Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sep 2014 - #67

[Raina_the_observer]

Why would she need to throw the shoes away, separate from where the body was disposed of?

I cant think of any answer to that either, but does anyone know if the annual Clean-up Australia days were held in Kendall? If so, over seven years if there was anything like that, it would most likely have been picked up and discarded long ago?

 

[katydid23]

I cant think of any answer to that either, but does anyone know if the annual Clean-up Australia days were held in Kendall? If so, over seven years if there was anything like that, it would most likely have been picked up and discarded long ago?

True. And if it is like our 'Clean Up' days here in California, it is mostly locals picking up trash in their hometowns.

I think if any locals found a little boys pair of shoes, so close to where WT went missing, they would have turned them into LE. JMO

 

[katydid23]

"Perhaps the text from MFC prompted FFC to seek the whereabouts of the children. Maybe a thought train like, ok, hubby's on his way, better make sure the kids aren't on the drive... where's Will? That would explain the hesitation on the 000 call when being asked how long has he been missing."

What I am getting from the scenario proposed in your previous post (if FM is being less than truthful) is that:

FM would see the (presumably verified) 10:30am text
go and look for William, see him laying somewhere
check him over to see if he was alive
maybe try CPR while crying a few tears
decide that William is deceased
go and grab FGM's keys
tell FGM something to explain why Lindsay needs to be watched (or not)
carefully place William in FGM's car somehow
drive a short distance down Batar Creek Road
throw something out of the window
pull over and carefully place William somewhere
drive home
speak to AMS at her house, a little further down the road, at 10:40am - AMS could also hear FD yelling for William

10 minutes doesn't seem enough time to do all of that. There would need to be a decision making process in there somewhere.
Is he dead? can I help him? what should I do?

imo

Also, wouldn't she automatically scream or react if she happened upon his body or saw him fall from the upper deck? Would she be able to IMMEDIATELY stifle herself and make an immediate decision to dispose of him? No hesitation or question about it, she would just instantly go into silent cover up mode and ditch him in a field somewhere?

 

[katydid23]

William Tyrrell's foster mother gives her version of what happened at the home where he disappeared | Daily Mail Online

My thoughts on FFC’s relating in her walkthrough video (apparently videoed on the sixth day following William’s disappearance, are that she related her statement as her honest fact at the time. We are unaware if that truck driver ever came forward to identify himself and verify her encounter with him.

JMO - It is debatable that FFC would have felt the need to put her head out of the window of FGM’s vehicle to look for William….she would have been able to see him by glancing around from inside of FGM’s Mazda.

Following that’ pulling over’, FFC said that she then continued on, driving slowly to the Riding School…at that point concluding that he wasn’t there…and then returned home.

So, my point is: The walkthrough video has been edited and has resulted in the fact that it is only FFC’s description of her drive to the Riding School (6 days later) that has been released for us, the public, to view. The focus on this part of the walkthrough could possibly be of concern because:

………If this is the first time the LE have heard about the drive to the Riding School, they would possibly to have questioned why….because they could have much earlier investigated who that truck driver was and interviewed him in relation to William’s disappearance; maybe he could have contributed other useful information.

Therefore, LE may be querying why FFC took so long to mention the drive to the Riding School; and did she not consider it important / or was she endeavouring to not have it known by anyone….for reasons of her own.

In focussing on the various discrepancies in FFC's repoirting of events surrounding William's disappearance, this further searching commencing in November 2021 has been conducted:

Police reveal 'one suspect' is focus of the new search for William Tyrrell
"Detective Chief Superintendent Darren Bennett assured the public that the police were not acting on speculation - but rather, concrete evidence.

This activity is in response to evidence we have obtained in the course of the investigation, not speculative in any way, we are acting on behalf of the coroner and in conjunction with the colonial orders, she will be kept updated with regard to our progress,” said Detective Chief Superintendent Darren Bennett said."

"JMO - It is debatable that FFC would have felt the need to put her head out of the window of FGM’s vehicle to look for William….she would have been able to see him by glancing around from inside of FGM’s Mazda."

When I used to search for not really to look, but to listen for him our 'Houdini' puppy, when he got out of our yard, I would drive around, calling out his name. I would pull over occasionally, stick my head out of the window to LISTEN ....to hear if he was barking or whining or responding to our calls for him.

"………If this is the first time the LE have heard about the drive to the Riding School, they would possibly to have questioned why..."

Is it the first time LE heard about her drive there? Has that been established as fact?

 

[centred]

"………If this is the first time the LE have heard about the drive to the Riding School, they would possibly to have questioned why..."

Is it the first time LE heard about her drive there? Has that been established as fact?[/QUOTE]

maybe , maybe not but i gather they would , might have assumed the obvious or she told them she did it to look for William of course . As for being a fact or not I am not sure it matters as she did tell them and that i gather has been proved as a fact .

These are the sort of facts that can be established but not so much when it comes to hearsay .

These sort of facts will have to proven in court if and when anyone is arrested . IMO

 

[Warshawski]

Is there any information as to whether the car heard by the Crabbs was the posty, as in if Aust Post records were located of mail volume that day, times if recorded etc?

IMO - am pretty sure that it it’s been confirmed that Postie was earlier that day ( at least in that street, I don’t know if there’s been anything said if that was also the case in Mr Chapman’s street )

 

[Shadow@light]

Regarding William shoes, yes he could put them on himself very quickly IMO.
Was looking at family photos, my child who is on the Autism Spectrum/ ADHD same age as William, had the same shoes in 2014.
He was three years old in 2014 born two months before William.
It was easy, slide foot into shoe, lifted/ slide strap up the heel.
My son had slight trouble with coordination at the age of three years, he could put those shoes on under 40 seconds. IMO, yes William did have his shoes on.

 

[Lemony]

In this photo William appears to have his shoes on the wrong feet, typical when a young child puts on their own shoes IMO

 

[Raina_the_observer]

In this photo William appears to have his shoes on the wrong feet, typical when a young child puts on their own shoes IMO

By the law of averages, they should get them on the right feet 50% of the time.

 

[Couldbe]

I was just reading a WS post back in Feb 2018 when it was mentioned that in the photo taken of William on the back deck, his sister was still in her dressing gown.

That poster pointed out that it would not be easy riding a bike in a dressing gown.
This point could support the questioning of the time that the photo was taken. JMO

My apologies to those who have already 'thrashed' this out previously.

 

[Blues Clues]

I was just reading a WS post back in Feb 2018 when it was mentioned that in the photo taken of William on the back deck, his sister was still in her dressing gown.

That poster pointed out that it would not be easy riding a bike in a dressing gown.
This point could support the questioning of the time that the photo was taken. JMO

My apologies to those who have already 'thrashed' this out previously.

It was thought she is wearing a blue jacket - the same one she was wearing the night before in the McDonalds footage

 

[nightrider17]

I was curious - they mentioned a number of photos were taken. Maybe 5 - but did all them just focus on WT and there was no close up ones solely of LT. I dont know if this is true - but it seems odd - that there are photos of both of them - and close ups of WT but no Close up of LT. I know we would not see those due to privacy issues. The amount of photos that was offered during the inquest seems to add up to about 4 or 5 - so this would suggest there was none taken close up of LT. I just curious why? Not sure if it means anything.

 

[nightrider17]

Like if I put into google - WT photos on Verandah - there comes up - photos of both of them drawing - but there is 2 closeups of him. 1 roaring and 1 with his eyes closed. The second one may be just a zoomed in photo. Probably a Moot point.

 

[BreakingNews]

Am reading Caroline Overintons book. Very interesting that she states that William was jumping off the lower deck onto the ground roaring. No mention of being on the higher deck. I'm confused!

 

[JBowie]

Not specifically applicable to the Tyrrell case, but something that has puzzled me for a long time.

This article in the SMH, triggered by the tragic death of 9 year old <redacted>, puts the spotlight on NSW's bizarre regulations regarding naming of children -- first we all know who the kid is and then suddenly we are not allowed to know anymore:

Time absurd law in NSW is brought into line with other states

The arrest on Wednesday of <redacted>, now charged with the alleged murder of CM who disappeared from a Blue Mountains property last week, throws into stark relief the inconsistent, complex and obscure patchwork of legal restrictions on publishing about criminal investigations and proceedings in NSW and across Australia.

From the moment an accused is charged in respect of a crime involving a child, the child’s name, and any information identifying them, can no longer be reported under NSW legislative restrictions, even though it may well have been plastered across newspapers and television news during any prior police search.

That is the case even where the child is no longer living.

This results in an absurd situation in which a deceased child cannot be identified by the media in public interest reporting once charges have been laid, even where they had been broadly identified before charges were laid.

NSW’s laws against identifying children involved in criminal proceedings go further than any other Australian state or territory.

It is the only state that expressly restricts publication of identifying material regarding deceased children and extends beyond child witnesses to children who are somehow connected to the proceeding but themselves have had no involvement at all.

In the case of <redacted>, a senior family member gave the media permission to identify her.

Full article here: Time absurd law in NSW is brought into line with other states

 

[BreakingNews]

Not specifically applicable to the Tyrrell case, but something that has puzzled me for a long time.

This article in the SMH, triggered by the tragic death of 9 year old <redacted>, puts the spotlight on NSW's bizarre regulations regarding naming of children -- first we all know who the kid is and then suddenly we are not allowed to know anymore:

Time absurd law in NSW is brought into line with other states

The arrest on Wednesday of <redacted>, now charged with the alleged murder of CM who disappeared from a Blue Mountains property last week, throws into stark relief the inconsistent, complex and obscure patchwork of legal restrictions on publishing about criminal investigations and proceedings in NSW and across Australia.

From the moment an accused is charged in respect of a crime involving a child, the child’s name, and any information identifying them, can no longer be reported under NSW legislative restrictions, even though it may well have been plastered across newspapers and television news during any prior police search.

That is the case even where the child is no longer living.

This results in an absurd situation in which a deceased child cannot be identified by the media in public interest reporting once charges have been laid, even where they had been broadly identified before charges were laid.

NSW’s laws against identifying children involved in criminal proceedings go further than any other Australian state or territory.

It is the only state that expressly restricts publication of identifying material regarding deceased children and extends beyond child witnesses to children who are somehow connected to the proceeding but themselves have had no involvement at all.

In the case of <redacted>, a senior family member gave the media permission to identify her.

Full article here: Time absurd law in NSW is brought into line with other states

I think Qld is the same, or used to be like this.

 

[JBowie]

It seems NSW police have learned from cases like WT's that they need to involve homicide from the outset:

“Obviously we start off these searches with a lot of hope, but unfortunately, we always have in the back of our minds the worst,” the commissioner said.

“That’s why lessons from previous investigations have taught us that we don’t just need to conduct a missing person search but also in parallel to that an investigative search which revealed rewards last night.”

9 year old’s death: Defendant allegedly attempted a cover-up, with 100kg of sand and an empty barrel

 

[stormbird]

It seems NSW police have learned from cases like WT's that they need to involve homicide from the outset:

“Obviously we start off these searches with a lot of hope, but unfortunately, we always have in the back of our minds the worst,” the commissioner said.

“That’s why lessons from previous investigations have taught us that we don’t just need to conduct a missing person search but also in parallel to that an investigative search which revealed rewards last night.”

9 year old’s death: Defendant allegedly attempted a cover-up, with 100kg of sand and an empty barrel

But in William's case the police did conduct a parallel investigation, from the first day:

Superintendent Paul Fehon talking to Ray Hadley on radio 2GB, 16 Sep 2014 (four days after William went missing):

(from 01:45)
Ray: So, the fact that you can't pick up a scent from the front gate* in any direction towards the bush is obviously a concern. Is that why you moved to the next stage, of your investigators tracking down known sex offenders in the area and see where they were on Friday?

Paul: Look, the open-mindedness of an investigation into a missing child - from day ONE we looked at that, and we've continued throughout to go through deductions in ensuring that any single clue, or any possible... um, the thought of what may have happened to young William - that we go through and we thoroughly investigate it and we ensure that we've covered it.

- transcribed by me from: Ray Hadley: Desperate search for missing boy, 2GB, 16 Sep 2014

*Just to correct this in passing: there wasn't a front gate, or not according to any MSM images I've seen.

 

[JBowie]

But in William's case the police did conduct a parallel investigation, from the first day:

The article I quoted refers to homicide detectives being involved from the outset. In the Tyrrell case, homicide's Strike Force Rosann was not established until 16 September 2014, four days after WT was reported missing.

 

[JBowie]

More on NSW law regarding the prohibition on naming young victims in child homicide cases, this time from Richard Coleman -- an editorial legal adviser to Fairfax Media from 1993 to 2017:

Overzealous media gag a flawed quirk of NSW law

If William Tyrrell’s abductor was arrested and charged today, the Herald would not be able to report that fact.

It could tell its readers only that a person had been charged with the abduction and murder of a three-year-old boy. It might get away with saying the crime is alleged to have taken place in 2014. At a stretch, it could say the boy was abducted from a house in Kendall. But it would not be able to publish William Tyrrell’s name or include any details that might enable its readers to identify him.

No mention of the Spider-Man suit, the foster grandmother’s house or any details of the successive police investigations of his disappearance over the last seven years. And no photos. This is because, under a bizarre NSW law, it is an offence to name or identify young victims in child homicide cases.

The fact that Herald readers would be well familiar with the harrowing details of William’s disappearance from the scores of stories about it published since September 2014 is neither here nor there. Once criminal charges are laid, the shutters come down.

Flout that prohibition and the publishing company could be up for a $55,000 fine and the journalists involved for a $5,500 fine each or two years’ porridge or both.

This law, well intentioned but overzealous, is unique to NSW. There is nothing else like it in any other state or territory in Australia. In fact, publishers in other states could name William with impunity in any report of the charging of his abductor and run photos of him, as long as their publications did not enter NSW.

Full article: Overzealous media gag a flawed quirk of NSW law