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

Remove this Banner Ad

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 :rolleyes:
COG - Consciousness of guilt. Like WHO KNEW?
 
I agree, it's staggering. If anyone had checked a vehicle driving from Kew to Kendall - roughly a 5 minute drive - the Kendall CCTV camera would have shown them arriving at a time either 4 minutes or 9 minutes before they left Kew. So it's not like the delay on the camera could have been unknown. And I'd think any sort of inconsistency in timelines would have been checked somehow (against phone records or something). The whole thing is hard to believe, IMO.
Symptomatic of the ongoing and sometimes deliberate obfuscation of facts in this case.

The 9 minutes became 14 minutes. Says who? How was this determined? What is the truth? When did 9 become 14?

Remember we have had the 'media' reporting on more than one occasion "FF left the house at 9.30" - NO he did not (so it seems), yet those articles persist in the media even today.

There are other subtle untruths woven into the narrative : "William was playing hide-and-seek with his sister" was initially reported. Was he? It seems this is no longer 'truth'.

Other things are given as fact: "The FM saw 2 cars". "Everyone was happy". "The FM drove to BCR in FGM car". Are any of these provable beyond reasonable doubt?

So I ask, is it really 9 minutes or 14 minutes, or do we even know for sure?
 
And yes, if the the photos were actually taken at ~ 7.30 then a massive conspiracy has been committed.
Hasn't there already been at least one conspiracy occur in this case?
See below.

'Police told William’s foster mother ‘we know where, we know how, we know why’

'first published at 1.58pm Updated November 3, 2022 — 4.49pm
...
When police visited William Tyrrell’s foster mother at her home to summon her to a secret court appearance, they had a stark message for the woman they believe disposed of his body after he fell from a first-floor balcony.

“We know why, we know how, we know where he is,” Sergeant Scott Jamieson told the woman, who can only be identified by the pseudonym SD, in October 2021.

However, when questioned about this claim in a court hearing on Thursday, Jamieson denied deliberately lying about it.
...'
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

The drive would have taken longer.

Okay. I agree. It would have taken longer than usual for everyone who had to slow down in the roadworks zone, and longer still for everyone who had to stop and wait.

I don't know where this roadworks zone was or whether it affected traffic in both directions, but FF mentioned it in relation to his trip from Lakewood, and Peter the truck driver (in his call to 2GB) mentioned it in relation to his trip from Kew. Presumably most of the police officers responding to FM's triple-0 call would have driven to Kendall via Kew and would have gone through the same zone too, so the potential for delays on that section of road should have been well known by police and factored into any analysis of vehicle movements past the Kendall camera, MOO.

Is this right? If a vehicle left Kew at a real time of 10:00am and drove to Kendall (a trip which might usually take about 5 minutes) with a delay at roadworks of 5 minutes (giving a total trip time of 10 minutes) the vehicle would have arrived at Kendall at 10:10am. But the slow Kendall camera would have shown it arriving at either 10:01am (if the camera was 9 minutes slow) or 09:56am (if 14 minutes slow).
 
Maybe it’s as simple as the police theory, FM disposed of William after FF returned and alerted neighbours,

If FM did this after FF got home, maybe she took their car. Maybe the drive in FGM’s car didn’t happen.

Or
He went to the front lawn and was abducted by someone in a car heard by neighbours.
 
Last edited:
Is this right? If a vehicle left Kew at a real time of 10:00am and drove to Kendall (a trip which might usually take about 5 minutes) with a delay at roadworks of 5 minutes (giving a total trip time of 10 minutes) the vehicle would have arrived at Kendall at 10:10am. But the slow Kendall camera would have shown it arriving at either 10:01am (if the camera was 9 minutes slow) or 09:56am (if 14 minutes slow).
BBM. With FF being from busy Sydney, would a 5min delay have been notable, given how slow the city lights change. I'd doubt that, just because I don't think he would have commented on it as an unusual event if it had only been 5min.
 
Last edited:
BBM. With FF being from busy Sydney, would a 5min delay have been notable, given how slow the city lights change. I'd doubt that, just because I don't think he would have commented on it as an unusual event if it had only been 5min.

Lady O, if it would set your mind at ease, make FF's roadwork delay 10 minutes; or 15 minutes; or an hour. IMO the point is that the time offset of the Kendall camera should have been noticed and corrected early on, as soon as anyone noticed that the timelines of at least some vehicle movements did not make sense.

If my calculations on the example times between Kew and Kendall are wrong, someone please be sensible enough to point that out.
 
The other thing about the Crabb's car pause is that it must have been near the upper driveway. That's where they would hear it after the bend in the road.

The going in search of FF and his car though was ' down there' the same direction it seems as around the corner. That means that if W did do that then he would have been near the road down there before the bend NOT up near the upper driveway. Doesn't seem that the 10.10 was an abduction.
 
That's incorrect and IMO unfair. I am not invested in anything, have no dog in this race, except to want the truth to come out and justice for William.

I'm completely objective. How? Because it's not based on any particular feeling or hunch or suspicion of mine. In fact, it's despite all my own feelings and prejudices. But the fact is, three different lead detectives, the NSWCC and the Coroners Court plus a number of other parties over the course of ten years have had opportunity to investigate the photographs and camera, all knowing full well that the timeline is critical to this case, and they have all arrived at the 9.37 time. All have been aware of the issues with timestamps. I have to accept that even though they might not be the smartest tools in the shed, they have access to more information, technology, skills and resources than I have - probably more than anyone. They are not operating in a vacuum - there is plenty of public scrutiny of this case from various stakeholders.

And yes, if the the photos were actually taken at ~ 7.30 then a massive conspiracy has been committed. It means several people have knowingly and deliberately and repeatedly lied. (It cannot be a simple mistake or a memory failure). It means a whole two hours have been inserted into the timeline, where the only possible explanation is to cover up a serious crime. It's not just perjury. And it means more than one person is a party to this cover-up of a serious crime - the very definition of conspiracy.

Not intending to be unfair and don't think I have been. The reality is that a number of posters have provided links suggesting edits are possible without detection..Other evidence points to manipulation too.. Your conclusion might ultimately be right that forensics would detect it but it certainly wouldn't be the greatest conspiracy ever if the time was manipulated. Until I have positive confirmation describing how and why it clearly was 9.37 I will conceive it possible that this issue is unresolved and explains much of why the case hasn't been solved. Nothing to do with hunches or feelings or unsound logic and everything to do with analysis of the case. You don't have to agree but like your hero Iddles advocates, never assume it can't be. You have assumed forensics have resolved it without explanation why..
 
Last edited:
Maybe it’s as simple as the police theory, FM disposed of William after FF returned and alerted neighbours,

If FM did this after FF got home, maybe she took their car. Maybe the drive in FGM’s car didn’t happen.

Or
He went to the front lawn and was abducted by someone in a car heard by neighbours.
After FF got home and before neighbours were alerted?
Or after FF got home and after neighbours were alerted?

Before neighbours were alerted there doesn't seem enough time:
  • FF returns home (10.35)
  • William is loaded into a car
  • Driven away
  • Hidden
  • Car is driven back to driveway
  • Cars arranged in carport
  • FM engages with AMS around 10.40am

After neighbours are alerted there is more time, but how is it that nobody sees her leave or return?
  • AMS notified at ~10.40am
  • FM walks to bus stop and back (while AMS remains on street)
  • AMS knocks on Savages door 10.50am
  • Phone call to 000 at 10.56 while FM is in street outside FGM house
  • Police arrive 11.05am, at which time neighbours are all in the street

Maybe the drive didn't happen at all, but then why does FM maintain it did happen?

The chances of a random speculative abduction at exactly the right time ( ~ 10am) and place (dead end of Benaroon) with nobody witnessing seem very unlikely.

That leaves only one possible explanation IMO
  • the drive happened between 9:40am and 10:30am ( a time window when there were no witnesses in Benaroon)
  • William was removed by a vehicle
  • the only available vehicle was FGM car
  • the only people who could have driven the car were FM or FGM
  • the drive was less than 15 minutes in either direction, plus time to conceal William
  • the drive location was outside the immediate search area,
  • it's possible William was subsequently moved from this location
 
Not intending to be unfair and don't think I have been. The reality is that a number of posters have provided links suggesting edits are possible without detection..Other evidence points to manipulation too.. Your conclusion might ultimately be right that forensics would detect it but it certainly wouldn't be the greatest conspiracy ever if the time was manipulated. Until I have positive confirmation describing how and why it clearly was 9.37 I will conceive it possible that this issue is unresolved and explains much of why the case hasn't been solved. Nothing to do with hunches or feelings or unsound logic and everything to do with analysis of the case. You don't have to agree but like your hero Iddles advocates, never assume it can't be. You have assumed forensics have resolved it without explanation why..
Actually I gave two alternatives if the 7.30 time proves to be correct.
  • massive conspiracy
  • NSWPOL are totally incompetent

Both are possible.

I'd like to hear from a LE / forensic expert but we seem to have scared him off. :(
 
Actually I gave two alternatives if the 7.30 time proves to be correct.
  • massive conspiracy
  • NSWPOL are totally incompetent

Both are possible.

I'd like to hear from a LE / forensic expert but we seem to have scared him off. :(
.

Was that Percel? Yes that feedback would be good.

They may not necessarily be incompetent if it is impossible to detect. In one of his posts he intimated that it is hard to escape detection if edits were done. What if they weren't and the only thing changed was the date/ time setting between Bali and Aus times using the Sunrise TV snap as proof of the setting. But that isn't proof of setting rather proof of setting at that moment..Different
 
.

Was that Percel? Yes that feedback would be good.

They may not necessarily be incompetent if it is impossible to detect. In one of his posts he intimated that it is hard to escape detection if edits were done. What if they weren't and the only thing changed was the date/ time setting between Bali and Aus times using the Sunrise TV snap as proof of the setting. But that isn't proof of setting rather proof of setting at that moment..Different
I don't want to labour the point but forensic analysis techniques go much further and deeper than simply examining timestamps. I am talking about examination of the photographs themselves, shadows, angles, reflections, and other optical artefacts overlaid against meteorological and geospatial data to determine the exact time of day, camera angle, distance from subject(s) etc. This should EASILY settle the arguments over whether the SERIES of photographs were taken at ~9.30 am or ~7.30am. It's not just a matter of tweaking a setting on a camera. The images themselves have to be consistent with the time.
If the various iterations of SFR have not performed this analysis, or at least attempted it, then yes, they are hopelessly incompetent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

After FF got home and before neighbours were alerted?
Or after FF got home and after neighbours were alerted?

Before neighbours were alerted there doesn't seem enough time:
  • FF returns home (10.35)
  • William is loaded into a car
  • Driven away
  • Hidden
  • Car is driven back to driveway
  • Cars arranged in carport
  • FM engages with AMS around 10.40am

After neighbours are alerted there is more time, but how is it that nobody sees her leave or return?
  • AMS notified at ~10.40am
  • FM walks to bus stop and back (while AMS remains on street)
  • AMS knocks on Savages door 10.50am
  • Phone call to 000 at 10.56 while FM is in street outside FGM house
  • Police arrive 11.05am, at which time neighbours are all in the street

Maybe the drive didn't happen at all, but then why does FM maintain it did happen?

The chances of a random speculative abduction at exactly the right time ( ~ 10am) and place (dead end of Benaroon) with nobody witnessing seem very unlikely.

That leaves only one possible explanation IMO
  • the drive happened between 9:40am and 10:30am ( a time window when there were no witnesses in Benaroon)
  • William was removed by a vehicle
  • the only available vehicle was FGM car
  • the only people who could have driven the car were FM or FGM
  • the drive was less than 15 minutes in either direction, plus time to conceal William
  • the drive location was outside the immediate search area,
  • it's possible William was subsequently moved from this location
I agree the chances of someone just going into that area for no reason and taking William would be minimal.
A planned abduction probably also minimal as they would have to assume they would have an opportunity to take William without being seen.
Possible though that someone who just happened to be/go to the area for a reason might take the opportunity if they saw William on the edge of the property.
I believe it’s possible people might not see them. As far as we know, no one saw FM or other family members come and go.
On the other hand, there’s so many inconsistencies in the Foster’s stories that don’t make sense.
I do wonder though how if a story was collaborated, it got so out of hand. FGM says FF would have left by 8, FM says FF was there when she tried to phone BS at 9.03, FF says he was in Lakewood by 9 to set up for a meeting. Is this a collaborative made up story. I’m not sure. Or was there so many lies, they confused themselves?
 
I agree the chances of someone just going into that area for no reason and taking William would be minimal.
A planned abduction probably also minimal as they would have to assume they would have an opportunity to take William without being seen.
Possible though that someone who just happened to be/go to the area for a reason might take the opportunity if they saw William on the edge of the property.
I believe it’s possible people might not see them. As far as we know, no one saw FM or other family members come and go.
On the other hand, there’s so many inconsistencies in the Foster’s stories that don’t make sense.
I do wonder though how if a story was collaborated, it got so out of hand. FGM says FF would have left by 8, FM says FF was there when she tried to phone BS at 9.03, FF says he was in Lakewood by 9 to set up for a meeting. Is this a collaborative made up story. I’m not sure. Or was there so many lies, they confused themselves?
Yeah I think if you make up a story on the fly then you are bound to omit certain details or account for all possibilities.

All you can do is outline a general sequence of events, and then the individuals would need to fill in the details.

This could explain uncertainty about
  • 3 or 4 for breakfast
  • Breakfast at 8 or 9am?
  • Any phone calls?
  • Was the drive before or after ...
  • any cars?
  • wearing shoes?
  • here 5 minutes ago

But there is 'certainty' about
  • everyone was happy
  • FF was definitely gone by 9
  • scrambled eggs, toast, orange juice
  • the Spiderman suit
 
I agree the chances of someone just going into that area for no reason and taking William would be minimal.
A planned abduction probably also minimal as they would have to assume they would have an opportunity to take William without being seen.
Possible though that someone who just happened to be/go to the area for a reason might take the opportunity if they saw William on the edge of the property.
I believe it’s possible people might not see them. As far as we know, no one saw FM or other family members come and go.
On the other hand, there’s so many inconsistencies in the Foster’s stories that don’t make sense.
I do wonder though how if a story was collaborated, it got so out of hand. FGM says FF would have left by 8, FM says FF was there when she tried to phone BS at 9.03, FF says he was in Lakewood by 9 to set up for a meeting. Is this a collaborative made up story. I’m not sure. Or was there so many lies, they confused themselves?
Not only is an opportunistic abduction improbable, but if this was the case I believe there is a high probability that William would have been found by now.

An abductor would dispose of a body quickly, not spend a great deal of time or effort, not travel a huge distance, so as to minimise detection. They would do 'just enough' to conceal the body long enough to avoid detection and suspicion. This limits the places where William could be concealed.

Further, abductors tend to be habitual, repeat offenders. Known and suspected paedophiles have all been investigated and supposedly cleared. An unknown offender has probably reoffended in the last ten years, and would also come under scrutiny. People talk. There is no 'honour amongst pedos' - someone with knowledge or suspicions would come forward - there is a $1M reward still! If the offender is now deceased there is even more incentive for a possible witness to come forward - no repercussions or reprisals.

So if it's an opportunistic abduction, it's someone who has probably acted alone, is completely above suspicion, and careful or crafty enough to dispose of the body in a secret undetected location, never tell anyone, destroy all evidence, and never get caught in any subsequent (or previous) offence.

It's possible but seems highly improbable to me.
 
Not only is an opportunistic abduction improbable, but if this was the case I believe there is a high probability that William would have been found by now.

An abductor would dispose of a body quickly, not spend a great deal of time or effort, not travel a huge distance, so as to minimise detection. They would do 'just enough' to conceal the body long enough to avoid detection and suspicion. This limits the places where William could be concealed.

Further, abductors tend to be habitual, repeat offenders. Known and suspected paedophiles have all been investigated and supposedly cleared. An unknown offender has probably reoffended in the last ten years, and would also come under scrutiny. People talk. There is no 'honour amongst pedos' - someone with knowledge or suspicions would come forward - there is a $1M reward still! If the offender is now deceased there is even more incentive for a possible witness to come forward - no repercussions or reprisals.

So if it's an opportunistic abduction, it's someone who has probably acted alone, is completely above suspicion, and careful or crafty enough to dispose of the body in a secret undetected location, never tell anyone, destroy all evidence, and never get caught in any subsequent (or previous) offence.

It's possible but seems highly improbable to me.
Yes statistically there’s only 3 percent chance that William would be abducted.
Sexual predators can be opportunistic. No history or a history.
An abductor would have much more time/ opportunity to conceal a body than FM would.
If there were no outside people/attempted contacts, an hour before William allegedly went missing or no neighbours near the house or driving home in the area around the time, I would say the chances would be lower. IMO.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I think if you make up a story on the fly then you are bound to omit certain details or account for all possibilities.

All you can do is outline a general sequence of events, and then the individuals would need to fill in the details.

This could explain uncertainty about
  • 3 or 4 for breakfast
  • Breakfast at 8 or 9am?
  • Any phone calls?
  • Was the drive before or after ...
  • any cars?
  • wearing shoes?
  • here 5 minutes ago

But there is 'certainty' about
  • everyone was happy
  • FF was definitely gone by 9
  • scrambled eggs, toast, orange juice
  • the Spiderman suit
I’m not sure William would put his own shoes on before he went off the patio.
If police think the shoes were an afterthought after FM phoned police, FM would have had to conceal the shoes after the 000 call.
Maybe a missed opportunity for police if the shoes were somewhere at/around the house.
 
I’m not sure William would put his own shoes on before he went off the patio.
If police think the shoes were an afterthought after FM phoned police, FM would have had to conceal the shoes after the 000 call.
Maybe a missed opportunity for police if the shoes were somewhere at/around the house.
I mentioned the shoes because I think the response to the 000 question should have been immediate and definitive: "Yes he was wearing his sandals - I put them on him, or saw him put them on" or "No, he was barefoot!" or "Oh I really don't know, he had them on and off - I'll go see if they are still on the verandah."

But we got none of that - we got a pregnant pause, and no answer at all, which is quite strange for someone who should be aware and concerned for William.

The pause and non-answer could indicate FM weighing up the possible answers and how they would fit the narrative. If she didn't know, why not SAY she didn't know? Because the shoes had some significance? Or because she only just realised that for a 'wandered off' scenario he MUST have shoes on or he couldn't get far. Or for an abduction scenario, the shoes SHOULD be still on the verandah. Then we have the throwaway line later from the FF that he "may have lost a shoe“. Where did he get that idea?

I think the shoes have something to do with the drive, and the question about shoes from the 000 operator triggered something with FM about the drive which caused her to stop and rethink the narrative.

Of course, the recording of the 000 call was edited, so maybe she DID answer but it was edited out for some reason?
 
After FF got home and before neighbours were alerted?
Or after FF got home and after neighbours were alerted?

Before neighbours were alerted there doesn't seem enough time:
  • FF returns home (10.35)
  • William is loaded into a car
  • Driven away
  • Hidden
  • Car is driven back to driveway
  • Cars arranged in carport
  • FM engages with AMS around 10.40am

After neighbours are alerted there is more time, but how is it that nobody sees her leave or return?
  • AMS notified at ~10.40am
  • FM walks to bus stop and back (while AMS remains on street)
  • AMS knocks on Savages door 10.50am
  • Phone call to 000 at 10.56 while FM is in street outside FGM house
  • Police arrive 11.05am, at which time neighbours are all in the street

Maybe the drive didn't happen at all, but then why does FM maintain it did happen?

The chances of a random speculative abduction at exactly the right time ( ~ 10am) and place (dead end of Benaroon) with nobody witnessing seem very unlikely.

That leaves only one possible explanation IMO
  • the drive happened between 9:40am and 10:30am ( a time window when there were no witnesses in Benaroon)
  • William was removed by a vehicle
  • the only available vehicle was FGM car
  • the only people who could have driven the car were FM or FGM
  • the drive was less than 15 minutes in either direction, plus time to conceal William
  • the drive location was outside the immediate search area,
  • it's possible William was subsequently moved from this location

We don't know a trip was made at all. Agreed..We are told it did by FM. The place she said she did has no evidence she went there and a potential witness didn't see her either. (Ie Peter). She also wasn't seen by anyone in the car in the street. The only evidence is her testimony and the possibility of a warm bonnet. Do we know it was the FGM car with warm bonnet or FF car? Important now

There is no time pressure on FM to act. Only what she chooses. She wouldn't imo choose to create a ridiculously tight time cluttered with neighbour involvement and public announcement of searches BEFORE the body was hidden. That is plain crazy if you had control of time as she did. If the car was used it must have been before FF arrived home. Nothing turns on whether the trip was before or after FF getting home. What is important though is it it can be proven that the trip didn't happen at all. We can't do that because we have from 9 to 10.30 where it could and not be detected and 9.30 -10.30. Crabbs were there to hear cars come and go.. only one did at approx 10.10. Was that the FGM car? I'm concerned they heard it coming down the street. That isn't compatible with a car leaving a carport..A problem that is unresolved. Perhaps their testimony is skewed by confirmation bias where they misread the U turn as a car reversing out of driveway and pausing to change to drive because they were expecting the postie? Query

Why would she lie about a trip? That is an interesting question. The lie if it is one is deflecting the focus towards a place where W wasn't found and away from where he might be found. It also lays another veneer on the alleged abduction scam. What is the opposite direction? Remember apparently W can't go downhill and FF did at one stage go searching unsupervised. Is that the answer? Prior to Crabb's getting home at 9.30 that road was available for use without detection.

You clearly think that the scope of forensic analysis (sight unseen) must have resolved it 7.39 v 9.37. But we know it was overcast, that it's highly likely an unnatural light source was casting shadows and reflections from a downlight near the car port. That the effect of shadows in overcast and polycarbonate roofing in natural sunlight is such that there is multiple layers of diffusion which also cause splaying of shadows such as to make it difficult to determine natural light source direction at all let alone time of day. That is the science relating to that verandah scene. So no I'm not convinced absent seeing a report which explains it to my satisfaction including those particular issues and even then I'd seek to test the correctness of the report. Just my nature that I do that. You saying it, the SFR saying it and Coroner saying does not appease me because I back my judgement and will follow only sound technical analysis including analysis of behaviours , lies, leakages which are more exposed than the facts themselves.
 
We don't know a trip was made at all. Agreed..We are told it did by FM. The place she said she did has no evidence she went there and a potential witness didn't see her either. (Ie Peter). She also wasn't seen by anyone in the car in the street. The only evidence is her testimony and the possibility of a warm bonnet. Do we know it was the FGM car with warm bonnet or FF car? Important now

There is no time pressure on FM to act. Only what she chooses. She wouldn't imo choose to create a ridiculously tight time cluttered with neighbour involvement and public announcement of searches BEFORE the body was hidden. That is plain crazy if you had control of time as she did. If the car was used it must have been before FF arrived home. Nothing turns on whether the trip was before or after FF getting home. What is important though is it it can be proven that the trip didn't happen at all. We can't do that because we have from 9 to 10.30 where it could and not be detected and 9.30 -10.30. Crabbs were there to hear cars come and go.. only one did at approx 10.10. Was that the FGM car? I'm concerned they heard it coming down the street. That isn't compatible with a car leaving a carport..A problem that is unresolved. Perhaps their testimony is skewed by confirmation bias where they misread the U turn as a car reversing out of driveway and pausing to change to drive because they were expecting the postie? Query

Why would she lie about a trip? That is an interesting question. The lie if it is one is deflecting the focus towards a place where W wasn't found and away from where he might be found. It also lays another veneer on the alleged abduction scam. What is the opposite direction? Remember apparently W can't go downhill and FF did at one stage go searching unsupervised. Is that the answer? Prior to Crabb's getting home at 9.30 that road was available for use without detection.

You clearly think that the scope of forensic analysis (sight unseen) must have resolved it 7.39 v 9.37. But we know it was overcast, that it's highly likely an unnatural light source was casting shadows and reflections from a downlight near the car port. That the effect of shadows in overcast and polycarbonate roofing in natural sunlight is such that there is multiple layers of diffusion which also cause splaying of shadows such as to make it difficult to determine natural light source direction at all let alone time of day. That is the science relating to that verandah scene. So no I'm not convinced absent seeing a report which explains it to my satisfaction including those particular issues and even then I'd seek to test the correctness of the report. Just my nature that I do that. You saying it, the SFR saying it and Coroner saying does not appease me because I back my judgement and will follow only sound technical analysis including analysis of behaviours , lies, leakages which are more exposed than the facts themselves.
The Crabbs heard a car and assumed it was the postie. We know they got home around 9:40am and then prepared morning tea to have on their deck/verandah/balcony from where they could hear the car. They were attentive to the car because they were collecting their neighbours' mail. It was subsequently demonstrated and conformed while police were in attendance that they could, in fact, hear a car from this particular location. Their testimony is valuable and creditable. They heard a car only once, thought it sounded like the postie in FGM driveway stopping momentarily (no door shutting), and then continuing back DOWN Benaroon Drive (not up the gravel track).

IMO this is most likely the FGMs car when it left the house. We have seen that they parked their cars "nose-in". So the FGMs car leaving would reverse down the driveway and uphill to the left, stop momentarily, then drive off DOWN Benaroon drive - totally consistent with what the Crabbs heard.

We know it wasn't the postie as the postie was much earlier that day (reportedly).

Why did they only hear one car? Maybe because they had gone back inside, or maybe because the FGM car returning would go quickly straight up the driveway and park (slowly) nose-in. No reversing or stopping, and would not drive on the gravel at the top of Benaroon drive. The return trip would be quicker and more silent. This also makes me believe the return trip was closer to 10.30. Crabbs did not say anything about hearing FF return. Maybe by 10.30 they had gone back inside?

You mention time pressure. It's possible that FM was out on her drive under no perceived time pressure but received the 'Back in 5' text from FF unexpectedly at 10.30, and had to dash home quickly to intercept him? Note that he says he encountered her in the carport, and she asks "Have you got William?". Perhaps this was her way of explaining her presence in the driveway, or in her mothers car in case HE had seen her? - "I was just out in Mum's car looking for him" - perhaps HE wasn't supposed to see her in the car? Perhaps nobody was supposed to see her in the car? In any case the drive has been woven into the narrative as "looking for William". To me this is incredulous as it makes no sense to look for William on BCR without searching the house first, then Benaroon Drive, then asking the neighbours, then FF, then a whole lot of other things before getting into a car and driving several km away.
 
Lady O, if it would set your mind at ease, make FF's roadwork delay 10 minutes; or 15 minutes; or an hour. IMO the point is that the time offset of the Kendall camera should have been noticed and corrected early on, as soon as anyone noticed that the timelines of at least some vehicle movements did not make sense.

If my calculations on the example times between Kew and Kendall are wrong, someone please be sensible enough to point that out.
True, we have no idea what the actual times were that these events happened. It makes no sense to continually argue points based on absolutely no actual evidence. However, if you are saying he should have taken 5 minutes back and forth to Kew and you accept that there was another 10 minutes each way for delays due to roadworks, that adds 20 minutes and makes the time taken 30 minutes.

Just saying.
 
LP
The Crabbs heard a car and assumed it was the postie. We know they got home around 9:40am and then prepared morning tea to have on their deck/verandah/balcony from where they could hear the car. They were attentive to the car because they were collecting their neighbours' mail. It was subsequently demonstrated and conformed while police were in attendance that they could, in fact, hear a car from this particular location. Their testimony is valuable and creditable. They heard a car only once, thought it sounded like the postie in FGM driveway stopping momentarily (no door shutting), and then continuing back DOWN Benaroon Drive (not up the gravel track).

IMO this is most likely the FGMs car when it left the house. We have seen that they parked their cars "nose-in". So the FGMs car leaving would reverse down the driveway and uphill to the left, stop momentarily, then drive off DOWN Benaroon drive - totally consistent with what the Crabbs heard.

We know it wasn't the postie as the postie was much earlier that day (reportedly).

Why did they only hear one car? Maybe because they had gone back inside, or maybe because the FGM car returning would go quickly straight up the driveway and park (slowly) nose-in. No reversing or stopping, and would not drive on the gravel at the top of Benaroon drive. The return trip would be quicker and more silent. This also makes me believe the return trip was closer to 10.30. Crabbs did not say anything about hearing FF return. Maybe by 10.30 they had gone back inside?

You mention time pressure. It's possible that FM was out on her drive under no perceived time pressure but received the 'Back in 5' text from FF unexpectedly at 10.30, and had to dash home quickly to intercept him? Note that he says he encountered her in the carport, and she asks "Have you got William?". Perhaps this was her way of explaining her presence in the driveway, or in her mothers car in case HE had seen her? - "I was just out in Mum's car looking for him" - perhaps HE wasn't supposed to see her in the car? Perhaps nobody was supposed to see her in the car? In any case the drive has been woven into the narrative as "looking for William". To me this is incredulous as it makes no sense to look for William on BCR without searching the house first, then Benaroon Drive, then asking the neighbours, then FF, then a whole lot of other things before getting into a car and driving several km away.

Per overington the Crabb's heard the car coming fast down the street like the Postie which is why they thought it was the postie. They said they thought it did a U turn then paused at 48. They didn't mention doors but said it paused long enough to deliver post

Perhaps it was FM but it's not a good fit for what they heard. FM can't have been going fast down the road like the Postie if in fact it was only reversing the short distance out of the driveway. I have concerns..Perhaps they were influenced by expecting the Postie. I don't know. Perhaps also they were influenced by the prospect what they heard was the abduction given that was what was being heavily pushed at the time ie confirmation bias

If it's not FM then there is no evidence on any car between 9.30 and 10.30 which only leaves between 9 and 9.30 when they weren't home
 
True, we have no idea what the actual times were that these events happened. It makes no sense to continually argue points based on absolutely no actual evidence. However, if you are saying he should have taken 5 minutes back and forth to Kew and you accept that there was another 10 minutes each way for delays due to roadworks, that adds 20 minutes and makes the time taken 30 minutes.

Just saying.

Okay, thanks. It's likely FF's trip would have taken longer than when the roadworks weren't there or weren't operating.

But I'm interested in the camera that would have showed a wrong time for every vehicle that passed it on Graham St Kendall, presumably for the entire length of CCTV footage extracted by the police (unless camera slowness can fluctuate?), whether the roadworks were operating or not.

Media said the tennis club camera was the only one that could have showed traffic going to FGM's. I think that's likely to have been wrong or a lie, but this single camera would have been a source of important information about vehicle movements through the town and it turns out that apparently for years the timing error, first said to be 9 minutes, was out by 5 minutes. If it had just been 9 minutes all along, okay; I'm supposing timelines can handle that sort of adjustment. But a change in the length of error years later? That just seems incredible, IMO. Will the police go back and re-examine the timeline of every vehicle now?

Maybe they already did, or maybe the change in delay time made no difference anyway and the police were always able to plot every vehicle movement accurately regardless of timestamp errors. And it's possible the police were sure that vehicles of interest didn't go past that camera anyway.

I imagine it's something the coroner would have checked but there's been no public explanation so far, so for me it's one more area of the investigation that raises doubts and questions.
 
Okay, thanks. It's likely FF's trip would have taken longer than when the roadworks weren't there or weren't operating.

But I'm interested in the camera that would have showed a wrong time for every vehicle that passed it on Graham St Kendall, presumably for the entire length of CCTV footage extracted by the police (unless camera slowness can fluctuate?), whether the roadworks were operating or not.

Media said the tennis club camera was the only one that could have showed traffic going to FGM's. I think that's likely to have been wrong or a lie, but this single camera would have been a source of important information about vehicle movements through the town and it turns out that apparently for years the timing error, first said to be 9 minutes, was out by 5 minutes. If it had just been 9 minutes all along, okay; I'm supposing timelines can handle that sort of adjustment. But a change in the length of error years later? That just seems incredible, IMO. Will the police go back and re-examine the timeline of every vehicle now?

Maybe they already did, or maybe the change in delay time made no difference anyway and the police were always able to plot every vehicle movement accurately regardless of timestamp errors. And it's possible the police were sure that vehicles of interest didn't go past that camera anyway.

I imagine it's something the coroner would have checked but there's been no public explanation so far, so for me it's one more area of the investigation that raises doubts and questions.
My intention was not to be a smart arse. What I'm trying to say is continually trying to make events fit a time line where we don't have all the information is futile. The road works is one example of this. The incorrect time on the tennis club camera is another. The conflicting times on the photos are another. The conflicting times given by the witnesses (FF, FM, FGM, Crabbs) just make it less likely any timeline can be relied on.

I feel that the key is something more simple.

Is there any evidence or suggestion that WT was epileptic?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top