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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
katydid23 said:
If they were trying so hard and so unfairly to adopt William, why kill him?
Click to expand...
IMO, they (or FFC) were trying hard because she wanted his sister. I don't think that they could be separated. If (and a big if) she had anything to do with his death, it would be lashing out at him, IMO, not meaning to hurt him. MOO.
 
JayWill said:
IMO, they (or FFC) were trying hard because she wanted his sister. I don't think that they could be separated. If (and a big if) she had anything to do with his death, it would be lashing out at him, IMO, not meaning to hurt him. MOO.
Click to expand...

Agree, or, the accident theory where she had to cover it up because it would have meant her family imploding because LT would have been removed.
 
Trmtrm2 said:
When kids in care are adopted - Legal Aid NSW

Thought I would post this link for anyone interested in how the adoption process happens in NSW

once an adoption happens its up to the foster family to organise birth perent visits and to control that aspect if they aren't already controlling the visits
Click to expand...

Once age 12 the child can choose to enter an adoption without the birth perents consent
 
Mrs G Norris said:
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.
Click to expand...
Usually that is the person's employer that hires PIs when they are looking at a big payout for injuries. I think that the govt does that when people are claiming disability benefits fraudulently.
 
JayWill said:
IMO, they (or FFC) were trying hard because she wanted his sister. I don't think that they could be separated. If (and a big if) she had anything to do with his death, it would be lashing out at him, IMO, not meaning to hurt him. MOO.
Click to expand...

There's also possibly the public shame of it. The FM has an air about her to suggest that she's very much about presenting a perfectly coiffed image. For all we know, the people in her school circle might have thought they were her children and not foster children. Having your children suddenly gone would be awfully shameful, especially if you've formed a lot of connections with other parents, or were at the school doing tuckshop duty and on the P&C, and pony club, etc. IMO
 
I think there is huge flaws in the department

I don't think siblings who are removed young and do not hav a bond or relationship be placed together if both siblings hav different terms with the department

If one sibling is long term care and the other sibling is short term care and no prior relationship of siblings living together i don't think they should be placed together

Reasons being it could inhibit the short term care child from being returned to birth perents

If the department priority is to keep siblings together it may be hard to remove the short term care sibling away from the long term sibling once they hav been now living together and developed a sibling relationship and bond

Meaning the short term care sibling may get trapped into long term care to remain in the sibling unit

And if the perents are trying to get the short care child back and they aren't able to do so the original child in long term care may not be able to be adopted out because its in a sibling placement

Leading to both children stuck in the foster system together until 18

With a war between families one family wanting to force adoption as the first child lost may be in a legal position to be adoptable but the other child is now locked into the department because the birth family want the child but the department won't separate the sibling unit, because the birth family may hav not completely lost rights on the the second childs future that child could hav difficulty being able to be adopted, its like a catch 20 situation both kids can't be adopted both kids can't be returned to the birth perents because the kids who didn't know each other were placed in a sibling unit and became known to each other through the foster system are now trapped in that system
 
The other issue I have is the FF trying to reduce the number of visits with BF, not only that they wanted to do that, but that they felt entitled to do that and that somehow the way William behaved after visits with his BF would somehow influence that .. as if that was the most important consideration? Just the entitlement is stunning.
 
There s a number of things pointing to the idea that the FF hadn’t gone into fostering as short term care offering but as a step to long term adoption

I wonder if they had undertaken IVF first ?

I am astounded that after William went missing The sister remained with them . Wonder what emails circulated re her in FACS after 2014 . Also did the BM visits continue ?
 
Mrs G Norris said:
The other issue I have is the FF trying to reduce the number of visits with BF, not only that they wanted to do that, but that they felt entitled to do that and that somehow the way William behaved after visits with his BF would somehow influence that .. as if that was the most important consideration? Just the entitlement is stunning.
Click to expand...
Some fostering boundaries/ rights appeared to have blurred into adoption boundaries/rights and that no matter how well intentioned for the children they thought they where its just not ok what happened here.

I know a fostering family and she never refers to herself as mum.
They are first names and she refers to herself as such and suches carer. She helps support the child with their parents relationship. And its bad.
Selfless wonderful human being.

But that is a can of worms because for every amazing foster family out there is a dooshbag one.
So like everything its individual.

But Williams foster family created a nice home and surroundings for him on the surface but were not supportive of his relationship with his biological family and trying to eliminate them out of his life was not the usual or their place morally or legally. (IMO)

moo
 
JBowie said:
I didn't hear the 000 call recording until after I had watched the police walkthough videos a couple of times. It had already struck me that she was controlling the narrative, and when I heard the 000 call audio it confirmed my feeling.

It's clear to me that she is not the type of person 'to go to pieces' in a crisis. It would not surprise me if she works, or has worked, as a manager.

Being calm and clear-thinking in a crisis is an admirable quality, but it can also be a trait of a calculating personality. For instance, it is said that psycopaths rarely panic. (Not classing FM as psychopath.)
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like she is a movie script writer and director
 
k-mac said:
Some fostering boundaries/ rights appeared to have blurred into adoption boundaries/rights and that no matter how well intentioned for the children they thought they where its just not ok what happened here.

I know a fostering family and she never refers to herself as mum.
They are first names and she refers to herself as such and suches carer. She helps support the child with their parents relationship. And its bad.
Selfless wonderful human being.

But that is a can of worms because for every amazing foster family out there is a dooshbag one.
So like everything its individual.

But Williams foster family created a nice home and surroundings for him on the surface but were not supportive of his relationship with his biological family and trying to eliminate them out of his life was not the usual or their place morally or legally. (IMO)

moo
Click to expand...

I'm wondering about the difference between fostering to adoption and normal non fostering adoption, and am going to do some more research, but I am wondering if the adoption route was too difficult for them, so they thought they might have a better chance of adopting through the foster care system? Obviously this is incredibly messed up.
 
Timeline is doing my head in. Looking from neighbours statements back to time starting searching doesn’t make sense.. will look into further try put some actual points forward. Interesting as well senior police putting timeframe earlier - however maybe this is always done as an estimate by police due to foggy accounts.
 
winterberry said:
I'm wondering about the difference between fostering to adoption and normal non fostering adoption, and am going to do some more research, but I am wondering if the adoption route was too difficult for them, so they thought they might have a better chance of adopting through the foster care system? Obviously this is incredibly messed up.
Click to expand...
Too old is my guess.
 
To seriously entertain FFC insisting she wanted the bios involved in the children's lives means asking questions as to what the evidence was. I can't find any. However, I can point to evidence in the opposite direction: 1) She chose not to share their identities with the bios. Their choice, sure. But that choice carries obvious implications. If it's the welfare of the foster children that is priority #1 and not procuring children, then why on earth would one not get to know the bio mother to fully understand what it is she brings to the table. The fosters weren't interested. And, 2) they had already begun exploring adoption options.

As far as "fostering," they were ticking boxes. It's not even a cynical opinion. It's self-evident. They wanted those kids. BM messed up. She went and got together with the BF. As a consequence, she lost WT. One strike and she was out. It didn't even matter that she learned her lesson after that and stayed away from the BF to keep her other two children.

katydid23 said:
I have seen a few, seeming to imply as much.
Click to expand...
It has been my observation that those comments have been pretty sparse.

The overall consensus from these threads--at least what I'm getting personally--is that it was an accidental death covered up. If we want to apply Occam's Razor, based on the timeline: WT had a fatal fall from the verandah without the knowledge of Nanna or sister. FFC discovered his body after wondering where he went, remained collected, perhaps placed him in Nanna's car boot and deliberated, ultimately deciding to conceal his body after considering her options. Motives include protecting her parental rights over foster daughter, her marriage, her reputation, her lifestyle, everything she had so carefully designed and worked for in her life. What are the other possibilities?

A 75-year-old man decides to molest a boy (whom he hasn't even groomed) and kills him accidentally before his wife has even left for bingo? Or a 75-year-old man conceals his wife accidentally running over and killing the boy whilst she goes and plays bingo, placing his body in the lantana-infested woods behind their home before his brother arrives 90 minutes later? And the body was never found after a massive search.

Or he's part of paedophile ring and noticed the fosters arriving the night before at 9 PM and called colleagues up, who appeared in two cars early the next morning parked in a counterintuitive fashion, whom no one noticed except the FFC. Btw, they weren't in the car at one point and no one ever saw them either. And no other local children could be playing in the neighbourhood that day at that time except for the possibility of one 3-year-old girl. And, btw, FFC doesn't decide to keep a closer eye on kids knowing these abnormally parked cars are there. Also, btw, WT doesn't scream when it happens, the kidnappers just go "CLUMP" on his shoulders and he's gone.

It seems rather pointless to even bring up the bios when they don't even have Nanna's bloody address, particularly the BM.

Circumstantially, there are elements that look rather poor for the FFC (these imagined twin cars, the imagined green/grey one driven by the guy with the old-timey beer belly; the delayed recollection of those memories; no other eyewitness backing FFC up those recollections; the trip to the riding school which has been left out of multiple interviews; the peculiar timing of MFC's arrival after the disappearance along with FFC never placing a call to him; and add that she was the last to see him alive, along with having strong motives to cover up an accidental death). Circumstantially, IMO there is more here than with Scott Peterson. I don't think if it's all that cynical either if you consider the case of Jonbenet Ramsey--a case of which the coverup was so ornate and strange it makes transporting a death-by-accident via a car boot to somewhere nearby appear even more plausible.

Like, I don't want to believe FFC did this. I'd really like to know if you have any theories and am open to listening to anything that comes as close in plausibility, because I haven't yet heard any as convincing as the FFC covering up an accidental death in an act of self-preservation. And it boggles my mind that the investigators didn't also come to this conclusion when FFC has done very little to establish herself as trustworthy.
 
Last edited:
vatzjr said:
To seriously entertain FFC insisting she wanted the bios involved in the children's lives means asking questions as to what the evidence was. I can't find any. However, I can point to evidence which points to the contrary: 1) She chose not to share their identities with the bios. Their choice, sure. But that choice carries obvious implications. If it's the welfare of the foster children that is priority #1 and not procuring children, then why on earth would one not get to know the bio mother to fully understand what it is she brings to the table. The fosters weren't interested. And, 2) they had already begun exploring adoption options.

As far as "fostering," they were ticking boxes. It's not even a cynical opinion. It's self-evident. They wanted those kids. BM messed up. She went and got together with the BF. As a consequence, she lost WT. One strike and she was out. It didn't even matter that she learned her lesson after that and stayed away from the BF to keep her other two children.

It has been my observation that those comments have been pretty sparse.

The overall consensus from these threads--at least what I'm getting personally--is that it was an accidental death covered up. If we want to apply Occam's Razor, based on the timeline: WT had a fatal fall from the verandah without the knowledge of Nanna or sister. FFC discovered his body after wondering where he went, remained collected, perhaps placed him in Nanna's car boot and deliberated, ultimately deciding to conceal his body after considering her options. Motives include protecting her parental rights over foster daughter, her marriage, her reputation, her lifestyle, everything she had so carefully designed and worked for in her life. What are the other possibilities?

A 75-year-old man decides to molest a boy (whom he hasn't even groomed) before his wife has even left for bingo? Or a 75-year-old man conceals his wife accidentally running over and killing the boy whilst she goes and plays bingo, placing his body in the lantana-infested woods behind their home before his brother arrives 90 minutes later? And the body was never found after a massive search.

Or he's part of paedophile ring and noticed the fosters arriving the night before at 9 PM and called colleagues up, who appeared in two cars early the next morning parked in a counterintuitive fashion, whom no one noticed except the FFC. Btw, they weren't in the car at one point and no one ever saw them either. And no other local children could be playing in the neighbourhood that day at that time except for the possibility of one 3-year-old girl.

It seems rather pointless to even bring up the bios when they don't even have Nanna's bloody address, particularly the BM.

Circumstantially, there are elements that look rather poor for the FFC (these imagined twin cars, the imagined green/grey one driven by the guy with the old-timey beer belly; the delayed recollection of those memories; no other eyewitness backing FFC up those recollections; the trip to the riding school which has been left out of multiple interviews; the peculiar timing of MFC's arrival after the disappearance along with FFC never placing a call to him; and add that she was the last to see him alive, along with having strong motives to cover up an accidental death). Circumstantially, IMO there is more here than with Scott Peterson. I don't think if it's all that cynical either if you consider the case of Jonbenet Ramsey--a case of which the coverup was so ornate and strange it makes transporting a death-by-accident via a car boot to somewhere nearby appear even more plausible.

Like, I don't want to believe FFC did this. I'd really like to know if you have any theories, because I haven't heard any as convincing as the FFC covering up an accidental death in an act of self-preservation.
Click to expand...

Excellent points and I agree with everything you said. There is far more circumstantial evidence and motive here than with Scott Peterson, and many other murders, IMO. If it was planned, I think it wouldn't have been so sloppy and unbelievable, though. So in that case, it likely wasn't murder, IMO.

The only other theories I keep seeing trudged out is the previously cleared poi's which were again, cleared of any involvement in William's disappearance. I don't want to hear about them again because they've got nothing to do with the case. There are no new theories being offered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 103 more.
Total: 532 (members: 104, guests: 428)

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
428
Total visitors
532
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,250
Messages
18,236,856
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top