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?

 

[Kurve]

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.

People in stress situations can make a mistake with timing or get their words mixed up. It's why you should never talk to the cops unless you really have to and/or you have a lawyer.

 

[31550]

I've said many times eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
And in this case especially it is all either nonsensical or conflicting with what others have said, does not align with 'normal' behaviour, and often does not align with proven facts.
That is why I think we need to discount ALL eyewitness testimony, and rely only on what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt (not much I concede) as primary evidence - phone records, financial transactions, CCTV etc.
For secondary evidence to have value, if it is eyewitness testimony it should only be considered if

• it comes from an independent eyewitness, preferably multiple sources and
• it can be corroborated by physical evidence or is at least consistent with known facts.

This excludes about 99 per cent of the fosters narrative IMO.

 

[Underarrest_]

Personally I think that if FM was guilty and others such as FGM were collaborating with her, they would have had the story down pat with little inconsistencies.
It doesn’t sit right with me that FGM would purposely lie about what time FF left, given that that it’s been said that it’s unlikely a car would drive in and out of the area without being heard or seen (especially around 8 when most people are home or just leaving fo school, work, etc,) leaving it wide open to be caught out on her story.
In saying that, I wonder if any neighbours saw or heard what time FF left to go into town given that it’s been said that it’s unlikely a car can go in and out of the area without being seen or heard.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I've said many times eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
And in this case especially it is all either nonsensical or conflicting with what others have said, does not align with 'normal' behaviour, and often does not align with proven facts.
That is why I think we need to discount ALL eyewitness testimony, and rely only on what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt (not much I concede) as primary evidence - phone records, financial transactions, CCTV etc.
For secondary evidence to have value, if it is eyewitness testimony it should only be considered if

• it comes from an independent eyewitness, preferably multiple sources and
• it can be corroborated by physical evidence or is at least consistent with known facts.

This excludes about 99 per cent of the fosters narrative IMO.

You will only go up and down on the one spot never advancing. Even Iddles tries to fashion explanations he can then test. You have to do that to advance all the while accepting there are inherent limitations to the choices before testing. We aren’t putting an evidence case together for charges or court. We are merely trying to get to the truth.

 

[js47]

I do not know what actually happened in the early morning.
How could any one stay asleep with people in the house when you normally live alone?
I think Nanna played dogo as it was cold. The kids were noisy listening to shows. FF was up I bet he made breakfast and coffee/tea in the kitchen next to her bedroom.
The kids had a fight over a toy.
The FF was stressed over his calls FM suggest for him to do his thing. From his reaction to FD dragging her feet years later, I think he could be grumpy.
FGM stayed in bed but was awake listening to it all happen. She wasn’t well she was probably stressed over the sale, the washing machine.
Chaos was brought down on that household that day. I cannot judge the FGM’s behaviour or comments but gee you have to feel for her.

 

[Underarrest_]

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.

I must have missed this. What was the fallout between FM and FGM?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I must have missed this. What was the fallout between FM and FGM?

Unsure of timing but had a falling out estrangement/ argument after WT went missing.

 

[Kurve]

Unsure of timing but had a falling out estrangement/ argument after WT went missing.

My understanding is that they had a difficult relationship but didn't read anywhere, what it was about, when it occurred or whether they just didn't get along and it's long standing.

So are you certain this falling out they had was after William went missing?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

My understanding is that they had a difficult relationship but didn't read anywhere, what it was about, when it occurred or whether they just didn't get along and it's long standing.

So are you certain this falling out they had was after William went missing?

Yes aware of difficult relationship. Yes the falling out afterwards has been discussed previously here on thread. Unsure which version number.

 

[Kurve]

Yes aware of difficult relationship. Yes the falling out afterwards has been discussed previously here on thread. Unsure which version number.

The rift might have been discussed but was there anything in the press that indicated it was AFTER William went missing? Because I can't find it.

 

[js47]

I think it was after Wm. went missing because FGM was talking about William. It probably was because he was a protected child.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The rift might have been discussed but was there anything in the press that indicated it was AFTER William went missing? Because I can't find it.

It was discussed on the thread it happened after. Unsure if links were provided.

 

[Lady O]

The rift might have been discussed but was there anything in the press that indicated it was AFTER William went missing? Because I can't find it.

I don't know if it was a falling out or rift, but FM had supposedly asked the Police (Wendy?) to tell her to stop talking. Whether it had anything to do with him being fostered, or whether she just FM didn't want everything to be discussed around town, I'm not sure.

 

[shorsky]

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."

Thank you.

- who knows what’s true & what’s not amongst all the conflicting confusion that has surrounded this very sad situation.

 

[31550]

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."

That's the problem though.
SFR are advancing ONE theory and one theory ONLY. And this theory is quite specific.
But they cannot categorically rule out other theories, or significant variations to this theory, because there is no evidence. It's a 'pet' theory, and it may not be the right one.
It's the one which might be easiest for the coroner and/or the public to accept, but it may not be the truth.

How can police be sure that FM drove the car at all?
How can they be sure William was in it?
How can they be sure WHEN she drove the car?
How can they be sure WHERE she drove it?
And how do they explain FM taking this drive in the context of what happened to William?
What 'frame of mind' are they referring to specifically, that would make FM hide William?

 

[Underarrest_]

That's the problem though.
SFR are advancing ONE theory and one theory ONLY. And this theory is quite specific.
But they cannot categorically rule out other theories, or significant variations to this theory, because there is no evidence. It's a 'pet' theory, and it may not be the right one.
It's the one which might be easiest for the coroner and/or the public to accept, but it may not be the truth.

How can police be sure that FM drove the car at all?
How can they be sure William was in it?
How can they be sure WHEN she drove the car?
How can they be sure WHERE she drove it?
And how do they explain FM taking this drive in the context of what happened to William?

Agree.
I ask myself what evidence police have to allege William fell from the balcony and was taken to the corner of Cobb n co and barter creek road after alerting neighbours and if/why they have eliminated any possibility of someone else driving in the street earlier on, which was heard by two witnesses.

 

[31550]

Agree.
I ask myself what evidence police have to allege William fell from the balcony and was taken to the corner of Cobb n co and barter creek road after alerting neighbours and why they have eliminated any possibility of someone else driving in the street earlier on, which was heard by two witnesses.

I don't think they are alleging a balcony fall.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That's the problem though.
SFR are advancing ONE theory and one theory ONLY. And this theory is quite specific.
But they cannot categorically rule out other theories, or significant variations to this theory, because there is no evidence. It's a 'pet' theory, and it may not be the right one.
It's the one which might be easiest for the coroner and/or the public to accept, but it may not be the truth.

How can police be sure that FM drove the car at all?
How can they be sure William was in it?
How can they be sure WHEN she drove the car?
How can they be sure WHERE she drove it?
And how do they explain FM taking this drive in the context of what happened to William?

It comes back to what they think they can prove. They don’t think they can prove anything other than tampering with a body and perverting the course of justice which means homicide is off the table and in its place is an accident to give rise to the dead body. They can’t prove the accident or even know the nature so is where it is weak. “Bouncing out of his skull” is imo leakage and could be either a fall or a car hit. I personally think it’s the latter for the FD comment of going in search of FF car story then morphed to roaring around the corner. Why? I don’t know why they are fixated on Cobb & co. They should make it public. Perhaps it merely intersects with testimony of her trip and the time needed to hide a body. Perhaps they have geolocation pings. Given that there was no cadaver indication at that site in the initial search time I think they are wrong and believe instead she drove outside the search area to place the body. They seem to have honed in on 10.08 to 10.13 as the trip. I conceive that instead that might be the time of return trip the initial start trip being before Crabbs got home but after PS heard kids play say 9.35. That’s why there is only one time Crabbs heard a car not two. That likely means the 9.37 time is wrong but has to be if she drove outside the search zone

Go back to her childhood and the places she frequented in the bush and you may find a favourite location to search with dogs. Profile her

They need mechanisms to reduce the search. I would build concentric circles of radius away from house based on:

• time analysis to drive and hide assuming 9.37 is limit
• time analysis to drive and hide assuming there is no limit 9.37 but a limit on last proof of life by PS likely 9.25
• Cross check to profile results of locations from her friends in childhood
• conduct search’s with team of cadaver dogs along roads selected. Only go into bush when a dog detects a scent

This case can be solved but first we must find the body. It can’t be too far away and it needs to be narrowed. Picking one location and undertaking intensive search there on a hunch is plain stupidity. You first need to reduce the scope and you do that using cadaver dogs along roads.

 

[Underarrest_]

I don't think they are alleging a balcony fall.

Isn’t this the theory they’ve put to the Coroner.

 

[31550]

Profile her
...

This case can be solved but first we must find the body.

(Apologies for selective quoting)
I think it's the other way round.
If you solve the crime THEN you will find the body.
A crime has been committed but IMO it's more than just hiding a body after an accident.
WHY was there a perceived need to hide the body at all?
WHAT triggered FM to undertake such a drastic and reckless course of action?
The answer lies in the psyche of the FM, and you are correct that a proper psychological profile of the FM is critical to solving the case.
IMO the answer lies in the FM's past and is known to police. (Iddles would say "The answer is in the file.")
If the police can put the pieces together, and come up with the REAL reason FM decided to hide William, then FM may eventually tell the truth.
IMO

 

[31550]

Isn’t this the theory they’ve put to the Coroner.

I don't think they have explicitly stated that they believe it was a balcony fall. I think they just said 'accident'. Feel free to correct me if you can find a police source that alleges a balcony fall as anything other than just a 'possibility'.

 

[Underarrest_]

I don't think they have explicitly stated that they believe it was a balcony fall. I think they just said 'accident'. Feel free to correct me if you can find a police source that alleges a balcony fall as anything other than just a 'possibility'.

William Tyrrell inquest: foster mother abused outside court after police allege she may have buried toddler

Counsel assisting warns ‘fairness is deserved by all’ after inquest hears foster mother may have disposed of three-year-old’s body following accidental death in 2014

www.theguardian.com

Craddock on Monday opened the fifth round of the inquest by stating police now believed the boy’s foster mother found him deceased after a fall from the balcony of the grandmother’s Kendall property.

Only this from the media of what was said in the Coroners
court.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

(Apologies for selective quoting)
I think it's the other way round.
If you solve the crime THEN you will find the body.
A crime has been committed but IMO it's more than just hiding a body after an accident.
WHY was there a perceived need to hide the body at all?
WHAT triggered FM to undertake such a drastic and reckless course of action?
The answer lies in the psyche of the FM, and you are correct that a proper psychological profile of the FM is critical to solving the case.
IMO the answer lies in the FM's past and is known to police. (Iddles would say "The answer is in the file.")
If the police can put the pieces together, and come up with the REAL reason FM decided to hide William, then FM may eventually tell the truth.
IMO

The answer will fall out when enough pieces of the puzzle are gathered. I don’t know how you gather those extra pieces absent some breakthrough or the body.

 

[Underarrest_]

It comes back to what they think they can prove. They don’t think they can prove anything other than tampering with a body and perverting the course of justice which means homicide is off the table and in its place is an accident to give rise to the dead body. They can’t prove the accident or even know the nature so is where it is weak. “Bouncing out of his skull” is imo leakage and could be either a fall or a car hit. I personally think it’s the latter for the FD comment of going in search of FF car story then morphed to roaring around the corner. Why? I don’t know why they are fixated on Cobb & co. They should make it public. Perhaps it merely intersects with testimony of her trip and the time needed to hide a body. Perhaps they have geolocation pings. Given that there was no cadaver indication at that site in the initial search time I think they are wrong and believe instead she drove outside the search area to place the body. They seem to have honed in on 10.08 to 10.13 as the trip. I conceive that instead that might be the time of return trip the initial start trip being before Crabbs got home but after PS heard kids play say 9.35. That’s why there is only one time Crabbs heard a car not two. That likely means the 9.37 time is wrong but has to be if she drove outside the search zone

Go back to her childhood and the places she frequented in the bush and you may find a favourite location to search with dogs. Profile her

They need mechanisms to reduce the search. I would build concentric circles of radius away from house based on:

• time analysis to drive and hide assuming 9.37 is limit
• time analysis to drive and hide assuming there is no limit 9.37 but a limit on last proof of life by PS likely 9.25
• Cross check to profile results of locations from her friends in childhood
• conduct search’s with team of cadaver dogs along roads selected. Only go into bush when a dog detects a scent

This case can be solved but first we must find the body. It can’t be too far away and it needs to be narrowed. Picking one location and undertaking intensive search there on a hunch is plain stupidity. You first need to reduce the scope and you do that using cadaver dogs along roads.

Angry Red Bull,
I didn’t think police were honing in on
time of FM’s drive as 10.08 to 10.13.
It’s been said in the coroners court that the drive was after a neighbour was alerted by FM which would be after 10.30, as they’ve also questioned FM as to why she waited 20 mins to call 000 from the time FM noticed William missing to calling 000.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Angry Red Bull,
I didn’t think police were honing in on
time of FM’s drive as 10.08 to 10.13.
It’s been said in the coroners court that the drive was after a neighbour was alerted by FM which would be after 10.30, as they’ve also questioned FM as to why she waited 20 mins to call 000 from the time FM noticed William missing to calling 000.

I think it was 31550 who did an analysis to prove 10.30 simply can’t have been the time of drive. It had to happen before the alarm was raised. I think the time of 10.08 to 10.13 was the time Crabbs heard the car calculated by SFR. Could be wrong but what I recall. That 5 minutes was mentioned

If you are a person who has a dead body you choose to hide you are not going to raise the alarm then hide the body. You are going to hide the body then when you are safe raise the alarm.

If I have misled I apologise