Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell * The foster mother has been recommended for charges of pervert the course of justice & interfere with a corpse

[Kurve]

Criminal charges the former foster parents currently face as at 15 April 2022 include:

• 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
• Stalking &/or Intimidation on both
• Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty

TIMELINE

Where's William Tyrrell? - The Ch 10 podcast (under Coroner's subpoena)

Operation Arkstone

 

[Angry Red Bull]

On another note, all this 'bugging' concerns me a bit, if it's actual bugging and not mobile recordings. Goodness knows how many recording devices have been set in this case and how many innocent people might be involved. They can't all be guilty.

I suppose a successful conviction will justify it, if that ever happens. I'm not optimistic.

Where are we going with this? Has bugging always been an option or has it been used in this case as a last resort? At what point in an investigation does it become justified?

So far we have an elderly widower talking to his dead wife. Now we have some sort of quite precise evidence vividly detailing events which could be interpreted as a serious assault on a vulnerable person.

I saw footage today of the obscured FPs walking along a street and wondered why they were making themselves so visible. Then it occurred to me that it might be the only way they could be assured of a chat bug-free. How could anyone survive this situation, innocent or guilty? Your life would never be the same and you'd never feel safe in your own home again.

Impingement of civil liberties is something we should always be concerned about. It should be reserved for last resort use. I don't think it is. Instead I think it is routinely done as ordinary part of investigative choices. In some cases eg Jubelin even without legal authority

 

[Lady O]

Impingement of civil liberties is something we should always be concerned about. It should be reserved for last resort use. I don't think it is. Instead I think it is routinely done as ordinary part of investigative choices. In some cases eg Jubelin even without legal authority

I'm not concerned about impingement of civil liberties when it comes to Police investigating the disappearance of a child.

If you want to get upset about your civil liberties, then don't go into the main street of your town (CCTV) or Bunnings (facial recognition) or a Bank or any store that wants to look into your handbag if it is over a certain size or use a rewards card, etc etc.

 

[31550]

Civil liberties is another aspect of the involvement of NSWCC.
NSWCC have special coercive powers, which override certain common law rights (e.g. right of refusal to give evidence on self-incrimination grounds).
These powers ought to be exercised very carefully - not just used as a means of trampling on the common law rights of innocent citizens.

I agree that everything possible should be done to resolve William's case, but it must be done legally.

NSWCC's brief does not include involvement in run-of-the-mill 'missing child' cases - there are certain parameters which ought to be met before they start using their coercive powers. As a lay person I don't know what these parameters are, or who sets them, but I am very interested in finding out what the actual 'trigger point' is, and under whose authority the NSWCC become involved in this, or any case.

Are NSWCC actively trying to solve William's case, or are they working on something else which happens to involve the fosters?

Unless the system is transparent, we can't trust it.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm not concerned about impingement of civil liberties when it comes to Police investigating the disappearance of a child.

If you want to get upset about your civil liberties, then don't go into the main street of your town (CCTV) or Bunnings (facial recognition) or a Bank or any store that wants to look into your handbag if it is over a certain size or use a rewards card, etc etc.

The thing that distinguishes us from anarchy is that we have boundaries beyond which we are forbidden. There is no equivalence imo between being seen on CCTV cameras in public or in stores and having a covert listening device placed inside your home without knowledge. The fact a child is missing and with unsolved crime makes it a necessary use for sure but I do have misgivings. When civil liberties can be abandoned we are reliant on the integrity and discretion/ judgement of those making the choices. I don't have trust that those people can use that discretion wisely and justly and Jubelin is some example of that abuse of power.

 

[Lady O]

The thing that distinguishes us from anarchy is that we have boundaries beyond which we are forbidden. There is no equivalence imo between being seen on CCTV cameras in public or in stores and having a covert listening device placed inside your home without knowledge. The fact a child is missing and with unsolved crime makes it a necessary use for sure but I do have misgivings. When civil liberties can be abandoned we are reliant on the integrity and discretion/ judgement of those making the choices. I don't have trust that those people can use that discretion wisely and justly and Jubelin is some example of that abuse of power.

I suppose it is the difference between a 3yo child missing/dead -v- a shop lifter/street fight/marketing exercise.

If my car or house was bugged because I was suspected of a petty crime, then I would begin to worry.

 

[31550]

I suppose it is the difference between a 3yo child missing/dead -v- a shop lifter/street fight/marketing exercise.

If my car or house was bugged because I was suspected of a petty crime, then I would begin to worry.

Even in the case of a missing 3YO - the majority of these cases turn out to be misadventure, not foul play. Without just cause, there is no reason to impinge on the common law rights of innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens. Look at what happened with Spedding and Savage. While the police were totally justified in investigating them to the full extent allowed by the law, it could be argued they went too far. We don't find any of the hundreds of other POIs being called before the NSWCC and giving up their common-law rights. So I ask, what is the just cause for doing so with the foster parents?

 

[Lady O]

Even in the case of a missing 3YO - the majority of these cases turn out to be misadventure, not foul play. Without just cause, there is no reason to impinge on the common law rights of innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens. Look at what happened with Spedding and Savage. While the police were totally justified in investigating them to the full extent allowed by the law, it could be argued they went too far. We don't find any of the hundreds of other POIs being called before the NSWCC and giving up their common-law rights. So I ask, what is the just cause for doing so with the foster parents?

Just cause for me may be simply that the statistics quoted above make the fosters, who were present at the time he went missing, more likely to be the perpetrators than the neighbour or the washing machine repair man, neither of whom were present. There is more that makes the fosters POIs in his disappearance, but you know that if you read this forum.

What constitutes Just Cause in your opinion?

 

[Awakening]

I suppose it is the difference between a 3yo child missing/dead -v- a shop lifter/street fight/marketing exercise.

If my car or house was bugged because I was suspected of a petty crime, then I would begin to worry.

I'm with you Lady O, it doesn't bother me.

I've worked in retail, telecommunications, technology, finance, government and anything they want to find out about you they've already got.

And it's been 8 years since I've worked so I'm sure the technology has improved since then.

 

[Awakening]

Just cause for me may be simply that the statistics quoted above make the fosters, who were present at the time he went missing, more likely to be the perpetrators than the neighbour or the washing machine repair man, neither of whom were present. There is more that makes the fosters POIs in his disappearance, but you know that if you read this forum.

What constitutes Just Cause in your opinion?

All those POIs has reason to be POIs in my opinion so just cause was satisfied.

Basically anyone who was in the area at the time who wasn't able to provide a watertight alibi should be a POI until able to prove otherwise.

And many of those POI's had sketchy histories and/or odd personalities.

 

[Lady O]

All those POIs has reason to be POIs in my opinion so just cause was satisfied.

Basically anyone who was in the area at the time who wasn't able to provide a watertight alibi should be a POI until able to prove otherwise.

And many of those POI's had sketchy histories and/or odd personalities.

Absolutely correct!

One had apparently been previously involved/related to/cohabited with, a murderer and pedophile and had also been previously accused of abusing children (charges dropped due to lack of evidence).

The other had apprently had an AVO taken out against him for unwanted sexual advances towards the postie, which I think he also breached.

There were reasons they were investigated.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Even in the case of a missing 3YO - the majority of these cases turn out to be misadventure, not foul play. Without just cause, there is no reason to impinge on the common law rights of innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens. Look at what happened with Spedding and Savage. While the police were totally justified in investigating them to the full extent allowed by the law, it could be argued they went too far. We don't find any of the hundreds of other POIs being called before the NSWCC and giving up their common-law rights. So I ask, what is the just cause for doing so with the foster parents?

Just cause for me may be simply that the statistics quoted above make the fosters, who were present at the time he went missing, more likely to be the perpetrators than the neighbour or the washing machine repair man, neither of whom were present. There is more that makes the fosters POIs in his disappearance, but you know that if you read this forum.

What constitutes Just Cause in your opinion?

It's a missing child death case. Straight away that gives it credence for finding just cause in investigation especially where 97% come from bio or foster AND there up to a 1500% increased risk of death by fosters. But the just cause can't be open ended imo. Ie pushing boundaries to be using it 8 years later unless more evidence is incriminating. Otherwise potentially innocent people (and I'm not saying they are) become persecuted by police year in year out.

 

[31550]

It's a missing child death case. Straight away that gives it credence for finding just cause in investigation especially where 97% come from bio or foster AND there up to a 1500% increased risk of death by fosters. But the just cause can't be open ended imo. Ie pushing boundaries to be using it 8 years later unless more evidence is incriminating. Otherwise potentially innocent people (and I'm not saying they are) become persecuted by police year in year out.

Yes and the police have had investigative powers for the last eight years enabling them to interview POIs, make arrests, lay charges, issue warrants, or conduct surveillance consistent with the law. They used those powers to investigate Savage and Spedding within the law (although that is the subject of civil action). They did not go beyond those powers and compel Savage or Spedding to answer questions which may have been self-incriminating, (e.g. by bringing them before the NSWCC) - as far as we know, anyway.

As far as we know, no new evidence (relating to WT's disappearance) has been produced since the days of the coronial inquest. So what is the justification for using the extraordinary coercive powers of the NSWCC in this instance? What is the just cause now which didn't exist before? And if just cause existed before Sep 2021, why wasn't it used?

 

[31550]

What constitutes Just Cause in your opinion?

My opinion doesn't matter. It's what the law says. And I don't actually know what the law says in this case. But I'd like to know exactly when the coercive powers of the NSWCC are allowed to be used legally. It can't simply be a matter of one person's discretion, otherwise, as Angry Red Bull points out, our whole system collapses - innocent people's common law rights are no longer protected.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

A warrant can be sought for use of a listening device if police have reason to suspect a crime had been committed, is in process of being committed or may imminently be committed. The listening device is needed to record evidence relating to that crime. Apparently many magistrates were granting warrants without even seeing the warrant/ reasons. In response to that failure the judge is now required to record their reasons for granting the warrant. Does that mean he now reads the police/warrant reasons and recites them verbatim? Mmmmmm

 

[Lady O]

My opinion doesn't matter. It's what the law says. And I don't actually know what the law says in this case. But I'd like to know exactly when the coercive powers of the NSWCC are allowed to be used legally. It can't simply be a matter of one person's discretion, otherwise, as Angry Red Bull points out, our whole system collapses - innocent people's common law rights are no longer protected.

Ok, what does the law say is Just Cause?

 

[31550]

Ok, what does the law say is Just Cause?

Are you asking me? I already said I don't know.

 

[Lady O]

Are you asking me? I already said I don't know.

Ok, I get it now. You don't know what just cause is. You only know what it isn't?

 

[31550]

Ok, I get it now. You don't know what just cause is. You only know what it isn't?

No. I am just saying that if there is just cause NOW why wasn't there just cause earlier? And if there is just cause for the Fosters, why not for other POIs? I would like to know what exactly was considered to be just cause in this instance. Transparency.

 

[NRL Fan]

The statistics and profiling say that 97% of these cases involved bio family, foster family or people who directly know. Given that it was also a regional centre and a quiet street with virtually no traffic the chance of it ever being a opportunistic abduction was nil to none. That % as also affected by the fact there was only one 30 sec period where the opportunity was available. Didn't happen.

The chance of an unfortunate accident is also possible but what goes against it is the fact they could simply report the accident and get an ambulance. There is but a small reason to hide which involves hidden child abuse injuries, but these injuries would have to be severe enough to show up in forensic examination meaning they would likely have needed hospital care too. Remotely possible.

The most likely scenario now about 75% is that the child went crazy and force was used to stop him A troubled child raised in abusive environment will mirror that abuse. Might sound strange but a 4 yo boy can be dangerous. I think that most assuredly is what happened. I think he was struck on head (aka the FGM "bouncing out of his skull" comment in walk through) by FM or FF to stop an attack on sibling or FGM

Middle bros national park was about 50 min round trip and you could get there without passing any CCTV cameras. The adjusted time from 9.39 am to 7.37 am gave the FF time to do that and return for his appointments. I personally think WT is somewhere there

Virtually all of the searches are closer to Benaroon Dr and are looking for a shallow grave. I don't think there would be a grave at all. I think it was very remote and 20-25 metres from roadside perhaps covered by branches on left side of Rd

"The most likely scenario now about 75% is that the child went crazy and force was used to stop him"

Except that would be almost impossible to pull off. The FPs and the FGM would need to be the greatest actors of all time to fool the police and withstand the huge pressure of scrutiny for so many years without cracking. The police also monitored the FPs in the immediate period afterwards and there was nothing that indicated any guilt in their private conversations. But, I do agree that the area is far too remote and untraveled to support the sex offender theory beyond the remotest of chances, but there is that confession of sorts from Ray Porter that keeps that theory alive and now he's dead, so we'll never know unless FA makes a confession. The other theory is that the FPs were involved in organised crime and WT was abducted as a payback. I have no hard evidence of this, but we do know the NSW CC became involved in this case (why?) and there is some loose supporting evidence.

Regarding the theory that William was accidently or deliberately killed by one or both of the FPs. The police obviously thought the FM acted alone and that WT's body was disposed of by the FM whilst the FF was in Lakewood. This might have been based on the visible grieving of the FF but no so much from the FM. On this FP theory, I did do some calculations on the mobile phone reception as the FF did use the excuse of poor reception for his trip to Lakewood, but reception looks good from Jolly Nose base station to the house, which is radio line of sight. Also, there is nowhere private to sit at Lakewood other than your vehicle (I do my own shopping there when visiting) and there are better places closer to Kendall if you wanted even better than good reception whilst sitting in your car on a zoom meeting. I saw this as an area that needed more challenging by police. Then there are the deleted txt messages and possibly doctored time metadata on the WT pictures which makes the FPs look possibly guilty. But, the FF might also have been involved in something dodgy and arranged to meet with someone at Lakewood and wanted to hide the real intentions of that trip and WT might have been abducted by these people after he left.

IMO - we are still clutching at straws and all of the available evidence supports multiple unrelated theories, leading us to a scattered mess of nothing . When you look at the pile of sh...t that is called evidence, you can understand why Gary J went off the rails and targeted the old neighbour across the street. He basically saw a pile of nothing and a child that seemingly vanished in thin air, whilst in broad daylight. Alien abduction would have been on his radar at that point.

On a slightly positive note, someone knows what happened, because we know that alien abduction during the day is not the explanation and a little boy can't vanish into thin air. We need someone to come forward or for some new evidence to be found by police.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

"The most likely scenario now about 75% is that the child went crazy and force was used to stop him"

Except that would be almost impossible to pull off. The FPs and the FGM would need to be the greatest actors of all time to fool the police and withstand the huge pressure of scrutiny for so many years without cracking. The police also monitored the FPs in the immediate period afterwards and there was nothing that indicated any guilt in their private conversations. But, I do agree that the area is far too remote and untraveled to support the sex offender theory beyond the remotest of chances, but there is that confession of sorts from Ray Porter that keeps that theory alive and now he's dead, so we'll never know unless FA makes a confession. The other theory is that the FPs were involved in organised crime and WT was abducted as a payback. I have no hard evidence of this, but we do know the NSW CC became involved in this case (why?) and there is some loose supporting evidence.

Regarding the theory that William was accidently or deliberately killed by one or both of the FPs. The police obviously thought the FM acted alone and that WT's body was disposed of by the FM whilst the FF was in Lakewood. This might have been based on the visible grieving of the FF but no so much from the FM. On this FP theory, I did do some calculations on the mobile phone reception as the FF did use the excuse of poor reception for his trip to Lakewood, but reception looks good from Jolly Nose base station to the house, which is radio line of sight. Also, there is nowhere private to sit at Lakewood other than your vehicle (I do my own shopping there when visiting) and there are better places closer to Kendall if you wanted even better than good reception whilst sitting in your car on a zoom meeting. I saw this as an area that needed more challenging by police. Then there are the deleted txt messages and possibly doctored time metadata on the WT pictures which makes the FPs look possibly guilty. But, the FF might also have been involved in something dodgy and arranged to meet with someone at Lakewood and wanted to hide the real intentions of that trip and WT might have been abducted by these people after he left.

IMO - we are still clutching at straws and all of the available evidence supports multiple unrelated theories, leading us to a scattered mess of nothing . When you look at the pile of sh...t that is called evidence, you can understand why Gary J went off the rails and targeted the old neighbour across the street. He basically saw a pile of nothing and a child that seemingly vanished in thin air, whilst in broad daylight. Alien abduction would have been on his radar at that point.

On a slightly positive note, someone knows what happened, because we know that alien abduction during the day is not the explanation and a little boy can't vanish into thin air. We need someone to come forward or for some new evidence to be found by police.

My very first post here several months ago was watching the walkthroughs by FPs and 1 episode of the ch 10 podcast Straight afterwards I said they were story telling about how good a parents they were and it was BS. They weren't and they were deceitful.....and there was trouble in parenting. So the acting mustn't have been that great if I saw that at first glance. I then listened to all the chanel 10 podcasts and moved away from that belief and thought perhaps it was the Bios (still part of the 97%) and the Ronald Chapman sighting. But they were equally in picture for guilt.

Some here have misgivings but those photos that morning were definitely taken at the earlier time than the latter......all to do with sun patches that should be there on patio but aren't and the respective sun elevations that we calculated at 22° and 45° I recall. Take it to the bank as true and will ultimately imo help unravel the case

If there is an extra 1hr and I think there is then the incident could have happened and been covered up by concealing the body. Then it's entirely consistent with what we see now in that environment. No need to resort to any other hypotheses.

The FGM let slip a partial admission of what happened in her comments in her walkthrough using the terminology "bouncing out of his skull". This type of thing is a known incident of psychology faux paus relating to witness statement analysis and although I'm no expert it was pointed and revealing for me.

I think the case will now be resolved and ultimately truth will be revealed.

 

[NRL Fan]

My very first post here several months ago was watching the walkthroughs by FPs and 1 episode of the ch 10 podcast Straight afterwards I said they were story telling about how good a parents they were and it was BS. They weren't and they were deceitful.....and there was trouble in parenting. So the acting mustn't have been that great if I saw that at first glance. I then listened to all the chanel 10 podcasts and moved away from that belief and thought perhaps it was the Bios (still part of the 97%) and the Ronald Chapman sighting. But they were equally in picture for guilt.

Some here have misgivings but those photos that morning were definitely taken at the earlier time than the latter......all to do with sun patches that should be there on patio but aren't and the respective sun elevations that we calculated at 22° and 45° I recall. Take it to the bank as true and will ultimately imo help unravel the case

If there is an extra 1hr and I think there is then the incident could have happened and been covered up by concealing the body. Then it's entirely consistent with what we see now in that environment. No need to resort to any other hypotheses.

The FGM let slip a partial admission of what happened in her comments in her walkthrough using the terminology "bouncing out of his skull". This type of thing is a known incident of psychology faux paus relating to witness statement analysis and although I'm no expert it was pointed and revealing for me.

I think the case will now be resolved and ultimately truth will be revealed.

I've heard people discuss the sun angle and I did look at this and it's certainly not conclusive. Cloud might have obscured the sun at the time of the picture and there are trees to the east that might have created shading. The picture of WT shows the GM fully dressed and reading the paper and the kids fully dressed and engaged in drawing, something more aligned with 9:30am rather than 7:30am.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I've heard people discuss the sun angle and I did look at this and it's certainly not conclusive. Cloud might have obscured the sun at the time of the picture and there are trees to the east that might have created shading. The picture of WT shows the GM fully dressed and reading the paper and the kids fully dressed and engaged in drawing, something more aligned with 9:30am rather than 7:30am.

The FGM says that they were up early and FF was gone before 8 when his appt was after 9. Virtually the whole walk through focus for her was where and when the FF was .....gone to chemist early. Certainly not before 8. It takes 5 mins to town. So imo that 1 hr was the time used to dispose of the body by FF. And if it was that also points to the earlier time as being correct.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I had the rare occurrence of a thought last night that all these charges against the Fosters might be for 2 reasons...

a.) that they are guilty of these crimes and can prove them in court.
b.) it is a step in the process of having the foster parents named publicly by having them convicted of these crimes and by having them done so, they think once people know names, further evidence will be brought forward perhaps?

So basically I am thinking these charges if convicted might be a means to an end to add weight to having their name suppression lifted.

Is a sign off by the DPP required in Australia prior to major prosecutorial charges are laid to ensure the burden of proof is met?

 

[NRL Fan]

I had the rare occurrence of a thought last night that all these charges against the Fosters might be for 2 reasons...

a.) that they are guilty of these crimes and can prove them in court.
b.) it is a step in the process of having the foster parents named publicly by having them convicted of these crimes and by having them done so, they think once people know names, further evidence will be brought forward perhaps?

So basically I am thinking these charges if convicted might be a means to an end to add weight to having their name suppression lifted.

Is a sign off by the DPP required in Australia prior to major prosecutorial charges are laid to ensure the burden of proof is met?

On this point, in the recent court cases the accused were given aliases of SD and JS, which are their real name initials. I'm not sure if that's normal protocol ?

 

[TheDudeAbides]

No. I am just saying that if there is just cause NOW why wasn't there just cause earlier? And if there is just cause for the Fosters, why not for other POIs? I would like to know what exactly was considered to be just cause in this instance. Transparency.

I am not sure there is "just cause" in relation to the NSW Crime Commission being involved in cases. There is no mention of it in the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW)

From my limited reading, cases can only be referred to the commission by the management committee in a writing notice... as per the legislation linked (I have edited in only the relevant parts I feel apply)

So the key concepts are, cases can only be referred for investigation by its management committee

10 Principal functions of Commission
(1) The principal functions of the Commission are as follows—
(a) to investigate matters relating to a relevant criminal activity or serious crime concern referred to the Commission by the Management Committee for investigation,
(b) to assemble evidence that would be admissible in the prosecution of a person for a relevant offence arising out of any such matters and to furnish any such evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
(d) to reinvestigate matters relating to any criminal activity that were the subject of a police inquiry (being an inquiry referred for reinvestigation to the Commission by the Management Committee) and to furnish its findings to the Committee together with any recommendation as to action the Commission considers should be taken in relation to those findings,
(g) with the approval of the Management Committee, to work in co-operation with such persons or authorities of the Commonwealth, the State or another State or Territory (including any task force and any member of a task force) as the Commission considers appropriate.


The Management committee consists of...

50 Members of the Management Committee
(1) The Management Committee is to consist of the following 5 members—
(a) an independent Chairperson appointed by the Minister,
(b) the Commissioner of Police,
(c) the Chair of the Board of the Australian Crime Commission,
(d) the Commissioner,
(e) the Secretary of the Department of Justice or a senior executive of that Department nominated by the Secretary.

Part 3 of the Legislation give details on the nitty gritty of the commissions operations in regards to referrals. Part 3, paragraph 51 goes on to state the functions of the Management committee including grounds for referring cases to the commission for investigation which mirror the functions listed above, but it also states when it is not to refer matters for investigation...

Paragraph 54 details what may be contained in the notices from the Management Committee referral for which focuses the Commissions investigation on (the details).

So based on that there would likely be internal policies from NSW police of when a case meets the threshold for being referred to the Crime Commission and these would likely be based around whether...

1. The use of the commissions powers are necessary to fully investigate the case
2. The case is in the public interest
3. The case is sufficiently serious to warrant the investigation by the commission

Whether a case gets referred needs a majority of votes from the management committee (ie 3 in favour)