Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sep 2014 - #65

[JWSleuth]

I am usually quite calm during a crisis but later it catches up with me. I will appear to others like I know what to do ,logical. IMO after listening to the 000 call several times I now hear emotion in the FFC voice like panic but under the surface. I don't know another way to explain it. But maybe I am just hoping I heard panic. I really don't know . I do agree the FFC appears to be the sort of person who is more a leader rather than seek direction from others. IMO

Me too and def wouldn’t be in a state to drive to the airport once the calmness wore off.

 

[drsleuth]

@SouthAussie



I have now had the opportunity to listen to the press conference and for the life of me cannot hear anything that suggests that DCS Bennett said "they have never nominated any particular person of interest." as you stated in your message that I initially replied to.

What I have gleaned is that at approx 4:27 a (male) member of the media asked a question (and the background noise) muffled all his words but I was able to pick up he mentioned POI and referred to "her". At 4:36 DCS Bennett then said "It leaves the investigation in the hands of the Coroner". I could not hear DCS Bennett speak the words you suggested. The total length of this copy of the media conference is 6:05.

I do appreciate the way DCS Bennett speaks and presents himself at press conferences. His direct no nonsense approach is very refreshing IMO.

Here you go

@ 6mins & 34 seconds

Reporter : " And is the Foster mother , still the only, ah, person of interest in this this case & if nothing of significance is found, ah where does that leave her in all of this ?"

DCS Bennett : "It, it leaves the investigation in the hands of the coroner, we don't know what happened to William Tyrrell as we stand here now & we are trying to find out "

Reporter : " Is, is she the only person of interest still?"

DCS Bennett : " We've never nominated any particular person of interest , and ah, we'll just continue to investigate "

 

[JayWill]

IMO, it goes to her being the first one to speak at length to her sister about it, again controlling the narrative. MOO.

 

[Raina_the_observer]

Here you go

@ 6mins & 34 seconds

Reporter : " And is the Foster mother , still the only, ah, person of interest in this this case & if nothing of significance is found, ah where does that leave her in all of this ?"

DCS Bennett : "It, it leaves the investigation in the hands of the coroner, we don't know what happened to William Tyrrell as we stand here now & we are trying to find out "

Reporter : " Is, is she the only person of interest still?"

DCS Bennett : " We've never nominated any particular person of interest , and ah, we'll just continue to investigate "

But they were very clear a couple of weeks ago and set the media baying after the FFC. Could they be getting worried this is another dead end and there will be consequences.? Considering that the police have had to make a confidential settlement with one person they named and it appears at least two more actions pending. What was done to those people was pretty disgusting.

 

[katydid23]

@SouthAussie

Quote
William’s story starts 10 years ago, when his father met a girl. In 2010, they had a daughter. Three months later, that child — a girl called Lindsay in court documents — was taken into state care. What was the issue?

Violence. It wasn’t directed at the child. Lindsay’s mother went to a party. It got out of hand. Police got called. She spat at police. She was aggressive. She has mental health problems, and is addicted to drugs. She lashed out, in a way that made officers feel unsafe.

They decided Lindsay was “at risk of harm” — that’s a formal categorisation — and handed her to the NSW Department of Family and Community Services ...........

End quote

Thanks for the link. To me it seems unusual that a wanted child who was exposed to psychological harm stayed in care long term imo. It's technically hard to prove even though it's obviously not good for the child.

Even the way the first child was taken presumably while at home being babysat while the mother was out. That one incident isn't enough to remove a child. There must be more to it. imo.

@winterberry

I find it's often a statement of fact that people have addiction issues and mental health issues. The stigma around them makes it sound pejorative. Many people with similar issues are good hearted and are able to gather the strength to address their issues. They're often vulnerable people themselves. I believe the b mother has owned her past publically now imo? She is obviously stable enough now and has her other kids in her care imo.

I really find it very unusual her kids weren't returned to her.

Edited to say: I ahem been corrected. All are from same father. So cross that theory off the list.....
I think her kids in her care have a different father than WT and his sister. And I have wondered if maybe it was the bio father the social workers were most concerned with, and that is why the kids were kept away?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

But they were very clear a couple of weeks ago and set the media baying after the FFC. Could they be getting worried this is another dead end and there will be consequences.? Considering that the police have had to make a confidential settlement with one person they named and it appears at least two more actions pending. What was done to those people was pretty disgusting.

If police are wrong they will absolutely be sued IMO, they made some pretty bold statements. I'm not sure if it's that fear or the lack of results which is making them back away from earlier statements now, I guess we will find out.

 

[JayWill]

I think her kids in her care have a different father than WT and his sister. And I have wondered if maybe it was the bio father the social workers were most concerned with, and that is why the kids were kept away?

Then there was no reason that she at least could have visitation, and not have it decreased as the FFC wanted. MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think her kids in her care have a different father than WT and his sister. And I have wondered if maybe it was the bio father the social workers were most concerned with, and that is why the kids were kept away?

Possibly. Caroline Overington has mentioned in this previously posted article that the relationship was volatile, and they needed to end it. They stayed together.

Australia - Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #42

 

[Naobh]

@Megnut

Quote

Might there have been a touch of marital discord, accentuated by the bond between the foster dad and Wm?

End quote

I think this is interesting. If RC remembers 2 cars and a kid even without getting the detail correct; if he assumed it was a woman driver because he's an old (somewhat prejudiced against women) man and it was stupid to have a kid in the back like that; could they have fought over how FFC treated WT and MFC has driven off with him, and she's followed? Then who knows what. I think even an old man would remember the day if not the time or details of seeing a kid loose in the back of a car because it really makes one angry seeing a kid at risk. Emotions help form memories.

Imo, moo, just speculating.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

RC = Red Herring IMO.

 

[Couldbe]

JMO:
If, in the Coroner’s Court, they have the opportunity to again interview each of the FFC and MFC…presumably this will be an opportunity to question them on anomalies/inconsistencies, in timing and their descriptions, that might6 have been noted by LE.

These questions will no doubt resemble many of the points that have been raised by Websleuth members.

Hindsight can now be useful and indeed exercised in questioning by the Coroner’s Court.

The FFC would no doubt be coached by her legal representative on her statement discrepancies ….. as well as using her own very capable skills.

MFC would have the same opportunity.

There is also the matter of the charge of ‘common assault’ they will have to defend;
/ as well as the AVO that has been taken out against them.

What a ‘can of worms’ ….. the outcomes will be very interesting…to say the least.

 

[SouthAussie]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

"Then still a couple, Williams biological mother and father absconded with him for between five and six weeks until FACS tracked then down and removed William."
William Tyrrell’s doomed life

 

[k-mac]

I haven't read that anywhere yet. Presumably there is a link?

From what I have read they were together when they absconded with William for 6 weeks, which I think was just prior to William being put into foster care.

BM stated in her Sunday night interview that her and BF are not together and haven't been for a very long time.


That interview is linked a few posts back.

moo

 

[SouthAussie]

BM stated in her Sunday night interview that her and BF are not together and haven't been for a very long time.


That interview is linked a few posts back.

moo

Yes, I know. But we are speaking of when William was with them. For which I have provided links.
We know they haven't been together for a while since then.

 

[k-mac]

Yes, I know. But we are speaking of when William was with them. For which I have provided links.
We know they haven't been together for a while since then.

ok no worries, just you didnt say that in the original post.

 

[Naobh]

I agree, considering the number of cases I have seen where children were not removed when they should have been and were left in unsafe home due to the well-known reluctance of authorities to remove children these days.
Also, how could an adoption happen without the knowledge or consent of the BM and BF? Again, it is a very onerous process that always presumes that children are better off with their biological parents.

From NSW adoption rules....
The consent of birth parents and the Minister is required for children:

• under 12 years of age
• aged between 12 and 18 who have been in the care of the prospective adoptive parents for less than two years
• aged between 12 and 18 who are deemed not have sufficient maturity to give consent.

The Supreme Court can make orders dispensing with the consent of a child’s birth parents in certain circumstances such as when the birth parent cannot be found or is mentally incapable of giving consent. The court can also make an order to dispense with parental consent when it believes it is in the best interests of the child.

Yeah I don't want to clog up the thread but my auntie did loads of stuff so many times, it was just 2 particular crises the department actually put them in short term OOHC. Because they really really had to. My auntie is pretty smart and pushy in a way. If the parents have low self esteem etc and don't have the resources and skill to fight it, it's just so awful if the department is doing anything like this to vulnerable families. Imo. Any FF to have such a will to take kids and influence the department is imo a red flag if that is what happened at all. Imo. Of course it's upsetting to a point to return them home, but you're taught that, in the basic course I started doing to try fostering. Fostering isn't even at all about starting your own family imo. It's starting to feel a whole lot like a dodgy plan imo. Which says something about their characters imo.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I am concerned that it seems the FF were looking at fostering as a way to start their own family too, and that the children were earmarked for long term when their BM was still young enough to turn her life around and they hadn't been abused themselves. I don't know what to make of it, but it seems horribly inbalanced in favor of the FF.

 

[winterberry]

I am concerned that it seems the FF were looking at fostering as a way to start their own family too, and that the children were earmarked for long term when their BM was still young enough to turn her life around and they hadn't been abused themselves. I don't know what to make of it, but it seems horribly inbalanced in favor of the FF.

*IMO ONLY* I wonder if the FM had the couple followed by a P.I and that's why they were 'coincidentally' spotted by a member of FACS in a video store on the north shore, which ultimately resulted in William being removed and orders for them never to be returned.

The FM seemed to have a lot of access to info on the birth family, yet the birth family had zero information or access to any information on the foster family.

It's all just too fishy. IMO.

None of it makes sense.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

*IMO ONLY* I wonder if the FM had the couple followed by a P.I and that's why they were 'coincidentally' spotted by a member of FACS in a video store on the north shore, which ultimately resulted in William being removed and orders for them never to be returned.

The FM seemed to have a lot of access to info on the birth family, yet the birth family had zero information or access to any information on the foster family.

It's all just too fishy. IMO.

None of it makes sense.

Either that or the department does this, same way as govt uses PI’s to catch out people on Work Cover lifting things etc .. there is zero chance that was a coincidence.

 

[winterberry]

Either that or the department does this, same way as govt uses PI’s to catch out people on Work Cover lifting things etc .. there is zero chance that was a coincidence.

Would FACS waste limited resources trailing foster parents who never abused their children? Unless ..someone was desperate to foster and adopt the kids..
It's all very strange. IMO