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

 

[stormbird]

Maitland Mercury / AAP, 07 Nov 2023:

Tyrrell foster dad accused of lying to cover up assault

 

[Kurve]

Maitland Mercury / AAP, 07 Nov 2023:

Tyrrell foster dad accused of lying to cover up assault

From your link, much appreciated.

Missing toddler William Tyrrell's former foster father told a powerful crime-fighting body his wife had never harmed a minor in their care despite a child telling him she had less than a month earlier.

 

[BFew]

Looks like he will be convicted here btw

lol

 

[Kurve]

lol

 

[BFew]

Stupid bloody four legged hostage race today keeping this case off the front pages.

 

[stormbird]

Newcastle Herald / AAP, 07 Nov 2023:

Foster dad cleared of lying to William Tyrrell probe

Missing toddler William Tyrrell's former foster parents have been cleared of lying to a powerful crime-fighting body, despite...

www.newcastleherald.com.au

"Missing toddler William Tyrrell's former foster father has been cleared of lying to a powerful crime-fighting body despite falsely stating his wife had never harmed a child.

Magistrate John Arms was not convinced the man - who cannot be named for legal reasons - knowingly gave false evidence when called before the NSW Crime Commission as part of a joint investigation into William's disappearance."

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I agree with that but disagree Lia Harris is objectively reporting the facts. Nowhere in that article is there one mention of what the FF was actually charged for lying about. You know, why he's in court.

No one is interested in the lesser charges only the evidence as it turns on whatever actually happened to WT. The police saying they don't know has major implications moving forward.

 

[BFew]

The police saying they don't know has major implications moving forward.

Pretty much kills any chance of a trial by jury (as opposed to Judge only).

 

[BFew]

No one is interested in the lesser charges

I can easily name a few exceptions off the top, centre and bottom of my head.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I can easily name a few exceptions off the top, centre and bottom of my head.

Should never speak for others agreed

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Pretty much kills any chance of a trial by jury (as opposed to Judge only).

Pretty much kills beyond reasonable doubt. There are multiple hypotheses as to who and what happened. They all need to be rebutted for police preferred explanation to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt to prevail. They can't even identify where he is and what happened so highly doubt DPP will recommend charges.

 

[LRitz]

These cameras typically would have no internet connectivity. So the user does not select a time zone. They manually set the time to whatever they want (usually the local time). Then the camera has an internal clock as long as the battery stays charged, and it records its time to the photographs as they are taken.

In this case the camera was set to Bali time (give or take a minute for manual error and time drift). The photograph taken of the Sunrise show was consistent with the camera still being on Bali time (give or take a minute or two). If you are suggesting the EXIF data of the Sunrise show photograph has been manually alterered, or the photograph was contrived to provide some sort of alibi, then you are also suggesting a very serious conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, if not something more serious and sinister.

Do we know for sure that the camera was set to Bali time.

It could just be an assumption it was set to Bali time. The TV show could have been recorded and replayed the next day one hour earlier. No need to change data on the photo. Is there a date on Sunrise to show what day it was on? Coincidence that a time/clock was photographed in the background on a photo just a couple of weeks before WT is missing.

Did the FGM get her facts/stories mixed up. She knew that the story was the FF left before the photo was taken. Did she get confused if the photo was around 8:30 or around 9:30. So she says he left at 8:00 (before 8:30 photo) instead of sticking to the narrative of leaving around 9:00 before the 9:30 photo. Either way she is saying a different time for the departure. Was she lying, confused, or a bit of both. Her memory problems seem a bit patchy.

 

[Kurve]

Does the FF still have to front the charges of assault? I want to update the sticky at the top of the page.

 

[LRitz]

The FGM in her walk through was adamant he had to leave early wasn't there for breakfast because he had a meeting to go to and scrip to fill and was gone before 8.. when chemist wouldn't open until 9 and it was a 5 min drive!!! Some cognitive decline sure but those sequence of accidental mistakes are incriminating for something happening prior to him going to meeting. And if you watch the whole walk through again she is obsessed with FF not being there for legitimate reasons. Then comes up with the crazy Freudian slip remark .....WT was "bouncing out of his skull". You also have the last WT picture when he isn't looking at the person taking the photo but was looking at someone standing beside that person not being FGM who was seated. No sun patches on the back verandah when imo there should have been at 9.37.

I know we have been over the whole camera time thing and I don't want to incite further argument but to me every other fact points to something happening before he was captured by CCTV a little before 9.

Did he contribute to the conference or just log in and sit there silent?

What other evidence (apart from the 9.37 picture) is relied upon to say WT was alive after FF leaving? The only evidence if I recall was Savage saying that they heard kids playing on bikes at 9.30. Was it a mistake by Savage to assume it was two when it was one? Did he hear laughter or just bike noises? Perhaps heard FM talking to a child? The mind tends to fill in the blanks and it's possible it did so for Savage assuming he heard two because WT was supposedly alive at that time

When FF didn't supposedly leave until just before 9 then why didn't he have breakfast with them? What he stood there watching them eat?

There is also the human nature anomaly that I REALLY can't accept that a long term marriage one parent would dispose of a body (not knowing he was unconscious v dead) without talking to the other parent. Highly highly unlikely when you are a partnership you make decisions jointly. Is he dead? What do we do now? Where should we put him? I can't conceive she made those decisions herself. Incongruous. It also happens to explain why they remain solid as a couple ...because there is a role for both rather than one as possibility

I agree.
Her cognitive decline is a bit patchy. Remembers exactly what they ate for breakfast and games played on the deck but is very confused to time FF leaves.
And "bouncing out of his skull" is very odd saying. She also comments that WT took overplaying a game like he always does. Why does she add this comment that does not contribute to the investigation or what occurred during the morning. It is a comment that is critical of WT behaviour.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I agree.
Her cognitive decline is a bit patchy. Remembers exactly what they ate for breakfast and games played on the deck but is very confused to time FF leaves.
And "bouncing out of his skull" is very odd saying. She also comments that WT took overplaying a game like he always does. Why does she add this comment that does not contribute to the investigation or what occurred during the morning. It is a comment that is critical of WT behaviour.

I've watched detailed expert witness statement analysts. They say that it is common for those involved or having guilty knowledge of or involvement in death of their child/ grand child that they find subtle ways to be critical of the child. It's a way of lessening the guilty knowledge in some way.

 

[31550]

No one is interested in the lesser charges only the evidence as it turns on whatever actually happened to WT. The police saying they don't know has major implications moving forward.

Not sure why the police pursued today's charges with such vigour, but given what has been reported, FFs defence has done an amazing job to get him off. He clearly knew about the assault, and then clearly denied knowing about it to the NSWCC. But, he's been found not guilty. How does this affect pursuing William's case? I have no idea. But if the burden of proof is greater than what the prosecution were able to come up with today, the chances of them ever getting a conviction against anyone are remote.

 

[Kurve]

Not sure why the police pursued today's charges with such vigour, but given what has been reported, FFs defence has done an amazing job to get him off. He clearly knew about the assault, and then clearly denied knowing about it to the NSWCC. But, he's been found not guilty. How does this affect pursuing William's case? I have no idea. But if the burden of proof is greater than what the prosecution were able to come up with today, the chances of them ever getting a conviction against anyone are remote.

There might be dealing going on behind the scenes.

It's hard to believe the cops sent a 'theory' to the ODPP, I don't believe it. They've got something, if it isn't physical evidence someone may have made a statement against the FM. Her sister, mother before she died perhaps.

 

[Kurve]

Can anybody confirm whether the assault charges against the FF have been heard yet? Where does this stand? I thought they were being heard the same time as these lying charges.

 

[Kurve]

Sorry, I haven't kept up as much as I usually do on this case. It did my head in for a while.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Not sure why the police pursued today's charges with such vigour, but given what has been reported, FFs defence has done an amazing job to get him off. He clearly knew about the assault, and then clearly denied knowing about it to the NSWCC. But, he's been found not guilty. How does this affect pursuing William's case? I have no idea. But if the burden of proof is greater than what the prosecution were able to come up with today, the chances of them ever getting a conviction against anyone are remote.

They admit they didn't know what happened. By implication that probably means they have no idea where the body is or with certainty how it got there.

The case , if there is to be one, is interfering with a body. That requires concealment which in turn means they must know it was concealed , where it was concealed, how it was concealed, when it was concealed in order to prove the concealment. Today's evidence destroys that entirely by the one admission.

Games by police. Utter disgust I'm afraid

 

[DropBearess]

Can anybody confirm whether the assault charges against the FF have been heard yet? Where does this stand? I thought they were being heard the same time as these lying charges.

This case has been doing my head in too. It's hard to keep track of the whole mess. As far as l can fathom, the assault charges for SD and JS are still alive. I believe they're seperate from the brief currently with the DPP and still to be heard in January maybe? . Can anyone confirm?

Given the high profile of this case, media coverage seems unusually scant throughout. But when we see the power of their legal team time and time again, it's no wonder the media are treading very, very carefully.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Very clear now this DPP brief is a last throw at the stumps. . ....from deep third man.....after you retrieved the ball just before the ropes .......are unbalanced on your knees still and with the ball in your wrong hand..........and you're still facing the ropes ........and need to fling it backhands behind your back unsighted...... toward the stumps some 50 metres away.


Personally I'd much prefer police just admit we don't know what's happened and are transferring the case to cold case and closing the taskforce. When you try and strain an outcome on guesswork it has a tendency to go the way of Lindy Chamberlain. It gets very embarrassing for police. ........oh hang on that could be reason to watch for entertainment purposes

Barrister: "where is the body Detective?
Detective: "we don't know"
Barrister: "but you are saying you know who put it in the place you don't know and that person is my client"
Detective: "yes sir beyond doubt"
Barrister: " so how exactly did you exclude FA, PS, TJ, the car seen by RC?"
Barrister: "Detective ...your answer?"
Detective: "Well we couldn't find anything to prove they were involved which meant it had to be your client"
Barrister: "So how exactly did you exclude all other possibilities?"
Detective: "The taskforce had a meeting and the question was asked who now. Someone , I think it was Brad said the FM. It went around the table and we all agreed"
Barrister: " Hardly sounds scientific and beyond doubt Detective"
Detective: " It is sir. We are all highly skilled, well trained and it was unanimous"
Barrister: " I see. No more questions your honour"

 

[31550]

Very clear now this DPP brief is a last throw at the stumps. . ....from deep third man.....after you retrieved the ball just before the ropes .......are unbalanced on your knees still and with the ball in your wrong hand..........and you're still facing the ropes ........and need to fling it backhands behind your back unsighted...... toward the stumps some 50 metres away.


Personally I'd much prefer police just admit we don't know what's happened and are transferring the case to cold case and closing the taskforce. When you try and strain an outcome on guesswork it has a tendency to go the way of Lindy Chamberlain. It gets very embarrassing for police. ........oh hang on that could be reason to watch for entertainment purposes

Barrister: "where is the body Detective?
Detective: "we don't know"
Barrister: "but you are saying you know who put it in the place you don't know and that person is my client"
Detective: "yes sir beyond doubt"
Barrister: " so how exactly did you exclude FA, PS, TJ, the car seen by RC?"
Barrister: "Detective ...your answer?"
Detective: "Well we couldn't find anything to prove they were involved which meant it had to be your client"
Barrister: "So how exactly did you exclude all other possibilities?"
Detective: "The taskforce had a meeting and the question was asked who now. Someone , I think it was Brad said the FM. It went around the table and we all agreed"
Barrister: " Hardly sounds scientific and beyond doubt Detective"
Detective: " It is sir. We are all highly skilled, well trained and it was unanimous"
Barrister: " I see. No more questions your honour"

More like the cops lost the toss, bad guys declared at 0/400 after Day 1. Cops all out for 100. Cops are following-on are now into the last session, 9 down with 200 still to get.

 

[31550]

Can anybody confirm whether the assault charges against the FF have been heard yet? Where does this stand? I thought they were being heard the same time as these lying charges.

I thought they were heard in the same hearing as FM assault / stalking charges back in early Sep? FF was there with his lawyer. There was some discussion around whether he (FF) put his hands on William's sister's 'neck' or 'shoulder'. But most of the reporting was related to FM. We didn't hear much else about FF assault and stalking.
Final submissions are to be heard in December. FM has pled guilty. FF has pled Not Guilty.
It is not clear whether there was any defence case presented. I would not expect either FM or FF to take the stand in their own defence, as then they would be subject to cross-examination. So, I think the case for the defence has concluded and all that remains is to hear closing submissions, verdict and sentencing if any.

 

[LRitz]

These cameras typically would have no internet connectivity. So the user does not select a time zone. They manually set the time to whatever they want (usually the local time). Then the camera has an internal clock as long as the battery stays charged, and it records its time to the photographs as they are taken.

In this case the camera was set to Bali time (give or take a minute for manual error and time drift). The photograph taken of the Sunrise show was consistent with the camera still being on Bali time (give or take a minute or two). If you are suggesting the EXIF data of the Sunrise show photograph has been manually alterered, or the photograph was contrived to provide some sort of alibi, then you are also suggesting a very serious conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, if not something more serious and sinister.

I have more questions about the camera. Sorry if i am duplicating previous information but I missed some of the earlier posts about the time and "corrected" time.

For the FM's camera the internal clock is set manually. This clock can be changed for daylight saving or travelling to a different time zone to keep accurate time of your pictures. Would there be any history stored in the camera itself of change of the clock? If the camera is powered down or battery removed and a new time is set on the clock, is the previous time in the camera lost? The EXIF (yes i am learning) is embedded in the photo and is not easy to change.

Who "corrected" the photos time to AEST? Was this done after they were downloaded from the camera?

It seems, or is assumed, that the camera time was initially set to Bali time (2 hours/ 120 minutes) behind AEST. Photos are taken including one of a time on Sunrise TV. Possibility camera clock is then reset to a new time, 1 hour behind AEST. So now a photo taken at 8:30 AEST would have an EXIF of 7:30. Then the camera clock is reset again back to 2 hours before AEST. If then all the photos are corrected by adding on 2hours (or 118 minutes) ones that were taken with the first setting would be correct. But those taken with the one hour different camera clock setting would appear to be taken one hour later. The one taken at at 8:30 would have a corrected time of 9:30. Possible?