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

 

[31550]

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Thanks. That video is no longer accessible but from the thumbnail it looks like the one with Vanessa Partridge where she talks about the truck driver on Batar Ck Rd. Not sure about the exact date but I guess it was several days after William went missing. But there's nothing about this drive in her police statement made around the same time, and neither FF nor FGM mention the drive in their interviews. This video doesn't seem to have been released until 2019?

What's the general concensus about when this drive took place?

Edit: Update. I found it. William Tyrrell's foster mother filmed retracing her steps with police apparently this was filmed 6 days after William went missing.

 

[Lady O]

Thanks. That video is no longer accessible but from the thumbnail it looks like the one with Vanessa Partridge where she talks about the truck driver on Batar Ck Rd. Not sure about the exact date but I guess it was several days after William went missing. But there's nothing about this drive in her police statement made around the same time, and neither FF nor FGM mention the drive in their interviews. This video doesn't seem to have been released until 2019?

What's the general concensus about when this drive took place?

Edit: Update. I found it. William Tyrrell's foster mother filmed retracing her steps with police apparently this was filmed 6 days after William went missing.

I guess she forgot.

 

[stormbird]

Thanks. That video is no longer accessible but from the thumbnail it looks like the one with Vanessa Partridge where she talks about the truck driver on Batar Ck Rd. Not sure about the exact date but I guess it was several days after William went missing. But there's nothing about this drive in her police statement made around the same time, and neither FF nor FGM mention the drive in their interviews. This video doesn't seem to have been released until 2019?

What's the general concensus about when this drive took place?

Edit: Update. I found it. William Tyrrell's foster mother filmed retracing her steps with police apparently this was filmed 6 days after William went missing.

If FM only drove from 48 Benaroon Drive to 158 Batar Creek Road, turned around and went back, that's a total (return) distance of 2 kilometres. If she was moving along slowly to look and listen for William at a speed of (for example) 20 kilometres an hour, the drive would have taken 6 minutes. Add in a couple of minutes before starting - to find the keys and get into the car - and at the end - to park the car and get out - and the whole exercise might have taken about 10 minutes.

If FM met FF on his return at about 10:35 am, and then met neighbour AMS at No.31 about 10:40 am and went down to the bus stop with her to search there, I think there would not have been 10 minutes spare before she was back at FGM's to call triple-0 at 10:56 am. So in my opinion if FM did drive anywhere it was probably before FF got home or after the first police officer arrived.

 

[31550]

If FM only drove from 48 Benaroon Drive to 158 Batar Creek Road, turned around and went back, that's a total (return) distance of 2 kilometres. If she was moving along slowly to look and listen for William at a speed of (for example) 20 kilometres an hour, the drive would have taken 6 minutes. Add in a couple of minutes before starting - to find the keys and get into the car - and at the end - to park the car and get out - and the whole exercise might have taken about 10 minutes.

If FM met FF on his return at about 10:35 am, and then met neighbour AMS at No.31 about 10:40 am and went down to the bus stop with her to search there, I think there would not have been 10 minutes spare before she was back at FGM's to call triple-0 at 10:56 am. So in my opinion if FM did drive anywhere it was probably before FF got home or after the first police officer arrived.

It makes no sense to me for FM to be driving to the riding school BEFORE engaging with the neighbours and searching the immediate street on foot. She went to the bus shelter and back (on foot) at AMS's suggestion, so this should have been before the drive to the riding school.

I think the engagement with AMS was before FF got home, and this is more consistent with how FGM described events. FGM says she was on the street and saw FM walking up Benaroon Drive before FF got home.

But as you say, there is not enough time between FF arrival home and the 000 call for the drive to the riding school. Unless the trip was a very quick one, and not an actual search for William? And then, why take FGM car and not the family car?

 

[metic]

Just last week I received a text from someone saying I owed a debt relating to toll use and etag. I don't have etag nor do I ever travel to toll roads. So I told the scamming basta*rd to stick it up his a**e.

Please post your scammy stories on a thread I started about SCAMS

SCAMS | BigFooty Forum

SCAMS

13.2 million Australians exposed to Scams "Australian losses to online marketplace fraud increase as scams become increasingly sophisticated". These scammers are tricking people that previously would be like ‘I’m not going to click on this’,” Kho said. “It’s a business to them, in the end...

www.bigfooty.com

SCAMS

13.2 million Australians exposed to Scams "Australian losses to online marketplace fraud increase as scams become increasingly sophisticated". These scammers are tricking people that previously would be like ‘I’m not going to click on this’,” Kho said. “It’s a business to them, in the end...

r.tapatalk.com

 

[stormbird]

It makes no sense to me for FM to be driving to the riding school BEFORE engaging with the neighbours and searching the immediate street on foot. She went to the bus shelter and back (on foot) at AMS's suggestion, so this should have been before the drive to the riding school.

I think the engagement with AMS was before FF got home, and this is more consistent with how FGM described events. FGM says she was on the street and saw FM walking up Benaroon Drive before FF got home.

But as you say, there is not enough time between FF arrival home and the 000 call for the drive to the riding school. Unless the trip was a very quick one, and not an actual search for William? And then, why take FGM car and not the family car?

One possible reason FM might have taken FGM's car instead of the family car: maybe FF had run off searching and had their car key in his pocket?

Just on the "engaging with the neighbours": media reports seemed to suggest there were lots of neighbours rushing into the street very quickly, but from what I've read* that's not correct. If anyone here has information about this, please add or contradict - my understanding is that the only neighbours out in the street at first were:

10:40 - Anne Maree S from No.31, alerted by FM
10:50 - Paul S from No.43, alerted by AMS
? - maybe a woman from maybe No.13 or No.15 Ellendale Cres, alerted by FF according to his walk-through video, but she's not been mentioned since
? - Peter C and Sharelle C from No.51, but I don't know who alerted them or when
11:06 - Shannon K from No.12, who saw the first police car go past when he was mowing and asked AMS, who was walking past, what was going on
11:30 - Lydene H from No.9, alerted by FM and AMS at her front door (presumably meaning that LH hadn't heard any commotion or a police siren before that, and she'd returned home from the supermarket at 10:30 am). I take it that it was LH's post to Facebook at some time later which brought lots of volunteer searchers to the street.

*The more useful information comes from posts I saw on a forum I used to be on where some members had attended the inquest and taken notes. I'd be happy to link to those posts if that's ok here? There's no way to verify the inquest notes (not unless anyone here attended the inquest themselves or has access to transcripts from the hearing) but IMO the online/citizen sleuths were listening for facts, whereas media reporters seemed to be only trying to tell a story.

 

[31550]

.. on the "engaging with the neighbours": media reports seemed to suggest there were lots of neighbours rushing into the street very quickly, but from what I've read* that's not correct. If anyone here has information about this, please add or contradict - my understanding is that the only neighbours out in the street at first were:

10:40 - Anne Maree S from No.31, alerted by FM

This is what FM says in her video police interview from March 2015:

P: So in that case, when you’ve looked around the grounds for him and couldn’t find
him, you would have thought, something’s not right here?
M: I thought that immediately, I had a vision in my head, I don’t ..... < edited for brevity >
P: So you raised the alarm immediately?
M: Well I raced around for a bit, then went down and got the neighbour to help, then D
came back, because he had a meeting.

(D is FF)

Nothing about the drive in FGM's car here either. So when was the drive? And if it never happened, why was it made up?

 

[Lady O]

This is what FM says in her video police interview from March 2015:

P: So in that case, when you’ve looked around the grounds for him and couldn’t find
him, you would have thought, something’s not right here?
M: I thought that immediately, I had a vision in my head, I don’t ..... < edited for brevity >
P: So you raised the alarm immediately?
M: Well I raced around for a bit, then went down and got the neighbour to help, then D
came back, because he had a meeting.

(D is FF)

Nothing about the drive in FGM's car here either. So when was the drive? And if it never happened, why was it made up?

Was it made up or did she just "drop it" from the conversation because it was a bit suspicious? I think eventually, it was this that led to the theory about the foster parent using the trip to dispose of WT's body in the area of the riding school, after he died in an accident.

I think that what WAS made up was the two cars across the road that no one else saw. This seems to have been to bolster the abduction theory.

 

[stormbird]

This is what FM says in her video police interview from March 2015:

P: So in that case, when you’ve looked around the grounds for him and couldn’t find
him, you would have thought, something’s not right here?
M: I thought that immediately, I had a vision in my head, I don’t ..... < edited for brevity >
P: So you raised the alarm immediately?
M: Well I raced around for a bit, then went down and got the neighbour to help, then D
came back, because he had a meeting.

(D is FF)

Nothing about the drive in FGM's car here either. So when was the drive? And if it never happened, why was it made up?

Maybe FM "raced around for a bit" in her mother's car.

Why was the first public interview of the foster parents - their first exposure to the public - filmed so badly? (It can be seen at YouTube: William Tyrrell's parents: The full NSW Police interview_April 17, 2015.)

The 9 News transcript page says "the interview was conducted by a member of NSW Police Media", presumably meaning that the interview and video were created as a media release.

The video gives the impression that nobody in the NSW Police Media Unit knew how to film an interview, which would be hard to believe. The volumes jump up and down; the camera wobbles; the background looks unbalanced and messy, IMO.

Best-case scenario, the crappiness might have been deliberate - part of some sort of mystery strategy...? Otherwise, why not do it properly?

 

[31550]

Maybe FM "raced around for a bit" in her mother's car.

Why was the first public interview of the foster parents - their first exposure to the public - filmed so badly? (It can be seen at YouTube: William Tyrrell's parents: The full NSW Police interview_April 17, 2015.)

The 9 News transcript page says "the interview was conducted by a member of NSW Police Media", presumably meaning that the interview and video were created as a media release.

The video gives the impression that nobody in the NSW Police Media Unit knew how to film an interview, which would be hard to believe. The volumes jump up and down; the camera wobbles; the background looks unbalanced and messy, IMO.

Best-case scenario, the crappiness might have been deliberate - part of some sort of mystery strategy...? Otherwise, why not do it properly?

Thanks for this. I've had another look at the video posted above. I reckon it has been edited - there's a very slight but perceptible discontinuity where FM says she 'raced around for a bit' just before the 7 minute mark. Maybe she did talk about the drive and it was deleted, or maybe it's just poor editing. Even though it's a 'police video', it doesn't look like the videos they use for evidentiary purposes (which all have an embedded timecode).
It's a good question - what was the real purpose of this video?

 

[BFew]

The 9 News transcript page says "the interview was conducted by a member of NSW Police Media", presumably meaning that the interview and video were created as a media release.

It's a good question - what was the real purpose of this video?

Possibly to see if any of those being interviewed said, reacted or acted in a way that might be useful to any current/future investigations.

 

[stormbird]

I looked for information about the 2015 video by the Police Media Unit, but couldn't find very much. This is from Missing William Tyrrell, revised edition 2021, which on page 137 mentions that the person asking the questions was a "police officer - who also can't be named"; page 138 says that he was an "officer with the NSW Police media team".

From page 136, which mentions Clare from the PR firm which later created the Where's William? campaign:

"... in April 2015, Clare - and all of Australia - saw the foster parents for the first time. Well, to say she saw them isn't quite accurate. The foster parents had, after lobbying by Detective Jubelin, been given permission to tell their story.

Remember that nobody had heard a word from William's foster parents since he went missing. All kinds of gossip - they're involved, if not in this, then in something dangerous - was swirling around the internet.

Detective Jubelin didn't believe they were involved, but he was finding it hard to get the public behind the case, which in turn keeps the pressure on the culprit, and attracts more resources.

He told FaCS they were standing in the way of William being found, and they relented. The foster parents would be allowed to take part in an interview, not with a media organisation, but with police, who could film it, and upload it to YouTube.

They would not be allowed to reveal their identities, meaning they would have to sit in a darkened room, silhouetted, but here, finally, seven months after the event that had destroyed their lives, was their chance to plead for William."

From page 141:

"The NSW Police, like any state organisation, has a budget, meaning a certain amount of money has to be divvied up among the various strikeforces and units - Organised Crime, Terrorism, Homicide - and everyone is always fighting for more. The highest-profile cases tend to get the most resources.

NSW Police had asked FaCS to give William's foster parents permission to take part in the recorded interview in the hope that it would propel the story back into the news. William had been missing for almost eight months."

 

[Lady O]

Thanks for this. I've had another look at the video posted above. I reckon it has been edited - there's a very slight but perceptible discontinuity where FM says she 'raced around for a bit' just before the 7 minute mark. Maybe she did talk about the drive and it was deleted, or maybe it's just poor editing. Even though it's a 'police video', it doesn't look like the videos they use for evidentiary purposes (which all have an embedded timecode).
It's a good question - what was the real purpose of this video?

I think she mentioned FF's name and it was deleted.

 

[Lady O]

In the video at around 1.31, the interviewer asks "when did you guys last see him"? FM says that morning and FF says around 10.15. Very quietly FM says "no it was...." the interviewer talks over her. It would be interesting to know what she said.

 

[stormbird]

In the video at around 1.31, the interviewer asks "when did you guys last see him"? FM says that morning and FF says around 10.15. Very quietly FM says "no it was...." the interviewer talks over her. It would be interesting to know what she said.

And if FF was telling police that William had been last seen at 10:15, why didn't they believe him?

 

[Lady O]

And if FF was telling police that William had been last seen at 10:15, why didn't they believe him?

I guess, because he wasn't there. He didn't get back to FGM's until 10.35 I think it was.

 

[BFew]

He didn't get back to FGM's until 10.35 I think it was.

Is there irrefutable proof of this?

 

[Lady O]

Vle proof of this?

Yes, apparently. Verified by phone tracking.

 

[stormbird]

I guess, because he wasn't there. He didn't get back to FGM's until 10.35 I think it was.

That makes sense if police only wanted to hear from people who were at FGM's when William was last seen. But for years they made public appeals claiming they wanted to hear from anyone in the community who might have been told something or who had reasons to suspect something about what had happened.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'm thinking that the most likely scenario that tends to link all our unexplained clues is this:

FM is a dysfunctional Mum who fails to connect with WT and has regular flash points with him especially when FF isn't there. Physical smacking. It might seem inconceivable but parental dysfunction can extend to abandonment of the parenting responsibility entirely where in a fit of irrational response to the predicament in desperation FM takes WT by car and drops him somewhere telling him to go home to his bio parents or that she doesn't want him any more. Batar cr Rd. Drives home. FGM cryptic comment about "bouncing out of his skull" .....evidence of physical abuse imo. One post that sticks out to me was a comment that when FM spoke to neighbours she asked where bus stop was? Did I get that correctly? WHY? Was WT planning to run away on his own and catch a bus? if I have this correct that's a very strange comment because it implies self governance for a very young child and is totally incongruous.

By the time she comes around and starts thinking rationally again he has been snatched and is gone.

She has to hide her behaviour and point to abduction so:

- hides the existence of this trip initially but ultimately changes it's purpose to look for WT when in fact it was to abandon him

- talks about the mysterious two cars to establish the possibility of abduction when it actually was but from Batar cr Rd not Benaroon

- WT snatched two cars which are then seen by RC on Laurel St driving crazy

- no injury or death, no blood, nor a body which is compatible with house and surrounds lack of evidence and lack of time for a crime and aftermath

- cryptic comment between FM and FF when he arrived home. Do you have him? It's as though she dropped him off somewhere hoping that FF picked him up on way home

- police report happens faster than is usual because FM knows she facilitates the snatch by abandoning him. This point is rather important. If it was accidental death you would extend the time before report. You would only truncate if you knew he was taken and because of your abandonment

All makes sense to me sadly

 

[Longmembrey]

I'm thinking that the most likely scenario that tends to link all our unexplained clues is this:

FM is a dysfunctional Mum who fails to connect with WT and has regular flash points with him especially when FF isn't there. Physical smacking. It might seem inconceivable but parental dysfunction can extend to abandonment of the parenting responsibility entirely where in a fit of irrational response to the predicament in desperation FM takes WT by car and drops him somewhere telling him to go home to his bio parents or that she doesn't want him any more. Batar cr Rd. Drives home. FGM cryptic comment about "bouncing out of his skull" .....evidence of physical abuse imo. One post that sticks out to me was a comment that when FM spoke to neighbours she asked where bus stop was? Did I get that correctly? WHY? Was WT planning to run away on his own and catch a bus? if I have this correct that's a very strange comment because it implies self governance for a very young child and is totally incongruous.

By the time she comes around and starts thinking rationally again he has been snatched and is gone.

She has to hide her behaviour and point to abduction so:

- hides the existence of this trip initially but ultimately changes it's purpose to look for WT when in fact it was to abandon him

- talks about the mysterious two cars to establish the possibility of abduction when it actually was but from Batar cr Rd not Benaroon

- WT snatched two cars which are then seen by RC on Laurel St driving crazy

- no injury or death, no blood, nor a body which is compatible with house and surrounds lack of evidence and lack of time for a crime and aftermath

- cryptic comment between FM and FF when he arrived home. Do you have him? It's as though she dropped him off somewhere hoping that FF picked him up on way home

- police report happens faster than is usual because FM knows she facilitates the snatch by abandoning him. This point is rather important. If it was accidental death you would extend the time before report. You would only truncate if you knew he was taken and because of your abandonment

All makes sense to me sadly

So, the very first (and only) person who sees WT after being abandoned is a child snatcher / murderer? Too fanciful

 

[31550]

So, the very first (and only) person who sees WT after being abandoned is a child snatcher / murderer? Too fanciful

It's no more fanciful than any opportunistic abduction theory. In fact, if William was taken to any location near where a predator happened to be, he would have been more susceptible to opportunistic abduction than he was at FGM's house - more remote location, fewer witnesses, easier escape route.

The only missing piece is the reason for the drive in the first place - was it a punishment? Because of an accident or incident at FGM's house? Was it part of a game (e.g. hide like a tiger and surprise Daddy?) Why was he in FGM car in the first place? Or wasn't he?

 

[Longmembrey]

It's no more fanciful than any opportunistic abduction theory. In fact, if William was taken to any location near where a predator happened to be, he would have been more susceptible to opportunistic abduction than he was at FGM's house - more remote location, fewer witnesses, easier escape route.

The only missing piece is the reason for the drive in the first place - was it a punishment? Because of an accident or incident at FGM's house? Was it part of a game (e.g. hide like a tiger and surprise Daddy?) Why was he in FGM car in the first place? Or wasn't he?

I'm not a believer in the "randomn opportunistic abduction theory" either, but the probability of the OP theory (dropped off then abducted) would be a billion to one.

 

[Lady O]

It's no more fanciful than any opportunistic abduction theory. In fact, if William was taken to any location near where a predator happened to be, he would have been more susceptible to opportunistic abduction than he was at FGM's house - more remote location, fewer witnesses, easier escape route.

The only missing piece is the reason for the drive in the first place - was it a punishment? Because of an accident or incident at FGM's house? Was it part of a game (e.g. hide like a tiger and surprise Daddy?) Why was he in FGM car in the first place? Or wasn't he?

I don't think you can rule out any theories, but some are more likely than others.

No 1 would be "friendly" abduction - someone who knew where they were and waited till they could take him, so he would not be adopted by the fosters, and raise him in their own family.

No 2 abduction by neighbour or visitor to the neighbourhood.

No 3 accidental death and concealment of the body by FM.

No 4 opportunistic abduction.

We learned from Cleo Smith and similarly Greg Lynn that sometimes the truth is stranger than anything we can imagine.

 

[31550]

I don't think you can rule out any theories, but some are more likely than others.

No 1 would be "friendly" abduction - someone who knew where they were and waited till they could take him, so he would not be adopted by the fosters, and raise him in their own family.

No 2 abduction by neighbour or visitor to the neighbourhood.

No 3 accidental death and concealment of the body by FM.

No 4 opportunistic abduction.

We learned from Cleo Smith and similarly Greg Lynn that sometimes the truth is stranger than anything we can imagine.

A 'friendly' abduction would be easier to solve, as very few people knew William would be in Kendall on that day. Also, what happened to William - where is he now? Why hasn't he been spotted? How would his identity be concealed for 10 years?

Abduction by a neighbour or visitor would have been very risky given the extensive ground search and public awareness of William going missing - very likely someone saw something. Hard to keep it secret for 10 years.

Accidental death and concealment seems possible, especially with the drive in FGMs car in play. But still no body, so he must have been extremely well concealed OR someone moved the body. Not enough time for FM (or FGM?) to conceal a body beyond eventual detection. So this means a third party moved or hid the body. Again, kept secret for 10 years.

Opportunistic abductions are very rare, but they happen (Cleo Smith, Daniel Morcombe). We know there were paedophiles in the area. Benaroon Drive does not get a lot of passing traffic. But Batar Creek Road and other nearby locations certainly do.

None of the above scenarios jumps out as being 'obvious'. So maybe it was a combination of unlikely events - e.g. accident / concealment followed by opportunistic abduction?