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?

 

[31550]

Opinion and conjecture only

It you want to analyse behaviours from the perspective and assumption of there being guilt of FF then you could argue that the whole......." He has a wonderful relationship with W" is a redemption story to negate conscience.

To perform an objective analysis one needs to separate behaviours from narrative.
Behaviours are directly observable - someone can be seen and/or heard doing something.
A narrative on its own is meaningless. It may or may not be true.

E.g. we can see video of William interacting with the FF, riding his bike, eating cake etc. This is observable behaviour. It definitely happened. So the narrative that William had a good relationship with William is supported by this observable behaviour. But that is not absolute proof of anything. It's still just narrative.

We can hear audio of the FF verbally abusing William's sister. This is observable behaviour. The narrative that he 'would never hurt her' is not supported by the observable behaviour. Again it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Still just narrative.

Then there's the narrative that "everyone was happy" on the morning William disappeared. There is no observable behaviour to prove this. There is more narrative - William and his sister fought over a toy, William insisted on wearing his Spiderman suit, FF was in a hurry to get his meds and attend his meeting, William was boisterous, taking over the conversation, wouldn't roll the dice correctly, ... So the claim that "everyone was happy" is not supported, but this doesn't prove it to be false. It's still all narrative.

Assigning meaning to a particular narrative is not an objective process. It is subjective, conjecture, opinion, and prone to confirmation bias. "FF had a wonderful relationship with William" may be a 'redemption story', or it may actually be the truth. We don't have any facts or observable behaviour to prove it one way or another. It's like saying all narrative is false. E.g. "everyone was happy" means everyone WASNT happy? We don't know this for a fact. We shouldn't use one narrative to confirm or refute another piece of narrative. We can only use facts or observable behaviours to do this.

 

[31550]

I won't go into great detail. Too much else to do..I will make the following comments. There are 5 effects which impact images either from a distance or as reflections.

Pixelation
Glass fibre striations
Darkness and light
Interference from other reflections
Objects interceding

More Dunning Krueger.

All this is very interesting, BUT:
You seem to neglect the most simple and basic things which affects how objects appear in photographs:

The position of the camera itself - elevation (above ground level) and angle of lens (how far up or down it points relative to the horizon

(There is also the lens characteristics and settings to consider, but on a simple digital camera we can probably assume the lens characteristics and settings remain constant.)

What we know is that the position of the photographer and the camera changed in every one of the five photographs in question.

If you move around, up and down, side to side, and angle the camera differently, you will capture some objects (and reflections) and not others, even when photographing exactly the same scene.

The FM moved around the verandah, sometimes standing, sometimes crouching down, and angled the camera towards William, or whatever she was trying to photograph. So trees in the background, reflections in the windows etc. may appear visible in some photographs but not in others.

Again, there is a simple explanation why 'magnolias' or other trees seem to appear in some photos and not others - because the camera moved and pointed in a different direction / angle. NOT because the tree was suddenly chopped down. Horses, not zebras.

 

[winyhill]

No they are accepting submissions to June.

Not accepting anything new. Only closing submissions from parties to the inquest. So anything you put now will not be considered.
Of course, if you have evidence, the case is still open on Police books.

 

[Underarrest_]

I’m finding the whole tree thing hard to work out from the different photos available.
Just for argument sake trees were cut down between the day William went missing and when Michelle White took the photos when she was there in the following days. Why would they have the trees cut down during this time?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

This one. Sliding door to the LEFT of entry which is then this. First sliding door after main bedroom as indicated. Previous patch of trees and bush. Cleared view with stump. FGM walking toward tree that was amongst the patch. Walk through . No longer there at 18th but in photos

 

[passball]

I’m finding the whole tree thing hard to work out from the different photos available.
Just for argument sake trees were cut down between the day William went missing and when Michelle White took the photos when she was there in the following days. Why would they have the trees cut down during this time?

They wouldn't, more important things to do than tree removal, like find a child who didn't wander. Because he was taken.

Washing machine repair was also high on FGMs priority list. She was worried it was in bits on her walkthrough

 

[LRitz]

To perform an objective analysis one needs to separate behaviours from narrative.
Behaviours are directly observable - someone can be seen and/or heard doing something.
A narrative on its own is meaningless. It may or may not be true.

E.g. we can see video of William interacting with the FF, riding his bike, eating cake etc. This is observable behaviour. It definitely happened. So the narrative that William had a good relationship with William is supported by this observable behaviour. But that is not absolute proof of anything. It's still just narrative.

We can hear audio of the FF verbally abusing William's sister. This is observable behaviour. The narrative that he 'would never hurt her' is not supported by the observable behaviour. Again it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Still just narrative.

Then there's the narrative that "everyone was happy" on the morning William disappeared. There is no observable behaviour to prove this. There is more narrative - William and his sister fought over a toy, William insisted on wearing his Spiderman suit, FF was in a hurry to get his meds and attend his meeting, William was boisterous, taking over the conversation, wouldn't roll the dice correctly, ... So the claim that "everyone was happy" is not supported, but this doesn't prove it to be false. It's still all narrative.

Assigning meaning to a particular narrative is not an objective process. It is subjective, conjecture, opinion, and prone to confirmation bias. "FF had a wonderful relationship with William" may be a 'redemption story', or it may actually be the truth. We don't have any facts or observable behaviour to prove it one way or another. It's like saying all narrative is false. E.g. "everyone was happy" means everyone WASNT happy? We don't know this for a fact. We shouldn't use one narrative to confirm or refute another piece of narrative. We can only use facts or observable behaviours to do this.

Still it is an odd thing to say to a child.

I would never touch you.... And this we can assume is fact if presented in court. It is not a narrative. This is what he said.
Imagine if a teacher swore like that at a child in their care. And also said that they would not touch them. Would not sound very good, IMO.

 

[passball]

What was going on in that conversation when the FF said that?

 

[LRitz]

What was going on in that conversation when the FF said that?

From a recent article (Steve Zemek, news.com.au.) regarding FF's appeal to get his conviction of intimidation reversed.

"...He also called the child a “f***ing stupid little sh*t”, the court was told on Monday. The court was also played another later recording during which he told the child he would never physically harm them.
“I would never touch you,” the man said...."

So....... here's my problem with this. The FF was not found guilty of assault. There are some that say that FF would not hurt any one. I even recall that this forum had posts looking at the FM, but defending the FF and saying he probably didn't even know what happened that day.

So why does FF have to even say that to FD? Why does he have to reassure her that she is safe? Is she more afraid of him than FM? Does she now have suspicions of what happened to William?

And his barrister said that they were “instructions by an exasperated parent". Really! I wonder how that barrister speaks to his family and loved ones when he is exasperated?

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/big-hole-in-intimidation-case-against-william-tyrrells-foster-father/news-story/4df64712bd6e0875089db0cd84ca60db

See my previous post. #2266
Part of the recordings relating to the court cases regarding the FF and intimidation. News article reference attached

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/big-hole-in-intimidation-case-against-william-tyrrells-foster-father/news-story/4df64712bd6e0875089db0cd84ca60db

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I’m finding the whole tree thing hard to work out from the different photos available.
Just for argument sake trees were cut down between the day William went missing and when Michelle White took the photos when she was there in the following days. Why would they have the trees cut down during this time?

The 18th must = the 12th in detail. In the verandah photo on 12th you can't see out the window yet on 18th the detective has unobstructed view. That can't be if they are the same. What causes it? You walk down the yard in that walk through and see that a stump is where the previous large tree was and you can see from that prior image it was the one causing the obstruction..that can't happen unless a photo substitution occurred

 

[passball]

See my previous post. #2266
Part of the recordings relating to the court cases regarding the FF and intimidation. News article reference attached

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/big-hole-in-intimidation-case-against-william-tyrrells-foster-father/news-story/4df64712bd6e0875089db0cd84ca60db

Doesn't say why the FF said thar, only that he did say it.
I would have thought the teacher would have to report what FD said to her, maybe she did but she thought it was trivial. Didn't think children reporting issues at home are trivial these days.

So I assume the FPs can't leave leave Australia at this time?
No flight risk at the moment.?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Do you mean that you are looking for the FGM's full walkthrough, ARB? It's in this post by BFew:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-with-a-corpse.1089352/page-281#post-76317389

Full walk through

 

[passball]

I still don't understand why the FM walkthrough is under lock and key.
Makes no sense since FF and FGM are out there.

 

[passball]

So what happened to William?
Whats your theory?
You think everyone was happy and full of joy that morning?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

These are the clothes side by side. Tan pants with beige coat, brown shoes

In contrast grey sloppy Joe slate grey,/ purple pants and blue slippers

10.56 was 000 call. They got there in minutes..They had started searches and continued. Unsure when the dress was catalogued by LE but it may be evidence if it differs. She may of course had changed clothes. The question then is whether a neighbour was with her most of the time and can confirm she didn't go to change

 

[Angry Red Bull]

To perform an objective analysis one needs to separate behaviours from narrative.
Behaviours are directly observable - someone can be seen and/or heard doing something.
A narrative on its own is meaningless. It may or may not be true.

E.g. we can see video of William interacting with the FF, riding his bike, eating cake etc. This is observable behaviour. It definitely happened. So the narrative that William had a good relationship with William is supported by this observable behaviour. But that is not absolute proof of anything. It's still just narrative.

We can hear audio of the FF verbally abusing William's sister. This is observable behaviour. The narrative that he 'would never hurt her' is not supported by the observable behaviour. Again it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Still just narrative.

Then there's the narrative that "everyone was happy" on the morning William disappeared. There is no observable behaviour to prove this. There is more narrative - William and his sister fought over a toy, William insisted on wearing his Spiderman suit, FF was in a hurry to get his meds and attend his meeting, William was boisterous, taking over the conversation, wouldn't roll the dice correctly, ... So the claim that "everyone was happy" is not supported, but this doesn't prove it to be false. It's still all narrative.

Assigning meaning to a particular narrative is not an objective process. It is subjective, conjecture, opinion, and prone to confirmation bias. "FF had a wonderful relationship with William" may be a 'redemption story', or it may actually be the truth. We don't have any facts or observable behaviour to prove it one way or another. It's like saying all narrative is false. E.g. "everyone was happy" means everyone WASNT happy? We don't know this for a fact. We shouldn't use one narrative to confirm or refute another piece of narrative. We can only use facts or observable behaviours to do this.

Of course it's subjective as was my opinion. It has no evidential value but rather my personal observation and possible explanation for conduct

 

[LRitz]

Doesn't say why the FF said thar, only that he did say it.
I would have thought the teacher would have to report what FD said to her, maybe she did but she thought it was trivial. Didn't think children reporting issues at home are trivial these days.

So I assume the FPs can't leave leave Australia at this time?
No flight risk at the moment.?

This was part of the recording of FF. Yes it would be good to hear what was said before and after. I wonder if FD believed him?

I think FF could leave.

 

[31550]

The 18th must = the 12th in detail. In the verandah photo on 12th you can't see out the window yet on 18th the detective has unobstructed view. That can't be if they are the same. What causes it? You walk down the yard in that walk through and see that a stump is where the previous large tree was and you can see from that prior image it was the one causing the obstruction..that can't happen unless a photo substitution occurred

Is it your contention that all 5 photographs were substituted, or only some of the 5?

If only some, it seems a convoluted and risky way to construct an alibi. And anyway, the non substituted photos still serve as proof of life. So what's the point?

If all the photos, why wasn't the time discrepancy on the camera also fixed so that all 5 photos had the correct time and there would be no doubt? Why substitute photos with timestamps of 7.39 when you are trying to establish an alibi for 9.37? Very complicated.

It's really hard to understand what you think you trying to prove.

 

[LRitz]

These are the clothes side by side. Tan pants with beige coat, brown shoes

In contrast grey sloppy Joe slate grey,/ purple pants and blue slippers

10.56 was 000 call. They got there in minutes..They had started searches and continued. Unsure when the dress was catalogued by LE but it may be evidence if it differs. She may of course had changed clothes. The question then is whether a neighbour was with her most of the time and can confirm she didn't go to change

Pity we can't see the date on the newspaper.

Could it be just a few days before rather than months. Savage said he saw a Land rover at FGM house earlier in the week. From memory, I think he said something like "the day before". But maybe it was not the day before Friday (i.e Thursday), Maybe it was the days before they arrived on Thursday. Could it be Tuesday or Wednesday. Leave Sydney early, quick trip, Take a few photos, and back in Sydney by evening. Still means they had to change the time and date setting on the camera.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Is it your contention that all 5 photographs were substituted, or only some of the 5?

If only some, it seems a convoluted and risky way to construct an alibi. And anyway, the non substituted photos still serve as proof of life. So what's the point?

If all the photos, why wasn't the time discrepancy on the camera also fixed so that all 5 photos had the correct time and there would be no doubt? Why substitute photos with timestamps of 7.39 when you are trying to establish an alibi for 9.37? Very complicated.

It's really hard to understand what you think you trying to prove.

I can only categorically prove the 3rd was substituted. But I've compared the detail including play activities and they are the same..so all 5 photos had baseline in the past on same day.

A photo traps physical attributes of a day. It can't change especially regarding something like a 40' tree going missing unless they were substituted..by comparing the 12th photo and seeing the cluttered window from a close proximity tree if it instead is cut down before 18th it can only be by substitution. They didn't do it between 12th and 18th because SFR was there..so proves substitution

The clue was the reflections. If people were there then why? I wondered if it was a prior function. It was social in nature.. a man taking a video. Another taking photo off the verandah. Another child kneeling and playing behind FM. So I made the assumption and checked the suncalc..at 12.30 on 25th Dec there was a 2 hr window when overcast conditions cleared and was sun and it is direct south shadow about 0.5 metres long as TCP suggested

There are 2 Santa drawings. There is a table inside that appears to have presents on it. There is a new teapot opened with them I assume to be FGM present..Starts to align.

It could be any day.

The narrative has always been that they didn't visit after Feb. I read an article I need to find again that disputed that saying they visited multiple times . If we can find it and SFR can prove with neighbours then it may show the narrative was designed to hide when they were there. Given that lie if it is then you could find that Feb to Sept may be relevant

 

[31550]

I can only categorically prove the 3rd was substituted. But I've compared the detail including play activities and they are the same..so all 5 photos had baseline in the past on same day.

A photo traps physical attributes of a day. It can't change especially regarding something like a 40' tree going missing unless they were substituted..by comparing the 12th photo and seeing the cluttered window from a close proximity tree if it instead is cut down before 18th it can only be by substitution. They didn't do it between 12th and 18th because SFR was there..so proves substitution

Doesn't address the question. If all photos taken on same day, why not fix the camera time and timestamp so the proof of life is not questioned? Alternatively, why not just selectively use the phots that were taken on the same day - why bother substituting one or more in? It's too convoluted. Horses, not zebras.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Doesn't address the question. If all photos taken on same day, why not fix the camera time and timestamp so the proof of life is not questioned? Alternatively, why not just selectively use the phots that were taken on the same day - why bother substituting one or more in? It's too convoluted. Horses, not zebras.

Opinion and conjecture

I don't know..

I suspect that they used the TV sunrise photo to convince them that the time was 9.37 and had LE make the change for them because they weren't under suspicion. I can't help with how they did it though. Did both batteries just deplete preventing checking? Idk

 

[31550]

Opinion and conjecture

I don't know..

I suspect that they used the TV sunrise photo to convince them that the time was 9.37 and had LE make the change for them because they weren't under suspicion. I can't help with how they did it though. Did both batteries just deplete preventing checking? Idk

Then your theory is incomplete. It must be consistent with ALL the evidence. You can't pick and choose. The defence lawyers will have a field day.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Then your theory is incomplete. It must be consistent with ALL the evidence. You can't pick and choose. The defence lawyers will have a field day.

With respect..

A major COG behaviour around a substantive issue is and of itself proof.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Doesn't address the question. If all photos taken on same day, why not fix the camera time and timestamp so the proof of life is not questioned? Alternatively, why not just selectively use the phots that were taken on the same day - why bother substituting one or more in? It's too convoluted. Horses, not zebras.

We don't know any photos were taken. This is what I've said to you before. Ignore what comes from an allegedly tainted source.

Was there issues to do with the photos?..imo yes....But I can't elaborate because it won't be allowed. Sorry