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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
nightrider17 said:
"the couple held a fire sale of children's bikes, car seats, prams, furniture and industrial equipment with items ranging between $5 and several thousand."

I don't understand why some of these items they held onto for so long - prams? etc obviously had no one to gift these items to before now. I understand selling items but they would be worth more if sold earlier being a non current model. Just wondering why they were kept.
Click to expand...

Maybe these items weren't the FP's. Perhaps they were selling on behalf of someone else or from a deceased estate.
 
Last edited:
Awakening said:
Ah! I googled divorce, break up, ex husband etc but not estranged!
Click to expand...

It’s certainly confusing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the relationship had broken down due to the stress. If they did have something to with William’s disappearance, it may well be that that the allegations/evidence has led to a deep mistrust between them, in the event one has been unaware of the others actions. Just speculating.

As an aside, the ‘fire sale’ could just be a clear out. At this stage, they are highly unlikely to foster again, whether that has been their decision or not. Foster Carers I work with tend to have lots of equipment for the age range of children they care for as they don’t tend to come into care with their pram or toys. Carers here have support groups and do often pass equipment between them to reduce costs though.
 
I was reading this Australian article about the FP court proceedings yesterday.

The prosecutor said that it will be about 6 weeks before 'outstanding statements would be finalised'.

Not sure what that means, other than perhaps they have not yet received/sought official statements from some of their 8-10 witnesses, or perhaps the victim statement is not complete for some reason.

Just thought I would mention this, as it seems that the actual 2-day trial will need to commence sometime after this 6-week statement finalising exercise.

Delay as Tyrrell foster parents proceed to trial

I read in another article yesterday that it would be appropriate to try the FP together, so presumably the alleged assault and stalking incidents somehow involve both of them.
 
Last edited:
nightrider17 said:
Maybe the stalking incident and witnesses are tied to the child's school.
Click to expand...

Maybe they went to a sporting event the minor child participated in, in the hopes of seeing the child. If the child plays a team sport, or if it was school sports day.

Could that maybe constitute stalking, but not a breach of the AVO if they maintained a good distance from the child?

The articles all say that the details are under suppression, so I wonder if we will ever know.
 
Last edited:
SouthAussie said:
Maybe they went to a sporting event the minor child participated in, in the hopes of seeing the child. If the child plays a team sport, or if it was school sports day.

Could that maybe constitute stalking, but not a breach of the AVO if they maintained a good distance from the child?

The articles all say that the details are under suppression, so I wonder if we will ever know.
Click to expand...
an AVO means stay away.


If thats the case it shows they think they are above the law.
What else are they above the law?o_O
 
k-mac said:
an AVO means stay away.
Click to expand...

.
No, it actually doesn't.


"The mandatory orders don’t prohibit contact between you and the protect person. If an AVO is made against you with the mandatory orders only, you can be in a relationship with or live with the protected person."

https://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pa...g_avo/lawassist_mandatory_additional_def.aspx


Any additional conditions may include distance (and/or other) requirements. Which is explained at the link I have provided.

Maybe you are thinking of a Restraining Order (which hasn't been made against them, as far as we know).
Although, Restraining Orders do usually have a mandatory distance requirement, I think. So a person can go to the same shopping centre, and still maintain the req'd distance.
.
 
Last edited:
Inplainsight said:
His story had to be told IMO - in case any other person supported his testimony.

HS was driving to Bingo that day, we know she was undergoing treatment for cancer - so she may have been wearing a wig or head covering at the time. Not all cancer treatments induce hair loss - so this is speculative on my part.

I have not seen a photo of HS - or found a msm article which states which car she drove to bingo that day.

In the GJ trial, PS complained that there was residue on his car that would not come off ( from forensic testing). Given that PS was under intense scrutiny for some time - I think that both cars owned by PS and HS would have been tested by LE.

Could this have been HS driving PS's car to bingo?
Click to expand...

Thanks to @drsleuth for confirming that PS's car was a White Mitsubishi Pajero.

The Guardian says the car RC saw was a white Toyota Landcruiser. By RC's own testimony- he is not good with car makes and models - so this type of vehicle shape and size should be considered.

'I'm sure it was William Tyrrell': witness tells inquest he saw missing boy in car

Other media reports state RC saw a fawn or light brown Toyota Landcruiser. (Lia Harris via twitter). Which is correct ?
 
SouthAussie said:
.
No, it actually doesn't.


"The mandatory orders don’t prohibit contact between you and the protect person. If an AVO is made against you with the mandatory orders only, you can be in a relationship with or live with the protected person."

https://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pa...g_avo/lawassist_mandatory_additional_def.aspx


Any additional conditions may include distance (and/or other) requirements. Which is explained at the link I have provided.

Maybe you are thinking of a Restraining Order (which hasn't been made against them, as far as we know).
Although, Restraining Orders do usually have a mandatory distance requirement, I think. So a person can go to the same shopping centre, and still maintain the req'd distance.
.
Click to expand...

They know they are supposed to stay away from her.

The seriousness of breaching this AVO shouldnt be lost in legalalities of AVO'S vs's Restraining orders.

With stalking and intimidating a child charges coming your way......tom-atoes tom-aaatoes....

This arguement for them wanting to see her....like its ok....deminishes and downplays the reality fear and suffering this child is going through at this time. IMO.

moo
 
Last edited:
k-mac said:
The seriousness of breaching this AVO shouldnt be lost in legalalities of AVO'S vs's Restraining orders.
Click to expand...

The point being, they have not been charged with breaching the AVO.

Nobody is diminishing or downplaying anything. Some of us are just trying to work out what may have happened that spurred stalking and intimidation charges, but didn't breach the AVO.

Happy to hear any theories that others may have which could involve the said charges, without breaching the AVO.

Like, perhaps, the stalking and intimidation happened prior to the AVO being issued. (But was charged afterwards.)
If that is somehow possible, considering it is a minor child who was in their care for the past 11 years or so.
.
 
Last edited:
SouthAussie said:
Nobody is diminishing or downplaying anything. Some of us are just trying to work out what may have happened that spurred stalking and intimidation charges, but didn't breach the AVO.

.
Click to expand...
sbmff.
Yoor post 809 "Maybe they went to a sporting event the minor child participated in, in the hopes of seeing the child. If the child plays a team sport, or if it was school sports day."

my post813 This arguement for them wanting to see her....like its ok....deminishes and downplays the reality fear and suffering this child is going through at this time. IMO.

This is not ok. They don't have the right to do this.
It is downplaying the seriousness of the situation.

The child was removed as abuse allegations came their way.
'HOPES TO SEE THE CHILD" post all of this are very inappropriate when the child is frightened of them as the subsequent charges show.

moo
 
k-mac said:
sbmff.
Yoor post 809 "Maybe they went to a sporting event the minor child participated in, in the hopes of seeing the child. If the child plays a team sport, or if it was school sports day."

my post813 This arguement for them wanting to see her....like its ok....deminishes and downplays the reality fear and suffering this child is going through at this time. IMO.

This is not ok. They don't have the right to do this.
It is downplaying the seriousness of the situation.

The child was removed as abuse allegations came their way.
'HOPES TO SEE THE CHILD" post all of this are very inappropriate when the child is frightened of them as the subsequent charges show.

moo
Click to expand...

She is literally saying what could possibly have happened and what the fosters may have been thinking. They raised her from a very young age and would consider her their daughter and would likely be missing her terribly. We still don’t know the details of the charges. They certainly do not show the feelings of the child. We cannot assume she is frightened or even doesn’t want to see them without hearing directly from her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 111 more.
Total: 3,766 (members: 112, guests: 3,654)

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
3,654
Total visitors
3,766
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,557
Messages
18,173,419
Members
232,671
Latest member
Jewels2U
Back
Top