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

 

[TheDudeAbides]

The purpose of the inquest is to determine what happened, deceased or still alive. Those results have not been concluded at this point. And what's missing is the fact the police have been extremely slow to refer the matter to the ODPP, especially if it was determined he was deceased and is highly unusual for this not to be. It does not matter who or what the peak source is to raise funds for a cause, it's not illegal to do it and it's voluntary for people to donate or buy merchandise.

I think it is more than obvious to many that WW and insight communications are heavily linked to the Foster Parents and both of the Collins ladies who run Insight communications that runs the WW campaign were at court supporting the foster mother during her recent court trial for lying to the NSWCC. Its clear that the WW campaign is nothing more than spin doctors hired by the Foster Parents early on. They can say pro-bono all they want, but with the apparent wealth of the foster parents there is fee for service in there aswell as the grift on the WW site...

 

[Pies1990]

The Daniel Morcomepbe foundation is a registered charity. The Where's William campaign is not. It can't be, as to be a registered charity, it has to meet strict criteria. For charities, they have to be community based. The William Tyrell campaign is designed for the sole purpose of raising money to continue to look for William. Using a registered charity to hold some funds, makes it transparent. And charities are audited annually. I can't for the life of me why someone would report this and attempt to stop this as I was on the understanding that people want William found. If the case goes unsolved and ends up in cold case files, they stop searching until there is any new evidence. One would think that raising money to have someone continue, would be a good thing if this were to happen. I get the distinct impression that this is not a group of concerned members of public as reported, but a small group, seemingly hellbent on a witch hunt. And misusing the Daniel Morcombe Foundation and the media to do it.

If insight were so interested in working in a pro bono capacity to find William, why didn’t they choose to do this with the bio family?
No names to suppress. They are the actual parents. No involvement that arouses suspicion of Williams whereabouts.
Would’ve been a good deed in my book

 

[Tommyz]

If insight were so interested in working in a pro bono capacity to find William, why didn’t they choose to do this with the bio family?
No names to suppress. They are the actual parents. No involvement that arouses suspicion of Williams whereabouts.
Would’ve been a good deed in my book

Perhaps the bio family didn't approach insight communication to do it. You would have to ask the bio family why they didn't do it. They are more tied up with the W4W. Don't quote me, I think this was launched before the bio family names were allowed to be disclosed. But if I was the bio family, I would be grateful that there was as much publicity as possible. Not criticising it, regardless who is continuing to bring it to the publics attention. But that's me.

 

[Pies1990]

Perhaps the bio family didn't approach insight communication to do it. You would have to ask the bio family why they didn't do it. They are more tied up with the W4W. Don't quote me, I think this was launched before the bio family names were allowed to be disclosed. But if I was the bio family, I would be grateful that there was as much publicity as possible. Not criticising it, regardless who is continuing to bring it to the publics attention. But that's me.

You’re right, it brought some good attention to the case. Lately though, some not so good attention.
On their fb page, they’ve deleted a lot of posts asking questions, which they’re entitled to, but imo warranted questions. The public needs to know the whole story, in particular which has come to light in the past 12 months

 

[31550]

Perhaps the bio family didn't approach insight communication to do it. You would have to ask the bio family why they didn't do it. They are more tied up with the W4W. Don't quote me, I think this was launched before the bio family names were allowed to be disclosed. But if I was the bio family, I would be grateful that there was as much publicity as possible. Not criticising it, regardless who is continuing to bring it to the publics attention. But that's me.

The Bio family and Insight would not have known each other from a bar of soap. However, Insight would have soon realised William was a foster child (if they didn't already know this before setting up WW). It was encumbent on Insight (in my opinion) to ensure what they were doing was aligned with the bio parents' wishes. It doesn't appear they did so, at any stage.

In my opinion, WW has been more about influencing public perceptions, and controlling the narrative, than finding the truth about William.

 

[Pies1990]

The Bio family and Insight would not have known each other from a bar of soap. However, Insight would have soon realised William was a foster child (if they didn't already know this before setting up WW). It was encumbent on Insight (in my opinion) to ensure what they were doing was aligned with the bio parents' wishes. It doesn't appear they did so, at any stage.

In my opinion, WW has been more about influencing public perceptions, and controlling the narrative, than finding the truth about William.

The website and fb imo reads like an advertising campaign than doing good to protect kids or genuinely helping police find William.

 

[stormbird]

Recapping post 7,824: William's sister and William's foster mother gave conflicting accounts about which room William had slept in the night before he went missing: his sister said he was in bedroom 3; his foster mother said he was in bedroom 2.

They can't both be right. But why would either of them be wrong? There were only two guest bedrooms. We're told that Lindsay and FM were in one, and William and FF were in the other. There's not much about that which could be confusing, IMO, even months later when FM was giving evidence about the rooms in her witness statement starting March 2015. I don't understand how either Lindsay or FM could have had trouble remembering which room they were in, and by extension which was the other room - and obviously it would have been the other room that William and FF must have been in.

Lindsay's account comes via Senior Constable Wendy Hudson, who was talking to Lindsay only a couple of hours after William went missing. Snr Cst Hudson was on a day off and I suppose that means she wouldn't have written up a statement about events at FGM's until she went back to work, or some time later, or maybe her account of the conversation with Lindsay only surfaced on the stand at the inquest? If there was a long gap between the conversation and when it was recorded then maybe there's a chance Snr Cst Hudson misremembered what Lindsay said and ended up swapping the rooms around inadvertently in her statement or testimony.

Has anybody seen a document by Snr Cst Hudson which describes her conversation with Lindsay? If so, please consider either quoting from it or posting it.

And what did FF say? He and William were said to have shared a room, so which room did FF say they were in?

If Snr Cst Hudson's recounting of her conversation with Lindsay is correct (meaning that Lindsay's statement contradicted FM's statement), then either Lindsay or FM was mistaken, or confused, had an unreliable memory, or maybe was lying. Knowing which of those options is more likely could tell us more about the case, IMO. Obviously Lindsay and FM are two of only three people who reportedly saw William last, and if we can't rely on their testimony about which rooms they slept in, then maybe there's not a lot about their testimony we can rely on at all. MOO

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Recapping post 7,824: William's sister and William's foster mother gave conflicting accounts about which room William had slept in the night before he went missing: his sister said he was in bedroom 3; his foster mother said he was in bedroom 2.

They can't both be right. But why would either of them be wrong? There were only two guest bedrooms. We're told that Lindsay and FM were in one, and William and FF were in the other. There's not much about that which could be confusing, IMO, even months later when FM was giving evidence about the rooms in her witness statement starting March 2015. I don't understand how either Lindsay or FM could have had trouble remembering which room they were in, and by extension which was the other room - and obviously it would have been the other room that William and FF must have been in.

Lindsay's account comes via Senior Constable Wendy Hudson, who was talking to Lindsay only a couple of hours after William went missing. Snr Cst Hudson was on a day off and I suppose that means she wouldn't have written up a statement about events at FGM's until she went back to work, or some time later, or maybe her account of the conversation with Lindsay only surfaced on the stand at the inquest? If there was a long gap between the conversation and when it was recorded then maybe there's a chance Snr Cst Hudson misremembered what Lindsay said and ended up swapping the rooms around inadvertently in her statement or testimony.

Has anybody seen a document by Snr Cst Hudson which describes her conversation with Lindsay? If so, please consider either quoting from it or posting it.

And what did FF say? He and William were said to have shared a room, so which room did FF say they were in?

If Snr Cst Hudson's recounting of her conversation with Lindsay is correct (meaning that Lindsay's statement contradicted FM's statement), then either Lindsay or FM was mistaken, or confused, had an unreliable memory, or maybe was lying. Knowing which of those options is more likely could tell us more about the case, IMO. Obviously Lindsay and FM are two of only three people who reportedly saw William last, and if we can't rely on their testimony about which rooms they slept in, then maybe there's not a lot about their testimony we can rely on at all. MOO

Could’ve been both. Started off in one room, got moved to another because of not behaving/sleeping, went back to the other bed later. Not everyone would have logged each movement accurately, if they even noticed. Especially if it was routine.

 

[stormbird]

Could’ve been both. Started off in one room, got moved to another because of not behaving/sleeping, went back to the other bed later. Not everyone would have logged each movement accurately, if they even noticed. Especially if it was routine.

That's an explanation that makes sense, but there's nothing suggesting something like that in FM's statement. She said "[the MFC] and William stayed in the second bedroom and I was staying with [Lindsay] in the third bedroom." (paragraph 61, p.22). There's nothing visible in the statement about William or any of them changing rooms during the night. Several pages are blacked out, though, so possibly there's an explanation we can't see, or maybe it was in another of her statements.

If the foster parents routinely (at home) slept in separate bedrooms, each with one of the foster children, with one child moving from one room to the other overnight, that might be regarded as "routine" for them (though maybe not acceptable under foster parent regulations?). But unless that explanation was given by FM or was already understood by the detective, that's not what FM said happened. If she left things out of her account (for example if William had changed rooms overnight), that would be interesting, because hypothetically maybe she hadn't noticed; or couldn't remember; or didn't understand; or was concealing something; or was not being truthful. And if anything unexplained did happen overnight, disrupting sleep or sleeping arrangements, whatever that was might have affected the family's behaviour next morning in the hours leading up to William going missing, so potentially could be important, IMO.

 

[CodyRose]

Could’ve been both. Started off in one room, got moved to another because of not behaving/sleeping, went back to the other bed later. Not everyone would have logged each movement accurately, if they even noticed. Especially if it was routine.

A five year old could have been confused about what bedroom they were in. An adult would remember

 

[31550]

A five year old could have been confused about what bedroom they were in. An adult would remember

A 5YO is unlikely to be deceptive, and if confused or unclear would be unlikely to give a definitive answer. E.g "William went looking for Daddy's car" ... "How do you know that?" ... "Umm, I don't know".

An adult might be deceptive, or might be confused looking at a floor plan of the house a year after the event (when the detailed FM statement was made). Note that FM initially said she turned LEFT on Batar Ck Rd on her drive, and later changed this to RIGHT. The FGM is also an adult and her account of events is quite different to FMs (in terms of timing), so it is clear that adults do not always remember traumatic events accurately - they both can't be right.

It's also possible that "third bedroom" was the term the family applied to that particular room (as maybe the 3rd bedroom in terms of size / layout / preference) , but it was numbered "Bedroom 2" on the floor plan?

I remember reading that 'usually' the foster parents slept on an air mattress in the lounge room and each child had their own room when they visited FGM. I put 'usually' in quotes because they could not have visited FGM more than a few times in the past.

 

[stormbird]

More on the bedrooms: in FGM's walk-through (via post 7,017 or at Google Drive, where it's apparently open to view for anyone):

(from 03:07 mins, transcript and emphasis by me)

FGM: This is my bedroom, and... I-- I slept here alone...
Detective Senior Constable Vanessa Partridge (VP): Yep
FGM: And, um, the others - well, who slept-- who slept where I'm not too sure but I'll take you through...
VP: Ok, so the others - you're not sure which rooms...
(they walk through the family room towards the lounge room and hall)
FGM: Ah...
VP: If you, if you just point them out to us, I think...
FGM: Yes. So the four of them...
VP: Just down the hall...
FGM: ... would have slept in these two bedrooms.
VP: Yes!
FGM: (opens door of the first room on the left down the hall from the lounge - Bed 2) There's no one in there... God, there's a mess! (laughs)
VP: So...
FGM: Two would have been in there...
VP: Yep
FGM: (walks to the second room on the left down the hall from the lounge - Bed 3, where the door is already open) and two would have been in there. I really don't know who slept-- who was sleeping with whom. I'll leave that back (re the open door of Bed 3?)
VP: Ok
(walking towards the lounge room while passing the doorway to Bed 2)
FGM: I have a feeling, yes, I have a feeling it was... um, (bleeped; FF?) and William was-- and I think I said next morning "That's a bit unusual" because they never liked to sleep with each other, but I think they did and I think (bleeped; FM?) and (bleeped; Lindsay?) were in the other ones, but I think that's how it was.

Because of the bleeps I'm not sure that FGM said "I have a feeling it was FF and William" in one room, instead of FM and William, or Lindsay and William. I just think it's likely FGM was talking about FF because that's what FM and Lindsay said in their own statements.

If there genuinely was a conversation on Friday morning in which FGM said "That's a bit unusual" about William and FF sleeping in the same room, then I wonder how or why that topic came up in conversation. FGM said that FF had already left the house before she got up, which would mean that the rest of them were discussing FF's sleeping arrangements in his absence.

 

[BFew]

Could’ve been both. Started off in one room, got moved to another because of not behaving/sleeping, went back to the other bed later.

Or she could have been remembering a different time she slept at that property.

 

[31550]

More on the bedrooms: in FGM's walk-through (via post 7,017 or at Google Drive, where it's apparently open to view for anyone):

(from 03:07 mins, transcript and emphasis by me)

FGM: This is my bedroom, and... I-- I slept here alone...
Detective Senior Constable Vanessa Partridge (VP): Yep
FGM: And, um, the others - well, who slept-- who slept where I'm not too sure but I'll take you through...
VP: Ok, so the others - you're not sure which rooms...
(they walk through the family room towards the lounge room and hall)
FGM: Ah...
VP: If you, if you just point them out to us, I think...
FGM: Yes. So the four of them...
VP: Just down the hall...
FGM: ... would have slept in these two bedrooms.
VP: Yes!
FGM: (opens door of the first room on the left down the hall from the lounge - Bed 2) There's no one in there... God, there's a mess! (laughs)
VP: So...
FGM: Two would have been in there...
VP: Yep
FGM: (walks to the second room on the left down the hall from the lounge - Bed 3, where the door is already open) and two would have been in there. I really don't know who slept-- who was sleeping with whom. I'll leave that back (re the open door of Bed 3?)
VP: Ok
(walking towards the lounge room while passing the doorway to Bed 2)
FGM: I have a feeling, yes, I have a feeling it was... um, (bleeped; FF?) and William was-- and I think I said next morning "That's a bit unusual" because they never liked to sleep with each other, but I think they did and I think (bleeped; FM?) and (bleeped; Lindsay?) were in the other ones, but I think that's how it was.

Because of the bleeps I'm not sure that FGM said "I have a feeling it was FF and William" in one room, instead of FM and William, or Lindsay and William. I just think it's likely FGM was talking about FF because that's what FM and Lindsay said in their own statements.

If there genuinely was a conversation on Friday morning in which FGM said "That's a bit unusual" about William and FF sleeping in the same room, then I wonder how or why that topic came up in conversation. FGM said that FF had already left the house before she got up, which would mean that the rest of them were discussing FF's sleeping arrangements in his absence.

Interested in why you think the sleeping arrangements might be significant. What theory re William's disappearance would knowledge of the particular sleeping arrangements support? Do you think something happened to William during the night at the house?

The problem I see is that there is very little physical evidence for the case between the McDonald's visit and the FF return home around 10:30am.
We have

• (Supposedly) CCTV footage of the FF car on the road after leaving McDonalds (Has anyone actually seen this?)
• FF car seen passing tennis courts around 8:50am (variations of this time have been reported)
• Telephone call made to the house around 9am from Geoff Owen's phone (unanswered)
• Outgoing telephone call made from house to Bill Spedding, leaving message to call back, also around 9am
• 'Roar' photo at 9:37 (disputed by some)
• FF record of online conference from about 9:15 to 9:45 (surely this has been verified?)
• FF phone calls after meeting, and pharmacy receipt from Lakewood around 10:15?
• Phone pings (have not seen these published anywhere officially) - maybe?

Apart from that, it's all unreliable eyewitness testimony. Hard to know exactly what happened and when.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

The website and fb imo reads like an advertising campaign than doing good to protect kids or genuinely helping police find William.

In my opinion, WW has been more about influencing public perceptions, and controlling the narrative, than finding the truth about William.

Yes this. Insight is nothing but a Public Relations firm and publicity agents...spin doctors. They are going to provide services to their clients and only their clients. I dont think the bio parents were even a thought.

They made finding William the crux of the campaign at the same time as framing the Foster parents story more publicly...a bad man abducted him.

I mean Jubelin is front and centre of Insights website landing page, and they have the where's william campaign under their success stories category of their website...

Where's William? Campaign - Insight Communications

Where’s William? Campaign The Where’s William? Campaign was developed and is managed on behalf of William’s family by Insight in a pro-bono capacity. Working in association with NSW Police and Crime Stoppers NSW; our aim was to drive reports to Crime Stoppers NSW to support the Police...

insightcommunications.net.au

Amusing things I note on that link...

1. They state on a few places on the page "Insight is committed to supporting the search for William Tyrrell". This is interesting as we have stated before, not one single bit of coverage of the case since the foster parents were placed in the crosshairs publicly except for the fake news article. And they have attended the court hearings supporting the foster parents during all these hearings / trials for these other legal matters.

2. Quick to continually state pro bono work, even through the testimonials by the fosters...both parties keen the get the message across...

3. both charity partners they engaged along the journey have publicly cut ties with them. Bravehearts and Daniel Morcombe Foundation. Is that because these charity partners questioned whether Insight were supporting the cause or the clients?

 

[stormbird]

Interested in why you think the sleeping arrangements might be significant. What theory re William's disappearance would knowledge of the particular sleeping arrangements support? Do you think something happened to William during the night at the house?

The problem I see is that there is very little physical evidence for the case between the McDonald's visit and the FF return home around 10:30am.
We have

• (Supposedly) CCTV footage of the FF car on the road after leaving McDonalds (Has anyone actually seen this?)
• FF car seen passing tennis courts around 8:50am (variations of this time have been reported)
• Telephone call made to the house around 9am from Geoff Owen's phone (unanswered)
• Outgoing telephone call made from house to Bill Spedding, leaving message to call back, also around 9am
• 'Roar' photo at 9:37 (disputed by some)
• FF record of online conference from about 9:15 to 9:45 (surely this has been verified?)
• FF phone calls after meeting, and pharmacy receipt from Lakewood around 10:15?
• Phone pings (have not seen these published anywhere officially) - maybe?

Apart from that, it's all unreliable eyewitness testimony. Hard to know exactly what happened and when.

IMO what is significant is every single thing that happened before William went missing. If the strike force failed to check every single thing then maybe that's how we ended up here eight years later with the case still unsolved.

Just focusing on the sleeping arrangements, the only facts we have are the ones that have been reported. I imagine police would have collected items from William's room, so there's probably physical evidence about where he slept, but as far as I know that information hasn't been reported. 31550, previously you've quoted other information from a statement and notes by Senior Constable Wendy Hudson and from a statement by William's foster father (... I think?). Did any of those documents talk about where William slept that night? If so, what are the facts according to those witnesses?

 

[stormbird]

"A Supreme Court judge has issued a scathing assessment of the former cop who once led the search for William Tyrrell - saying he gave false evidence in court, was 'not truthful' and had a 'disregard for the law' while a detective.

Justice Ian Harrison, the same judge who recently convicted and sentenced wife killer Chris Dawson, blasted Gary Jubelin's pursuit of washing machine repairman Bill Spedding during the investigation into the toddler's disappearance.

Justice Harrison found the rogue former detective had been untruthful in his 'seriously improper' quest to prosecute Mr Spedding."

- Daily Mail Australia, 11 Dec 2022

 

[31550]

..... If so, what are the facts according to those witnesses?

IMO none of the witness statements should be treated as 'facts'. They are pretty much all contradictory or inconsistent. The only things which are 'facts' are hard evidence like phone records or physical evidence.

 

[stormbird]

IMO none of the witness statements should be treated as 'facts'. They are pretty much all contradictory or inconsistent. The only things which are 'facts' are hard evidence like phone records or physical evidence.

Sure. That's why detectives waste so much time talking to witnesses. They're really just filling in time waiting for the phone records and physical evidence.

I'm disappointed there's no information from the witness statements about the bedroom question, but so be it.

 

[31550]

Sure. That's why detectives waste so much time talking to witnesses. They're really just filling in time waiting for the phone records and physical evidence.

I'm disappointed there's no information from the witness statements about the bedroom question, but so be it.

You might have misinterpreted what I meant. Obviously witness statements etc. are important pieces of evidence. It's just that they cannot be treated as undisputed facts unless they are substantiated by some physical evidence, or corroborated by multiple independent people. There are very few undisputed facts in this case: phone records, CCTV footage, digital receipts, phone pings - but even these have been misreported or challenged in the media. It's either incompetence, confusion, or deliberate obfuscation.

 

[stormbird]

Does anyone know more about this? I can't find any other reports. From a tweet by @7NewsSydney, 12 Dec 2022, a 30-second 7 News video (transcript and emphasis by me):

"Lawyers for Bill Spedding say he tried to settle with police for as little as $750,000 before the former William Tyrrell suspect was awarded almost $1.5 million in court. Police turned down three offers to settle privately, dating back as far as two years.

Solicitor Peter O'Brien: 'They could have settled it earlier - they could have paid him out a just amount at an earlier time.'

"Police say they'll appeal the payout after a court found detectives had maliciously pursued Mr Spedding over the toddler's disappearance."

---

Apparently the NSW Police Force often does choose to settle (note that the following report is two years old):

'Hush' money: NSW police pay out more than $100m in relation to legal settlements, The Guardian, 04 Dec 2020

"New South Wales police have paid out more than $100m in relation to legal settlements over the past four years but in most cases details of the suits were never made public due to confidentiality clauses that prevent victims speaking about alleged officer misconduct."

 

[Awakening]

I do not understand how Gary’s fan club can still defend him.

 

[Lady O]

Does anyone know more about this? I can't find any other reports. From a tweet by @7NewsSydney, 12 Dec 2022, a 30-second 7 News video (transcript and emphasis by me):

"Lawyers for Bill Spedding say he tried to settle with police for as little as $750,000 before the former William Tyrrell suspect was awarded almost $1.5 million in court. Police turned down three offers to settle privately, dating back as far as two years.

Solicitor Peter O'Brien: 'They could have settled it earlier - they could have paid him out a just amount at an earlier time.'

"Police say they'll appeal the payout after a court found detectives had maliciously pursued Mr Spedding over the toddler's disappearance."

---

Apparently the NSW Police Force often does choose to settle (note that the following report is two years old):

'Hush' money: NSW police pay out more than $100m in relation to legal settlements, The Guardian, 04 Dec 2020

"New South Wales police have paid out more than $100m in relation to legal settlements over the past four years but in most cases details of the suits were never made public due to confidentiality clauses that prevent victims speaking about alleged officer misconduct."

Criticised for turning down an offer to settle for less than a judge eventually awarded.

Criticised if they settle out of court and accused of paying "hush money".

Can't win!!

 

[Pies1990]

I do not understand how Gary’s fan club can still defend him.

Maybe he should pay a portion, considering he was in charge and ultimately made the decision? And Savage could still come yet. Could be costly!

 

[Poppy Penny]

I do not understand how Gary’s fan club can still defend him.

What a huge fall from grace for GJ. The comments and criticisms from judges have been very pointed and scathing. It must have been so humiliating for him. I felt slightly sorry for him, but then I remembered how Bill Spedding, Paul Savage and others were treated. I recall his arrogance and failure to admit when he was wrong and say sorry. I also believe he developed a massive ego. At the end of the day for all of us, it’s about actions and consequences. GJ is no different.