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

 

[Kurve]

Also on 15 November, a new direction.

They didn't believe the FMs testimony at the NSWCC?

 

[stormbird]

This thread is a pretty good record, it all started in around September 2021. That's when the police said they had new information and they leaked that a new suspect would be interviewed around the same time.

Police reveal ‘new info’ on William Tyrrell search​

Police have confirmed “new information” has come to light about the 2014 disappearance of three-year-old William Tyrrell as strike force detectives revisited the location where he was last seen.

www.news.com.au

Then I think they got more new information and announced the fresh digs on 15th November.

The dig would have needed lots of preparation time. Just getting everybody together in the same place at the same time might have been a nightmare to organise:

• the non-police experts (archaeology etc);
• teams of NSW Police Force officers (who would have needed transport, accommodation, food, etc.)
• the Australian Federal Police forensics officers;
• the Rural Fire Service;
• the heavy equipment operators (digging, trucking, etc);
• the NSW Ambulance paramedics (I think I spotted some in a photo);

Plus before that, bookings and warrants or permissions to:

• work on private properties;
• work on public land;
• impede traffic on roads;
• cut down trees (presumably without harming specific flora or fauna);
• clear ground near creeks (without contributing to flood dangers or harming flora or fauna);
• set up a secure chain between the site and the forensic testing place for all the truckloads of soil or whatever;
• to seek agreement from whoever had to pay for all this

My guess only.

 

[Awakening]

The dig would have needed lots of preparation time. Just getting everybody together in the same place at the same time might have been a nightmare to organise:

• the non-police experts (archaeology etc);
• teams of NSW Police Force officers (who would have needed transport, accommodation, food, etc.)
• the Australian Federal Police forensics officers;
• the Rural Fire Service;
• the heavy equipment operators (digging, trucking, etc);
• the NSW Ambulance paramedics (I think I spotted some in a photo);

Plus before that, bookings and warrants or permissions to:

• work on private properties;
• work on public land;
• impede traffic on roads;
• cut down trees (presumably without harming specific flora or fauna);
• clear ground near creeks (without contributing to flood dangers or harming flora or fauna);
• set up a secure chain between the site and the forensic testing place for all the truckloads of soil or whatever;
• to seek agreement from whoever had to pay for all this

My guess only.

I’m only guessing too but I’d assume it would need weeks of preparation?

Anyone on BF in crime investigation know?

 

[Infofinder]

Looks like the foster's names are no longer suppressed. Lawlink has both their names listed for the upcoming case this week.

 

[Kurve]

Looks like the foster's names are no longer suppressed. Lawlink has both their names listed for the upcoming case this week.

Okay but we need to stick with how we've been doing in here until their full names appear in the press.

 

[Awakening]

Looks like the foster's names are no longer suppressed. Lawlink has both their names listed for the upcoming case this week.

They seem to put their names down when court cases are first listed then change it to a pseudonym.

Either the clerks are really incompetent or the fosters are disliked.

 

[nut]

Looks like the foster's names are no longer suppressed. Lawlink has both their names listed for the upcoming case this week.

Do you have a link to lawlink?

 

[Poppy Penny]

Do you have a link to lawlink?

Online Registry - Landing Page

onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw.gov.au

 

[31550]

If the fosters are involved in William's disappearance, I believe the police and media are playing into their hands by this intense focus on the events of the last couple of years (assault, lying, fraud charges). Where is the investigation into William's disappearance? Why not reconvene the coroner's court (or even drag the FM back to the NSWCC) and ask her to go over the timeline between the 'roar' photograph and the FF return home. Dissect the timeline in detail - William jumping off the verandah, FM looking for him, cups of tea being made and partially drunk, William's sister going to the toilet, FGM wandering down Benaroon Drive, talking to Mrs Sharpley, seeing FM walking back up Benaroon Drive, and then try to fit the trip in FGMs car down Batar Creek Road. Why did she make this trip? When did she leave, when did she return? All the other facts known about this time period. If you go over and over this sequence of events, they just cannot fit the timeframe given (in my opinion). There has to be some critical piece of evidence that is being concealed or hidden or forgotten.

 

[DonnaHayward]

If the fosters are involved in William's disappearance, I believe the police and media are playing into their hands by this intense focus on the events of the last couple of years (assault, lying, fraud charges). Where is the investigation into William's disappearance? Why not reconvene the coroner's court (or even drag the FM back to the NSWCC) and ask her to go over the timeline between the 'roar' photograph and the FF return home. Dissect the timeline in detail - William jumping off the verandah, FM looking for him, cups of tea being made and partially drunk, William's sister going to the toilet, FGM wandering down Benaroon Drive, talking to Mrs Sharpley, seeing FM walking back up Benaroon Drive, and then try to fit the trip in FGMs car down Batar Creek Road. Why did she make this trip? When did she leave, when did she return? All the other facts known about this time period. If you go over and over this sequence of events, they just cannot fit the timeframe given (in my opinion). There has to be some critical piece of evidence that is being concealed or hidden or forgotten.

The tactics are sound IMO.

Don't underestimate the power of prolonged psychological stress.

If the FP's were previously lying to protect their reputations, LT, finances - those reasons are being taken from them slowly but surely.

Inevitably, we will all know their names, LT has been removed and these legal battles must be expensive.

We now have a situation where they may as well tell the truth and face the consequences.

I'm sure all of your timeline suggestions are happening in the background to some degree.

 

[31550]

The tactics are sound IMO.

Don't underestimate the power of prolonged psychological stress.

If the FP's were previously lying to protect their reputations, LT, finances - those reasons are being taken from them slowly but surely.

Inevitably, we will all know their names, LT has been removed and these legal battles must be expensive.

We now have a situation where they may as well tell the truth and face the consequences.

I'm sure all of your timeline suggestions are happening in the background to some degree.

The pressure has been on for 2 years and they haven't cracked yet. The tactics are only sound IF the police are SURE that the fosters are involved. But how can they be sure, based on what we know / has been released? If they are SURE, there must be enough evidence to pursue charges. Otherwise they are NOT SURE, so using intimidation and pressure is not a sound tactic IMO. What if it ends up like Spedding?
I don't mind the tactic if it produces results, but it hasn't, and they seem to be pursuing this tactic as the sole tactic. How about going back to basics and constructing a timeline which makes sense and is supported by the physical evidence? I believe that is a better tactic. As Ron Iddles says, "The answer is in the file". There is probably a piece of evidence which has not been used properly to work out what actually happened to William. My opinion only.

 

[BFew]

There is probably a piece of evidence which has not been used properly to work out what actually happened to William.

Or there is a piece of evidence that for some legal/operational reason they are not willing to risk trying to use, or have been that they can't use.

 

[DonnaHayward]

It would be naive to think we know everything the police know.

Yeah, it's a calculated risk. I'm all for it given how the investigation proceeded up until Laidlaw took over.

I wonder who the closed court witnesses were that gave evidence at the inquest.

Could the FGM have been one of them? I can't understand why she wouldn't have been called as a witness. If failing health was a reason (dementia), surely this would have been openly mentioned?

 

[stormbird]

I don't understand what happened in FM's recent court case. I still can't find the magistrate's judgment on New South Wales Caselaw so I suppose it's never going to be posted. The only information I can find is from news reports but they didn't say very much.

MOO, I think the magistrate couldn't find the charge proved because there had been mistakes in the way FM was questioned - is that right? The prosecution had to prove that FM knew the information she was giving was false or misleading, but the magistrate decided the evidence didn't prove that. I'm guessing this means that no one checked during the questioning to make sure FM knew what she was saying or was saying what she meant. It was reported that the audio recordings of the alleged assault and the phone call hadn't been played, so maybe that was a factor too, but I don't know whether the Commission would have been required to do that.

The news reports made it sound like FM was questioned and gave her "Never" answer at the NSW Crime Commission hearing, but can that be correct? (Is it possible there was a police interview after the NSW Crime Commission hearing?) The Commissioner is a former State Coroner, twice, and a former magistrate, and the court system seems to be usually very careful about the principle of fairness, so I find it hard to believe the Commissioner might have presided over a hearing which wasn't fair - to the extent that the evidence was basically useless when it got to trial. If that's true, it's shocking.

 

[Lady O]

I don't understand what happened in FM's recent court case. I still can't find the magistrate's judgment on New South Wales Caselaw so I suppose it's never going to be posted. The only information I can find is from news reports but they didn't say very much.

MOO, I think the magistrate couldn't find the charge proved because there had been mistakes in the way FM was questioned - is that right? The prosecution had to prove that FM knew the information she was giving was false or misleading, but the magistrate decided the evidence didn't prove that. I'm guessing this means that no one checked during the questioning to make sure FM knew what she was saying or was saying what she meant. It was reported that the audio recordings of the alleged assault and the phone call hadn't been played, so maybe that was a factor too, but I don't know whether the Commission would have been required to do that.

The news reports made it sound like FM was questioned and gave her "Never" answer at the NSW Crime Commission hearing, but can that be correct? (Is it possible there was a police interview after the NSW Crime Commission hearing?) The Commissioner is a former State Coroner, twice, and a former magistrate, and the court system seems to be usually very careful about the principle of fairness, so I find it hard to believe the Commissioner might have presided over a hearing which wasn't fair - to the extent that the evidence was basically useless when it got to trial. If that's true, it's shocking.

Yes, I think that it's very odd. If she was crying and distressed, then they should have taken a break and asked her the question again when she had gathered her emotions.

 

[BFew]

If she was crying and distressed, then they should have taken a break and asked her the question again when she had gathered her emotions.

Could have got ugly had this line of argument been used at an appeal, had the magistrate ruled her as guilty.

 

[stormbird]

"A new episode of Where’s William Tyrrell? has just dropped, discussing all the recent developments. It will be my last episode as I’m leaving Channel 10. But rest assured I will still be following the case closely in my new role. #whereswilliam"

Where's William Tyrrell?: A Theory Revealed on Apple Podcasts

- @LiaJHarris (Lia Harris), Twitter, 10 Nov 2022


"Personal news: today is my last day at Channel 10. It’s been a privilege to work alongside some great people, but it’s time for the next chapter. I’ll be taking over the ABC News Sydney crime round from my dear friend @ReddieNews [Mark Reddie], who’s left very big (and stylish) shoes to fill."
- @LiaJHarris, 10 Nov 2022

 

[stormbird]

I don't understand what happened in FM's recent court case. I still can't find the magistrate's judgment on New South Wales Caselaw so I suppose it's never going to be posted. The only information I can find is from news reports but they didn't say very much.

MOO, I think the magistrate couldn't find the charge proved because there had been mistakes in the way FM was questioned - is that right? The prosecution had to prove that FM knew the information she was giving was false or misleading, but the magistrate decided the evidence didn't prove that. I'm guessing this means that no one checked during the questioning to make sure FM knew what she was saying or was saying what she meant. It was reported that the audio recordings of the alleged assault and the phone call hadn't been played, so maybe that was a factor too, but I don't know whether the Commission would have been required to do that.

The news reports made it sound like FM was questioned and gave her "Never" answer at the NSW Crime Commission hearing, but can that be correct? (Is it possible there was a police interview after the NSW Crime Commission hearing?) The Commissioner is a former State Coroner, twice, and a former magistrate, and the court system seems to be usually very careful about the principle of fairness, so I find it hard to believe the Commissioner might have presided over a hearing which wasn't fair - to the extent that the evidence was basically useless when it got to trial. If that's true, it's shocking.

The new episode of the Where's William Tyrrell? podcast doesn't mention anything about there being a police interview after the NSW Crime Commission hearing. (Lia Harris says she was at the Local Court for both days last week, so I suppose she would have heard all the details.)

So if the questioning of FM actually was messed up, it really must have happened at the Commission.

 

[DonnaHayward]

MOO, I think the magistrate couldn't find the charge proved because there had been mistakes in the way FM was questioned - is that right? The prosecution had to prove that FM knew the information she was giving was false or misleading, but the magistrate decided the evidence didn't prove that. I'm guessing this means that no one checked during the questioning to make sure FM knew what she was saying or was saying what she meant.

In the latest episode of Lia Harris' podcast she says they only questioned her about the wooden spoon once. They didn't follow it up to clarify what scenario they were talking about. The Magistrate suggested they should have continued to question her about the incident if they had wanted to effectively charge her with lying about it.

Seems like a fair judgement.

What it also highlights IMO is that the FM's memory isn't as sharp as she makes out. If I hit a child with a wooden spoon I'd remember it.

 

[Lady O]

In the latest episode of Lia Harris' podcast she says they only questioned her about the wooden spoon once. They didn't follow it up to clarify what scenario they were talking about. The Magistrate suggested they should have continued to question her about the incident if they had wanted to effectively charge her with lying about it.

Seems like a fair judgement.

What it also highlights IMO is that the FM's memory isn't as sharp as she makes out. If I hit a child with a wooden spoon I'd remember it.

From what I read, reports in the media, it wasn't actually clear to me whether the FM phone discussion with FF was in regards to FM hitting LT with a wooden spoon, or if it was LT who hit younger child.

 

[31550]

"A new episode of Where’s William Tyrrell? has just dropped, discussing all the recent developments. It will be my last episode as I’m leaving Channel 10. But rest assured I will still be following the case closely in my new role. #whereswilliam"

Where's William Tyrrell?: A Theory Revealed on Apple Podcasts

- @LiaJHarris (Lia Harris), Twitter, 10 Nov 2022


"Personal news: today is my last day at Channel 10. It’s been a privilege to work alongside some great people, but it’s time for the next chapter. I’ll be taking over the ABC News Sydney crime round from my dear friend @ReddieNews [Mark Reddie], who’s left very big (and stylish) shoes to fill."
- @LiaJHarris, 10 Nov 2022

Bit of a "Team Foster" podcast again, but some useful info / clarifications:

FM was not 'offered immunity' or anything of the sort. However, she is protected under the NSWCC charter / terms-of-reference (don't know if the exact legal terminology) that any evidence she gave under the NSWCC's 'compulsion', cannot be used against her in criminal charges. Hence, her admissions to the NSWCC about hitting and kicking a child cannot be used in her criminal trial for assault. (I presume that the recorded surveillance however, CAN be used?) Similarly, if she had admitted to using the wooden spoon. So, this explains her being found 'not guilty' of deliberately lying about this to the NSWCC - there would be no reason for her to deliberately lie about the wooden spoon, because of the protections.

This also casts doubt about the purpose of pursuing this lying charge by SFR, and what their objective is. It doesn't further the assault charge, and it doesn't seem to do anything to further William's case.

 

[stormbird]

From what I read, reports in the media, it wasn't actually clear to me whether the FM phone discussion with FF was in regards to FM hitting LT with a wooden spoon, or if it was LT who hit younger child.

The podcast at about 6:45 minutes says: "They [the prosecution] also played a recording from a phone tap of a conversation between the foster mother and foster father, where she can be heard telling him that she had hit the child with a wooden spoon after the child had misbehaved. She was heard saying she hit the child really hard with that wooden spoon and the child didn't even cry."

But just before this it said the listening devices in the house recorded the child crying: "The child could be heard screaming and crying, saying "No no no" followed by the sound of what appeared to be a smack and then more crying." (my transcript from listening to Apple Podcasts)

I'm wondering if part of the police strategy with the lying charge was to publicly show FF that maybe FM had lied to him? But it's also possible that in the phone call FM was telling FF about one child hitting another child: "She [FM] was heard saying 'She hit the child really hard with that wooden spoon and the child didn't even cry.'" I suppose it depends how well the reporters or police could hear the recording.

 

[31550]

The podcast at about 6:45 minutes says: "They [the prosecution] also played a recording from a phone tap of a conversation between the foster mother and foster father, where she can be heard telling him that she had hit the child with a wooden spoon after the child had misbehaved. She was heard saying she hit the child really hard with that wooden spoon and the child didn't even cry."

But just before this it said the listening devices in the house recorded the child crying: "The child could be heard screaming and crying, saying "No no no" followed by the sound of what appeared to be a smack and then more crying." (my transcript from listening to Apple Podcasts)

I'm wondering if part of the police strategy with the lying charge was to publicly show FF that maybe FM had lied to him? But it's also possible that in the phone call FM was telling FF about one child ("she") hitting another child, and it was the second child who "didn't even cry". I suppose it depends how well the reporters or police could hear the recording.

Could the conversation between FM and FF have actually meant "Child A hit child B , and child B didn't cry!" ? It's not clear.

 

[Lady O]

Could the conversation between FM and FF have actually meant "Child A hit child B , and child B didn't cry!" ? It's not clear.

Especially as there was also audio of her asking the child (LT) where was the wooden spoon? Then there was some mention of LT locking her out of the house. This made me doubt it was FM who was wielding the spoon.

 

[DonnaHayward]

From the Daily Mail:

"The audio begins with a female voice, possibly of the girl, saying, 'I am calling the police' and then a child screaming 'no' and crying, panting and sobbing.

Then there is the sound of a possible slap and the foster mother ordering the child, 'Stand up. Stand up'.

The child said 'no, please no, nooooooo' and then was told to 'Sit down. Sit.'

Snr Sgt Asaad told the court that in a conversation after the incident the foster mother told her husband 'she's been hit really hard with that wooden spoon. She's going to have massive welt on her leg.'

The court was played a subsequent conversation in which the foster father says, 'Oh that's not good. We've got a problem. We've got a big problem.'"

From the Australian:

Audio played to the court allegedly captures the sound of a girl screaming and sobbing while a woman says “stand up, stand up”.

The girl can be heard threatening to call the police as the woman demands to know “where did you put the wooden spoon?”

The girl screams “Please no” before a sound, alleged to be smacking with the wooden spoon, is heard on the recording.

The foster mother cried in court as the audio was played.

A phone tap allegedly records the woman telling her husband she hit the child “really hard with that wooden spoon” just after he left the house, and that it would leave a massive welt on her leg.

“She’s still going on about it,” the woman allegedly tells her husband.

--------------------------------------------------------

Nothing in the above reporting indicates to me that there is a child hitting another child. IMO the wooden spoon had been used to discipline LT previously, so LT had perhaps hidden the wooden spoon in anticipation of being hurt with it.

My siblings and I used to do the same.

I really feel many people are overlooking how callous you have to be to hurt a child in these ways - striking a child, kicking a child, not responding with compassion when a child is pleading with you and sobbing.

I was also kicked as a child and it's not something you just forget about. It's abuse. And yes I do think it's even worse when that abuse is coming from foster parents - they had the resources to seek respite or assistance in their role as carers.

I really hope the FM is held responsible for her actions.

Side note: if you are kicking a 10-year-old who is fully capable of reporting you to authorities, what might you think you can get away with doing to a 3-year-old? IMO.