Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #69

[JLZ]

but wasnt she initially removed from them because of bruising from an alleged assault?

The assault could be one thing that prompted an investigation, questioning of the child's teachers and so on, and then those people remembered noticing bruising in the past. I suggest the bruising is not contemporaneous with the assault. The assault might not have been physical since the charge is common assault. (However I suspect the assault was physical or had a physical element because police aren't easily motivated.)

The stalking/intimidation charge is more serious--potentially higher penalty.

 

[Couldbe]

I am not sure that the 'stalking' was about getting her to retract statements.

This was a child they had raised since she was a tiny infant. Suddenly she was removed from their care.

I know I would have probably wanted to go and see the baby I had raised, and see how she was doing---it was a dumb thing to do, but I can see how it might happen.


ETA: I just now saw the portion of the article that said they are accused of threatening her harm. I want to see what that was, if that is correct--it doesn't ring true to me---but if it is, then I will be surprised and think less of them for sure.

Extracted from this quoted post:
"I know I would have probably wanted to go and see the baby I had raised, and see how she was doing---it was a dumb thing to do, but I can see how it might happen." BBM
JMO As with all of us 'not being above the law', FFC could have avoided these charges by complying with the Law.
Should you be labelled a ‘criminal’ if you didn’t know you were breaking the law? | NSW Courts

 

[FromGermany1]

dbm, because double post

 

[Memento Mori]

I am sorry, but I am not seeing what part of "I went walking through" means that she started to walk through and changed her mind.

“I went walking through, went on top of that grassy knoll.
“I got into the bush and I thought I can’t see any red.

The reeds and long grass are before the bush in the area she is speaking of. She would have to walk through them to achieve 'I got into the bush'. imo

View attachment 340240
Google Maps

I am happy to agree to disagree on this matter.

I have never heard anyone use the language "grassy knoll" outside of the JFK 'assassination'. Peculiar choice of words.

There's roughly 95 conspiracy theories about JFK - probably as many for what happened to WT. Only one version of events can be true.

 

[FromGermany1]

So, I'm wondering, (if there is a reason) why the FM was publicised as a POI on day 2 of the latest search. Is that relevant? Were the police going to do these searches based on boxes that needed to be ticked for the coroner, or was something found on day 2 to tie the FFC's statement to that precise location. I imagine while they were digging on the 1st day, someone coming forward and saying they saw the car being driven down Batar Creek road before 9.37am, or finding WT's sandals in the vicinity of where the FFC said she drove to, so throwing them out the car window? But something that places her in the frame and refutes an explanation for a piece of evidence that is crucial to the case.
Wild guessing now.

Afaik, 4 days after FFC made a statement, the search started. The statement (wrong or suspious) seems to have been the reason for the search.

ETA: The renewed search began on November 15, with investigators saying the aim was to find a body.
As the search got under way, it emerged that police had narrowed their focus to one person of interest.
Search for William Tyrrell remains to end

 

[Monsoon]

Wasn't it by her own admission (in FFC walkthrough video) that she was seen by a truck driver who thought that she had pulled over to let him pass, but she had actually pulled over with her head out of the window looking for William.

Yes but did this truck driver ever come forward?

 

[k-mac]

iiiii's - So, I'm wondering, (if there is a reason) why the FM was publicised as a POI on day 2 of the latest search.


Do you think she was named as POI on day 2 - because they had just impounded the FGran car to search it and wanted any information from public that someone saw a person driving that particular car. To infer possibly a female was driving this car, due to being unable to identify the person visually due to suppression orders.

I was just going to mention the impoundment of Grandmas car.
IMO they have something of magnitude on FFC and that is what trigued this latest search.
The announcement publically about her was strategic pressure building, my guess.

Things moved along rather quickly after the removal of Williams sister.

Co-incidence?

Their behaviour and subsequent charges following all this is very very ugly.

Strikeforce Rosann is picking up speed.

moo

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes but did this truck driver ever come forward?

Potentially, I think they might have located the truck driver. Though we don't have any confirmation of whether they did or not.
But we have heard they located people who had various sightings of various things that may or may not have been involved.


Eg:
One driver who was pulled over at the police road block on Friday told officers about a black Camry that a truck driver had noticed in the area several times last Friday.
It is believed the information had already been canvassed by police and discounted.
Police stop drivers in Kendall as search for William Tyrell, 3, turns up nothing

(FGM had a Mazda 3, I had to check to make sure the Camry wasn't her car.)

 

[Doesitmakesense]

IMO I honestly can't make any progress in my thought process regarding this case. All the suppressions afforded to the FCs makes it very difficult to be conclusive. On one hand the secrecy makes me think it's all very suspicious and think the worst case, but then knowing its not a choice they made themselves (or maybe then can request to lift it, clarification needed). I just think not knowing specifics of all new charges and reasons behind LE motives for current actions it makes it very difficult

 

[Couldbe]

Potentially, I think they might have located the truck driver. Though we don't have any confirmation of whether they did or not.
But we have heard they located people who had various sightings of various things that may or may not have been involved.


Eg:
One driver who was pulled over at the police road block on Friday told officers about a black Camry that a truck driver had noticed in the area several times last Friday.
It is believed the information had already been canvassed by police and discounted.
Police stop drivers in Kendall as search for William Tyrell, 3, turns up nothing

(FGM had a Mazda 3, I had to check to make sure the Camry wasn't her car.)

Extracted from quoted poster and BBM:
"Potentially, I think they might have located the truck driver. Though we don't have any confirmation of whether they did or not.
But we have heard they located people who had various sightings of various things that may or may not have been involved."
JMO Because that encounter may not have been witnessed by anyone, it could be included in the same category as the two vehicles FFC has said that she had seen parked across the road from FFGM's house....no witnesses to their existence.

 

[JBowie]

JMO As with all of us 'not being above the law', FFC could have avoided these charges by complying with the Law.

As I understand it, the stalking charges followed the assault charges and associated AVO application. One would think that being charged with assault would be sufficient detriment to a normal thinking person to avoid making things worse for themself by actions that flew in the face of their legal situation, and especially if they want to stay out of the media.

 

[SouthAussie]

As I understand it, the stalking charges followed the assault charges and associated AVO application. One would think that being charged with assault would be sufficient detriment to a normal thinking person to avoid making things worse for themself by actions that flew in the face of their legal situation, and especially if they want to stay out of the media.

It is still confusing why the stalking and intimidation doesn't constitute a breach of the AVO, if the stalking and intimidation is against the same minor child and/or the minor child's 'household'.


However, section 36 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 states that every AVO must contain the three following conditions that prohibit the defendant from:

1. Assaulting, threatening, molesting, harassing, or interfering with the protected person;
2. Stalking or threatening the protected person; and
3. Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging any property belonging to the protected person.

Apprehended Violence Orders in New South Wales

 

[Doesitmakesense]

It is still confusing why the stalking and intimidation doesn't constitute a breach of the AVO, if the stalking and intimidation is against the same minor child and/or the minor child's 'household'.

If it's not the same child or household them IMO that opens a whole other can of worms to what are they thinking and what's going on

 

[JBowie]

It is still confusing why the stalking and intimidation doesn't constitute a breach of the AVO, if the stalking and intimidation is against the same minor child and/or her 'household'.

Yes, if an AVO is breached then we would expect that to be the charge. Confusion reigns until these matters are aired in court -- assuming they are open hearings.

 

[SleepyJoe]

It is still confusing why the stalking and intimidation doesn't constitute a breach of the AVO, if the stalking and intimidation is against the same minor child and/or the minor child's 'household'.

Perhaps NSW Police had 2 options to charge them with:
1. Breaching AVO
2. Stalking and intimidation
They chose to go with number 2, which carries a higher penalty and therefore they don't need to charge them with 1 as well. Or perhaps they have been charged with 1 and 2 but the media has only reported 2 as it is a more serious/salacious charge.

 

[Awakening]

It is still confusing why the stalking and intimidation doesn't constitute a breach of the AVO, if the stalking and intimidation is against the same minor child and/or the minor child's 'household'.


However, section 36 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 states that every AVO must contain the three following conditions that prohibit the defendant from:

1. Assaulting, threatening, molesting, harassing, or interfering with the protected person;
2. Stalking or threatening the protected person; and
3. Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging any property belonging to the protected person.

Apprehended Violence Orders in New South Wales

I'm wondering if there is a charge for breach of the AVO, but we the public just don't know about it yet.

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm wondering if there is a charge for breach of the AVO, but we the public just don't know about it yet.

Maybe. Though that would seem to go against the high publicity around the charges.

 

[JBowie]

I'm wondering if there is a charge for breach of the AVO, but we the public just don't know about it yet.

I guess that's possible, given that the media is reporting/rehashing police media releases that I cannot find myself. I'd like the opportunity to read what the police say without media spin.

 

[Awakening]

Maybe. Though that would seem to go against the high publicity around the charges.

Might be the next DM headline "William Tyrrell's foster parents CHARGED with BREACHING AVO"

They seem to pace out these charges? To maximise the pressure maybe?

I wonder when all these things are alleged to have happened? Was it all in the space of a week, a month, 6 months.

Before anyone comes at me, I'm not downplaying the seriousness of the charges but knowing if it all happened in a week vs 6 months would be very telling IMO.

A week could be indicative of a mental breakdown whereas 6 months is ample time to correct your behaviour.

 

[SouthAussie]

Perhaps NSW Police had 2 options to charge them with:
1. Breaching AVO
2. Stalking and intimidation
They chose to go with number 2, which carries a higher penalty and therefore they don't need to charge them with 1 as well. Or perhaps they have been charged with 1 and 2 but the media has only reported 2 as it is a more serious/salacious charge.

Apparently, #2 only carries a higher penalty if it is tried in a court other than a local court.
I think these charges are being tried in local court (Hornsby).


Stalk or Intimidate
The maximum penalty for committing such an offence is imprisonment for five years or a fine of $5500, or both. However, if dealt with in the Local Court, the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
Stalk or Intimidate - Streeton Lawyers

Breach of an AVO
If the court finds you guilty then you may be fined up to $5,500 or imprisoned for two years.
Breach of an AVO in New South Wales

His foster mother remains on bail and is expected to face Hornsby Local Court on April 29.
William Tyrrell's foster mother charged with stalking, intimidation