Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #68

[Couldbe]

I am starting to wonder whether the police actually expected to find William’s remains during the searches at the former FFC's mother's house and the bushland beside Batar Creek Rd at all? It's a horrible thought but perhaps this was a strategic search to thoroughly satisfy the Coroner that William was not in any of these places and hence they could request a search warrant for the former foster carers' previous home (ie the one they lived in when William disappeared and which they did extensive renovations to in the months following his disappearance)? MOO and just trying to understand the actions of the NSWPOL. Although, that said, perhaps it was more the case that they were simply looking for something which was allegedly thrown out a car window (like clothes, shoes or, heaven forbid, a weapon etc) as was reported in the Daily Mail last year. JMO.
William Tyrrell: Police dig up Kendall riding school site in search for missing boy | Daily Mail Online

It could very well be that LE had to 'leave no stone unturned' and by process of elimination are still investigating every possibility they deem necessary.
I notice in your Media link that William is not wearing a helmet; I wonder if a helmet would have been helpful.

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

It could very well be that LE had to 'leave no stone unturned' and by process of elimination are still investigating every possibility they deem necessary.
I notice in your Media link that William is not wearing a helmet; I wonder if a helmet would have been helpful.

You would hope the FFC encouraged the kids to wear helmets, and kept their bikes in good working order.

 

[Couldbe]

You would hope the FFC encouraged the kids to wear helmets, and kept their bikes in good working order.

I have just noticed that the photo of William on his bike (William Tyrrell: Police dig up Kendall riding school site in search for missing boy | Daily Mail Online) is a NSW Police photograph, so they must have focussed on it.
As for the 'good working order', I imagine that the fact that William is supposed to have crashed into FFGM's garden on purpose (as stated by FFC) would surely have been examined by LE, because I wonder about this little boy doing that on purpose.....what would he derive from that?

 

[SleepyJoe]

I've just done a Web search to see if PS put in a new pool after William disappeared but couldn't find anything. Pools are very expensive and PS was an elderly retiree. I wonder why he would want a pool?

 

[CocoChanel]

ADMIN NOTE:

Thread is temporarily closed to stop the continued bickering and other TOS violations, and to allow the clean up to catch up.

Please know that IF YOU QUOTE AND REPLY TO A POST THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF TOS, YOUR POST WILL BE REMOVED ALSO. At this point, every member should be very familiar with the TOS and for the most part, be able to recognize a violation if you see it. REPORT a violation instead of replying to it. When you respond to it to argue with it, you are only spreading the violation further, and every post that leads back to the violation must be removed as well.

We don’t ever want to close a thread, and only do so to stop the flood of posts that will need to be removed.

Words to the wise:
- It IS possible, and RECOMMENDED at times, to hold an UNexpressed thought or point. Posting in conflict and arguing endlessly does not help advance this discussion.

- A healthy and authentic opinion is welcome, IF you clearly state it is an OPINION.

- Anytime you specifically address another member by quoting their post, using pronouns “you” and “I”…..AND the point of your reply is to challenge and call them out on the thread, it can be considered personalizing and bickering, which are violations of TOS.

THREAD HAS NOW REOPENED.
It is the responsibility of ALL members to keep it that way.

 

[JLZ]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Today’s evidence is that a neighbour, Paul Savage, had a drained, dry-floor, tin-roof covered, empty pool on his property the day William Tyrrell went missing. https://www..au/william-tyrrell-inquest-news-2/

On Six Maps it looks like a normal, apparently fenced pool possibly wearing a pool cover. On Google Maps satellite view, it's a poor image but I can't see the pool. While I'm unsure of the dates of either image, the Six Maps view with the pool is evidently older than the Google Maps image, because the block to the north opposite FGM's is tree-covered on Six Maps but cleared and built on on Google Maps.

I tentatively infer that PS replaced an old pool pit with a functioning pool and then removed it altogether. Open to correction. Maybe the blue oval thing on Six Maps isn't a pool at all and the square immediately south of it is the tin-covered pit.

I've known lots of old people who liked to swim and bathe. I don't think the appeal of a pool is age-related--only sometimes the maintenance gets a bit much.

 

[asyousay]

Tyrrell strike force police now say he is 'lying about something we can prove

So the question is why are both FP lying at this junction?


If the charges are correct

 

[FromGermany1]

That's true, yes. I wonder how he could have been looking up at her face at that angle while she was also physically taking the picture (the camera was much lower and down to the side)? Unless she has a go-go gadget arm or had the camera on a long stick that she was holding down at her side? Otherwise, IMO, it would have been quite difficult to achieve. I also wonder why she felt the need to explain the odd angle of the photo in the 2015 60 Minutes interview with Michael Usher when he hadn't asked her about it. This struck me as unusual. All MOO of course!

bbm
^^ This! My thoughts as well.

Btw, I wonder, if anybody saw a reflection of 1, 2 or 3 people (?? Idk) in the window opposite to the photographer? I don't remember to have seen a window, but I found it very interesting to read, because we never heard of any "people" being around that morning (only FGM, FFC, MFC, sister, little W).

 

[JLZ]

bbm
^^ This! My thoughts as well.

Btw, I wonder, if anybody saw a reflection of 1, 2 or 3 people (?? Idk) in the window opposite to the photographer? I don't remember to have seen a window, but I found it very interesting to read, because we never heard of any "people" being around that morning (only FGM, FFC, MFC, sister, little W).

A clear image with the window is in this article which I can't access. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/su...c-cold-control-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append From the preview on Google image search I don't see any figures reflected.

 

[SouthAussie]

<SBM>
The FC’s were supported and protected by FAC’s and Jubelin.

And Hans Rupp. And the Supreme Court. And the Coroners Court.

Two former lead investigators had cleared them.
Three legal entities have suppressed their identities.

 

[SouthAussie]

And we now hear that the photo/camera metadata has been confirmed to show that William was alive, well, and happy at 9:37am.

And we now hear that no evidence of William has been found during the Nov 2021 search.

We also know that FM was (independently) seen at 10:40am, walking the street and searching for William.

And that the police were called at 10:56am, with the first officer arriving at 11:06am.

And that Laura Beacroft thinks that William disappeared between 10:05 and 10:20am.

Just not seeing adequate time for a domestic death and a cover up. imo




William Tyrrell's foster-mother charged with giving false information to Crime Commission

https://www.news.com.au/national/co...e/news-story/219eb525eb0e76070785485909574131

 

[asyousay]

And we now hear that the photo/camera metadata has been confirmed to show that William was alive, well, and happy at 9:37am.

And we now hear that no evidence of William has been found during the Nov 2021 search.

We also know that FM was (independently) seen at 10:40am, walking the street and searching for William.

And that the police were called at 10:56am, with the first officer arriving at 11:06am.

And that Laura Beacroft thinks that William disappeared between 10:05 and 10:20am.

Just not seeing adequate time for a death and a cover up. imo


View attachment 340055

William Tyrrell's foster-mother charged with giving false information to Crime Commission

https://www.news.com.au/national/co...e/news-story/219eb525eb0e76070785485909574131

Innocent people don’t lie though and the charges brought against both FP is alarming and raises questions.


I don’t pretend to know what happened but there are many questions that need answering since they have been charged with crimes and a child was taken away from them and one vanished in their care.


MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

Innocent people don’t lie though and the charges brought against both FP is alarming and raises questions.


I don’t pretend to know what happened but there are many questions that need answering since they have been charged with crimes and a child was taken away from them and one vanished in their care.


MOO

Well, I am going to wait and see what these alleged "lying" charges are about.

There is definitely some confusion (from the media articles) about what they might relate to.

Nothing stacks up - as far as I can see - that there was enough time for a domestic death and a coverup that was so good that it has lasted all these years. imo

 

[asyousay]

Well, I am going to wait and see what these alleged "lying" charges are about.

There is definitely some confusion (from the media articles) about what they might relate to.

Nothing stacks up - as far as I can see - that there was enough time for a domestic death and a coverup that was so good that it has lasted all these years. imo

Well LE clearly think there was enough time.


Hopefully there can be a break in the case this year as William deserves justice and so does his family.

 

[Akai]

I can't imagine that the alleged lie is something innocuous or reasonably interpretable, just to put pressure on them. This investigation already has issues with overstepping due to what happened with Jubelin so I'd imagine they would be careful at this point.

I also tend to believe that it is not going to be an alleged lie by omission, as in they just didn't mention something, but rather an alleged active lie.

It would seemingly have to be something about which the police have genuine conflicting evidence. There's not a lot to work with on that because most of what happened that day is only known by the two people with the charges. While it is theoretically possible that William's sister said something, I'm going to discount that as leading to these charges. It would be difficult to rely on a child who changed their story in this instance and I don't see police putting her under that pressure to potentially testify against her FPs on what are much smaller charges in the big scheme of this situation given what she is apparently going through as well. I think anything she said would be used for investigative purposes only.

I don't think it will be FF movements that day as he's not a POI (and they were checked, but it could be argued that they missed something initially).

It's something that would have been discussed with both of them, and they both allegedly lied about.

It could be only tangentially related to the disappearance itself, as in, not directly related to what happened, but part of the broader situation.

I realise this all sounds as though I'm leading to something specific, but I'm stumped. I've thought perhaps the black eye that William apparently got from falling into some furniture? The photo seems the most likely prospect for me, and I'm going to reserve judgement on the timing being confirmed until I hear that sourced and explained. Still trying to come up with other things.

 

[k-mac]

Well LE clearly think there was enough time.


Hopefully there can be a break in the case this year as William deserves justice and so does his family.

These charges are not fluffy.
Something's blowing in the wind

Justice for william.

 

[JLZ]

Did FGM have a licence at the time? Was she under any external restriction as to driving?

I was just thinking . . . I wonder if it was FGM who went for the drive, just looking for William, worried about Batar Creek Road, while FFC was still searching the house and close to home. And it wasn't legal for her to be driving. That's a hypothesis, don't ask me for a link. Then FFC got the idea that police knew about FGM driving and decided to say that it was she, FFC, who took the drive. This would explain the inconsistency in FFC's statements and the difficulty of fitting the drive into the tight timeline. Perhaps FFC later confessed to the lie in a document for the coroner, and that's why she wasn't grilled on the subject at the inquest.

 

[Akai]

Did FGM have a licence at the time? Was she under any external restriction as to driving?

I was just thinking . . . I wonder if it was FGM who went for the drive, just looking for William, worried about Batar Creek Road, while FFC was still searching the house and close to home. And it wasn't legal for her to be driving. That's a hypothesis, don't ask me for a link. Then FFC got the idea that police knew about FGM driving and decided to say that it was she, FFC, who took the drive. This would explain the inconsistency in FFC's statements and the difficulty of fitting the drive into the tight timeline. Perhaps FFC later confessed to the lie in a document for the coroner, and that's why she wasn't grilled on the subject at the inquest.

That's an interesting theory. Not saying it's correct, but I'm impressed you have come up with something that fits all the boxes I've been trying to cover.

Only thing I would say is that she wouldn't have confessed the lie at any stage because if she had she wouldn't have been charged. As far as I understand it, the charges relate to the NSW Crime Commission, which was after the inquest, so if she'd rectified it prior there would have been no reason for her to lie at the NSW Crime Commission.

ETA: A variation on this. What if nobody went for a drive, and they have been able to prove that since seizing the car? I have no idea why she would say she did that if she didn't because it actually looked quite suspicious, but I haven't thought it through that far yet.

 

[JLZ]

That's an interesting theory. Not saying it's correct, but I'm impressed you have come up with something that fits all the boxes I've been trying to cover.

Only thing I would say is that she wouldn't have confessed the lie at any stage because if she had she wouldn't have been charged. As far as I understand it, the charges relate to the NSW Crime Commission, which was after the inquest, so if she'd rectified it prior there would have been no reason for her to lie at the NSW Crime Commission.

ETA: A variation on this. What if nobody went for a drive, and they have been able to prove that since seizing the car? I have no idea why she would say she did that if she didn't because it actually looked quite suspicious, but I haven't thought it through that far yet.

Your ETA, yes, if the three cars FFC said she saw were some kind of traumatic delusion, why not the drive as well?

On the crime commission charges, like SA I'll wait and see. A lot of things are involved in proving a lie, including the fact of the matter, and that the accused was not merely mistaken, and that the accused intended to mislead.

 

[Akai]

Well, I am going to wait and see what these alleged "lying" charges are about.

There is definitely some confusion (from the media articles) about what they might relate to.

Nothing stacks up - as far as I can see - that there was enough time for a domestic death and a coverup that was so good that it has lasted all these years. imo

No theory about this case stacks up for me.

If we go with abduction then we have a scenario where someone who was inclined to take a child just happened to be in the area at the right time. This, I can see. But it still has some unlikely elements to it because this is a cul-de-sac in a suburban country area. More significantly, however, we have the fact that FM says William was only out of her sight for about 5 minutes, maybe less. Kids can move quickly, but in my view that leaves him within viewing distance of the house and other houses in a fairly open area. Would a child sex offender who was not there for the purpose of nabbing William, take the risk of grabbing him when the parents could have actually seen him or anyone else could? Was there even time for it to happen - for the urge to be developed, for an instinctive plan to develop, for him to take William and be out of the area before FM saw him? I just simply can't see that happening.

If it's two people, how did they collude in this time?

I understand why Jubelin/the investigation became obsessed with the neighbour and washing machine repair guy (I know their names; I'm not going to use them because I think that's unfair). I don't agree with it, mind you. But it makes more sense that it was someone who had a specific reason to be there and was comfortable in the street because that does away with having so much being left to chance - better means and opportunity. I cannot imagine there is someone else who fits this category who wouldn't be a POI. So, given that is not an option, we go back to the random scenario.

The only way I can make a random scenario fit is if William was actually out of FM's sight for longer than she has said, whether because she simply doesn't have a clear idea of time or because she was worried about the consequences of saying he was gone for, say, 20 minutes. This gives him time to get much further away, perhaps where it is obvious he is not near his family, and somewhere less visible. It also gives a bit more time for someone to make the decision to take him.

I can understand the initial commentary that it was only 5 minutes, but I have never understood zealously sticking to it, whatever the original reason. If it was me, I'd be saying, "Look it could have been longer" even if I didn't think it was longer just to broaden the options of what may have happened, and because I would never trust that I could be so accurate about the time under those circumstances. To me the difference between 5 and even 15 minutes is significant here. That is not, BTW, a suggestion of guilt about anything.