had caused head injuries and black eyes including a hit to head as part of the argument already that morning?…..a need to explain the abuse injuries. She was reckless in pursuit perhaps which caused the accident and wanted to hide the utter mess in the Fosters parental abilities/ lack of control. This is a possible scenario.

She wasn’t in her own home. To a dysfunctional parent on show before her own mother there would be a need to show parental competence and she likely pushed boundaries harder than usual causing the meltdown in him and her in response.

A car is highly probable and we know that FM used her car for an illogical purpose. To travel in it to locate a missing 3yo who had been missing 5 min. Zero reason to go on BCR but she did per her testimony. Silly me she says too far. She would need to say BCR to be sure that if anyone saw her she’d have an explanation for the trip. But as we now know it seems she perhaps didn’t go to Cobb & Co… Peter the truckie. So where did she go? Somewhere outside the search zone in a place she herself has described where W will one day be found. That’s where I think.

I don’t believe she spiked her hand in the yard. I believe it was spiked reaching a spot in bush. Carrying something and pushing back lantana branches with one hand would do it.

 

[stormbird]

The parts of the inquest that dealt with the land searches for William were hardly mentioned by media, and basically the only message to the public from the police was: Trust us, we know what we're doing.

I don't know why anyone would still be trusting Strike Force Rosann, frankly, but I've always worried that with all the untrained searchers in the first week of the 2014 search maybe William or his body were just not found.

Now there's news that the adult bushwalker who was rescued yesterday after being lost for 13 days in Kosciuszko National Park was found when he called out to some unrelated passing hikers and told them who he was.

It's great that he's alive and safe, obviously, and I'm not criticising the official searchers who put so much effort into trying to find him. They're heroes, one and all.

I just wonder why they didn't find him. With all their resources and knowledge, it's hard to believe he apparently just wandered back onto a track and ran into some hikers. The search involved NSW Police Force (including Police Rescue and PolAir), State Emergency Service, VRA Rescue, Rural Fire Service, National Parks and Wildlife Service, and NSW Ambulance.

Whatever were the reasons for the official search in Kosciuszko National Park not finding their target, maybe the same reasons could have hampered the search for William in 2014. I hope the coroner's findings explain why we should accept that William wasn't lost and not found, otherwise I think there'll always be some doubt, at least from me.

ABC News, 08 Jan 2025

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01...zari-found-kosciuszko-national-park/104796682

 

[31550]

The parts of the inquest that dealt with the land searches for William were hardly mentioned by media, and basically the only message to the public from the police was: Trust us, we know what we're doing.

I don't know why anyone would still be trusting Strike Force Rosann, frankly, but I've always worried that with all the untrained searchers in the first week of the 2014 search maybe William or his body were just not found.

Now there's news that the adult bushwalker who was rescued yesterday after being lost for 13 days in Kosciuszko National Park was found when he called out to some unrelated passing hikers and told them who he was.

It's great that he's alive and safe, obviously, and I'm not criticising the official searchers who put so much effort into trying to find him. They're heroes, one and all.

I just wonder why they didn't find him. With all their resources and knowledge, it's hard to believe he apparently just wandered back onto a track and ran into some hikers. The search involved NSW Police Force (including Police Rescue and PolAir), State Emergency Service, VRA Rescue, Rural Fire Service, National Parks and Wildlife Service, and NSW Ambulance.

Whatever were the reasons for the official search in Kosciuszko National Park not finding their target, maybe the same reasons could have hampered the search for William in 2014. I hope the coroner's findings explain why we should accept that William wasn't lost and not found, otherwise I think there'll always be some doubt, at least from me.

ABC News, 08 Jan 2025

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01...zari-found-kosciuszko-national-park/104796682

1. Because Kendall isn't Kosciusko. Plenty of available locals who knew the terrain.
2. Because William was a small 3YO, not an adult bushwalker.
3. Because William was not trying to go anywhere in particular, whereas the bushwalker was.
4. William was reported missing within 2 hours of him going missing, and the search commenced immediately. Much longer before searchers could get to the right area for the bushwalker.
5. Because William was never missing IMO.

 

[Earls Smother]

The comparison with the Worledge case is both fair and unfair:

Fair: Because there was prima facie evidence for the involvement of the family, particularly the father, which was initially overlooked or ignored: the door being left open, the light left on then switched off (by the abductor?), the flyscreen cut from the inside but not used as a method of exit, the marital problems the Worledges had, and some doubts cast on Lindsay Worledge's mental state ... and of course the case has never been solved.

Unfair: Because it was nearly 50 years ago, and back then child abductions and child sexual abuse were not widely publicised or discussed, so were (at least seen as) very rare, and certainly police practices and investigative techniques were quite primitive. No technology like mobile phones, computers or internet, no GPS, no DNA etc. etc. These days we have specialist squads armed with technology and a set of standard practices for dealing with this type of case.

It's not really a NSW vs VIC thing IMO. Both states have their share of unsolved crimes. I think it is a pertinent observation that in NSW, there seems to be more political interference in these particular crimes, but maybe that's my Vic bias? I'm also a big Ron Iddles fan and he happens to be a Victorian.

Re the "Unfair" paragraph. Agree with the practices and techniques having developed dramatically. One thing has not changed however, and that is the variance in statements from 2 people involved in the same stressful situation. There is no real technique, other than gut feel, for determining which version (if any) is more accurate.

I also have a Vic-centric bias, and am generally more interested in those cases.

I do wonder with Eloise, whether there is any potential connection to the later Mr. Cruel offences. The age would fit, given Cruel was thought to be early to mid 30's in the late 80's. A 23 year old man was interviewed by police, but it is very difficult to find out much about it. The flywire and the tan bark from outside the window on the bedroom floor, have all the hallmarks of Cruel's later red herrings IMO.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The parts of the inquest that dealt with the land searches for William were hardly mentioned by media, and basically the only message to the public from the police was: Trust us, we know what we're doing.

I don't know why anyone would still be trusting Strike Force Rosann, frankly, but I've always worried that with all the untrained searchers in the first week of the 2014 search maybe William or his body were just not found.

Now there's news that the adult bushwalker who was rescued yesterday after being lost for 13 days in Kosciuszko National Park was found when he called out to some unrelated passing hikers and told them who he was.

It's great that he's alive and safe, obviously, and I'm not criticising the official searchers who put so much effort into trying to find him. They're heroes, one and all.

I just wonder why they didn't find him. With all their resources and knowledge, it's hard to believe he apparently just wandered back onto a track and ran into some hikers. The search involved NSW Police Force (including Police Rescue and PolAir), State Emergency Service, VRA Rescue, Rural Fire Service, National Parks and Wildlife Service, and NSW Ambulance.

Whatever were the reasons for the official search in Kosciuszko National Park not finding their target, maybe the same reasons could have hampered the search for William in 2014. I hope the coroner's findings explain why we should accept that William wasn't lost and not found, otherwise I think there'll always be some doubt, at least from me.

ABC News, 08 Jan 2025

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01...zari-found-kosciuszko-national-park/104796682

SFR has been a debacle. The methodology to investigate laid bare and equally pathetic. GJ rattles a persons cage on a hunch and listens to outcome. That Is it! Terrible.

What would you do differently ?

• lock down and treat as crime scene
• detailed focus on those there
• insist upon polygraphs to all those 97% to help eliminate them
• confiscate and forensic test phones, computers and cars
• focus heavily on last proof of life

This is a remote rural location with low risk for abduction so it’s a travesty it’s not been solved through what can only be described as incompetent methodology. Even worse is that GJ still is doubling down against the tide

Polygraphs are a tool. Not admissible as evidence but it sure as hell indicates those with something to hide if you refuse. Why they aren’t used in these domestic type situations is beyond me. The mere refusal is a red flag

 

[shorsky]

There was a vehicle heard after 10 by the Crabbes.
We don’t know who’s car this was.
Could have been FMs but there’s no evidence of this and from what we know, not what police are saying as they’re alleging that FM alerted neighbours and then went for a drive.
Identifying the car heard by the Crabbes is crucial because it leaves it wide open for an abduction if it wasn’t anyone in the FF. IMO.

Could you please elaborate on the BBM above, as I didn’t think that was what Police are alleging.

And I continue to search for the piece where Det Jubelin was interviewing FM and told her that she went for the drive before alerting neighbours

 

[Underarrest_]

Could you please elaborate on the BBM above, as I didn’t think that was what Police are alleging.

And I continue to search for the piece where Det Jubelin was interviewing FM and told her that she went for the drive before alerting neighbours

Shorsky, the current investigators are alleging the following,

William Tyrrell inquest resumes with new details of police theory about involvement of former foster mother revealed - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

Counsel Assisting Gerard Craddock SC's opening address on Monday explored the police theory about the foster mother's movements at the time of the boy's disappearance.

He said the theory was he died in an accident.

"Police assert that she must've quickly resolved that if the accidental death were to be discovered she might lose [custody of another child in their care]," he said.

"Police assert that in that frame of mind she placed William in her mother's car and after alerting [a neighbour] to William's disappearance, drove the mother's car down to Batar Creek Road and placed William's body somewhere in undergrowth and then returned [home] to 48 Benaroon Drive and called the police via triple-0."

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There was a lot of public and media pressure surrounding the case from very early on.

GJ (following Hans Rupp) was convinced it was random abduction, but jumped from suspect to suspect with questionable tactics.

The Dawson case was running parallel and had similiar public interest thanks to Hedley Thomas. The NSWPOL looked silly in that case, for not focusing closer to home from the beginning. A strategic decision, probably from very high up, was made to re-focus on the 97% historical likelihood of family involvement in William's case. GJ had to go in their minds, and did.

The conflicting stories and the originally unmentioned car trip, certainly provided circumstantial fodder. It seems clear that they deliberately chose to re-focus, rather than be guided by any new information or evidence. The opinion of those of us in the bleachers varies according to one thing - whether you accept that versions of the same event can be muddled under the trauma of the situation.

I read Sly and Andrew Rule's chapter in 'Rats' on Eloise Worledge recently. I will quote a couple of paragraphs below:

"People under extreme stress can have different recollections of the same events. Statements taken from armed robbery victims or witnesses to car accidents can and do vary wildly for innocent reasons.

It is not necessarily remarkable therefore, that Lindsay and Patsy Worledge would give confusing and, at times, conflicting versions of what happened the morning their daughter disappeared."

Anyone with an awareness of that case, could have developed a leaning towards the father being involved, if they chose to pick holes in the conflicting versions. Vicpol have always been satisfied he had no involvement. It seems you can be stressed and confused and uncertain about details in Victoria, but if it happens in NSW, you must be guilty.

I've never understood why a taskforce of multiple investigators, have to all focus on the one theory at the same time. It forces them to believe they are on the right track in order to maintain motivation. In my opinion, they have spent a hell of a lot of time barking up one tree, when they could have had smaller teams of detectives barking up different trees simultaneously.

Certainly versions can be muddled by different perspectives. But there is NEVER Conscousness of Gulit behaviours there. They are innocent mistakes.

My twin girls about 5 went missing for 20 minutes at Port Stephen’s beach during holiday season. They were playing with each other in knee deep water when i had to take my 8 yo son to toilet within sight. I was but 2 min and when i came back to our bag and spot they were gone.

There is utter dread of the worst thing possible that they were taken. But the truth is you AVOID that conclusion even though it is there in back of your mind. You don’t raise it to speculate as first choice. You don’t. You raise it when the fate is known to hide the truth. The truth is it’s a remote possibility and never first choice to raise. Nor is an injury. That FM mentions both is massively incriminating guilty behaviour as first choice.

So we aren’t merely talking muddled perspectives. We are talking also guilty behaviours. Likewise FGM knowing and telling FF the chemist opened at 9 but suggesting he left before 8 to go there and she wasn’t up is just a straight lie.

 

[Kurve]

So we aren’t merely talking muddled perspectives. We are talking also guilty behaviours. Likewise FGM knowing and telling FF the chemist opened at 9 but suggesting he left before 8 to go there and she wasn’t up is just a straight lie.

Are you saying the FGM had knowledge and was cooperating in some kind of a cover up?

Asides, that isn't evidence.

 

[Earls Smother]

Certainly versions can be muddled by different perspectives. But there is NEVER Conscousness of Gulit behaviours there. They are innocent mistakes.

My twin girls about 5 went missing for 20 minutes at Port Stephen’s beach during holiday season. They were playing with each other in knee deep water when i had to take my 8 yo son to toilet within sight. I was but 2 min and when i came back to our bag and spot they were gone.

There is utter dread of the worst thing possible that they were taken. But the truth is you AVOID that conclusion even though it is there in back of your mind. You don’t raise it to speculate as first choice. You don’t. You raise it when the fate is known to hide the truth. The truth is it’s a remote possibility and never first choice to raise. Nor is an injury. That FM mentions both is massively incriminating guilty behaviour as first choice.

So we aren’t merely talking muddled perspectives. We are talking also guilty behaviours. Likewise FGM knowing and telling FF the chemist opened at 9 but suggesting he left before 8 to go there and she wasn’t up is just a straight lie.

You've admitted in the bolded that you thought the worst.

Do you really think every single person on Earth thinks exactly like you? You didn't outwardly raise it, but some people would straight away express their greatest fear out loud.

It's not COG, it is human nature to react differently to the same situation.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You've admitted in the bolded that you thought the worst.

Do you really think every single person on Earth thinks exactly like you? You didn't outwardly raise it, but some people would straight away express their greatest fear out loud.

It's not COG, it is human nature to react differently to the same situation.

You believe what you will but I think you are guided by confirmation bias……you want to believe they are innocent so do.

I care for the truth and YES it’s COG behaviour absolutely it is.

Behaviours can differ. Look at Lindy Chamberlain. But you don’t invent an unknown injury to explain why he can’t hear you and you don’t suggest an abduction without first looking.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Are you saying the FGM had knowledge and was cooperating in some kind of a cover up?

Asides, that isn't evidence.

Yes I think she had knowledge. I think a conscious decision was made to exclude her from picture to avoid becoming an accessory. She was the one who told FF the night before chemist opened at 9. A few days later she tells police that he left to go to chemist before 8 and she wasn’t even up yet despite her having been awoken by the kids going into her room and her usual waking time was 7.30 which she stated in her interview before changing it realising it was a stuff up. Yes I think she lied to be consistent with what they’d told her. She was a very poor liar. Her record of interview is evidence and has been proven he didn’t leave before 8 at all. The fallout she had with FM gives hint of her utter disapproval to be dragged into the situation imo.