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

[JLZ]

Do we know what script FMFC had to get filled during his trip for the call that fateful morning

We don't. I was under the impression it was for himself. Police would know exactly, from pharmacy records.

 

[Couldbe]

William went missing whilst under the FPs care and I'd hate to think of the psychological impact (this alone) will have on LT, but regardless of this, they still played a parenting role with both children. Therefore, I don't get the back and forth banter over their classification, as this can't be disputed despite anyone's opinions on the FM and FF.
I agree there is enough to raise suspicion on the behaviour of FM in interviews but it doesn't exactly prove anything.
If I'm honest the time it occurred has always been the most perplexing thing to me and I've always thought she's hiding something. But then add in the fact her identity has been concealed (for whatever reasons) and it could easily explain how this plays a large factor in the public forming perceptions on her.
It's all bizarre to me, as I understand the necessity behind it (from a legal perspective) yet also the rationale of those who suspect a more sinister role from her (in him vanishing, at that specific time).

There's some great discussion content for debate on here and very respectful people but lately I've noticed that some are throwing in unnecessary speculation - that is not only irrelevant to the case, but disrespectful of young William.
He was a three year old child with medical conditions and it's sad to see one photograph of him being dissected to bits to say he looked neglected and taken as confirmation, of this. I am personally thinking there's something more we're not being told by the FM however there's no doubt in my mind (from looking at that photo) he looked normal and that they provided a protective, nurturing environment for him.
FACs/DOCs and the intiital police investigation have royally messed a lot up in this case but it's hard to read some remarks about William's appearance when everyone has knowledge of his asthma and other disorders.
If I am overstepping the mark with my comments, I apologise, as I also don't wish to tread on anyone's toes or offend other members.

I think this is quite a thorough summation of various angles that posters have adopted in discussing what has prompted their suspicions, and this has been reflected in their posts here.

In telling their story about William and his disappearance, the foster parents have tugged at people’s hearts.

Apparently at the beginning, LE cleared them both of any involvement; Gary Jubelin also cleared them again two years later.

Now five years later, the current team of LE investigators have told us that they have solid evidence and intelligence which has led them to investigate FFC as a POI.

If FFC is arrested and be committed to be tried, she is considered innocent until proven guilty.

In examining possibilities of what existed or may have occurred, and is relevant or irrelevant to the case, in my opinion is going to appear disrespectful to the foster parents.

In posting this, I am also adding: “If I am overstepping the mark with my comments, I apologise, as I also don't wish to tread on anyone's toes or offend other members.”

 

[Curiouskatz11]

In examining possibilities of what existed or may have occurred, and is relevant or irrelevant to the case, in my opinion is going to appear disrespectful to the foster parents.

This is a Websleuths forum, and its purpose is for exactly this kind of discussion! It’s not as if there is no basis for an examination of the claims of the foster parents.

 

[SouthAussie]

We don't. I was under the impression it was for himself. Police would know exactly, from pharmacy records.

I was under the impression it was for FGM. But I searched back through the threads yesterday and couldn't find where I got that impression.

I think we established that Lakewood had the closest chemist (to Kendall), and was likely where FGM had any of her prescriptions filled. She was said to be recovering from an illness.

But it is possible that the FF brought a prescription with them from Sydney and FD took it to Lakewood and waited around until it was ready.

 

[nightrider17]

Just considering what "Warshawski" touched on - the "narrative"

I guess if someone is sticking to a "narrative" - who is more likely to do this??

I explored the idea that a accident happened after the MFC left and the FFC covered it up and part of that possibility was on the back of the "narrative" from the FFC that the MFC had a strong bond with William.

But maybe the incident occurred involving the MFC and the reason why the truth has stayed hidden this long is the "narrative" from the FFC supporting her partner and that maybe its more likely that she can sustain this over a longer period. Just MOO

Just exploring a possiblity and questioning some beliefs that where suggested by the FFC that I just assumed where correct.

Like if I'm questioning when the cuppa tea happened - why not question was there a strong bond - because this information is all coming from the same person.

I would like to thank everyone's contributions here because sometimes your thought patterns get stuck on one angle and its the probing minds of others that stretch you to look at other angles it's so interesting to hear other peoples perspectives and how they arrived at that reasoning.

I think I'm back to FA as a POI. "eye rolls"

 

[Awakening]

Sorry if this has been discussed before ...

Apparently the foster parents were planning on adopting William and his sister. LT would be approx 12 y.o. now and would have a say in whether she wished to be adopted. Even if the fosters had only applied for "sole responsibility", it seems they would need the consent of a 12 y.o. child.

from: NSW - Out of Home Care Adoption

Who is required to give consent to adoption?
For children under the parental responsibility of the Minister, their individual family circumstances will determine whose consent is required.

The consent of the birth parents and the Minister is required when:

• the child is under 12 years of age, or
• the child (age 12-18) has been in the care of the prospective adoptive parents for less than 2 years, or
• the child (age 12-18) is deemed to not have sufficient maturity to give consent.

The consent of the child is required if the child is aged 12 years or over and is deemed to have sufficient maturity to give consent.


from: Foster carer legal rights and responsibilities

Sole parental responsibility

Authorised carers now have the option to apply for sole parental responsibility for children and young people who have been in their care for two years or more.

Under legislation proclaimed in March 2004, a sole parental responsibility order gives you most of the powers and responsibilities which, by law, parents have in relation to their children. You could make long-term decisions for the child or young person and decide for yourself about their best interests without the need to consult with the designated agency.

A sole parental responsibility order is a long term order intended to last until the child or young person is 18, and is aimed at increasing their sense of stability. The order requires the consent of the birth parents and the child or young person if they are over 12.

Regardless of what happens to the foster carers in this case, this needs to be seriously looked at IMO.

I can't understand why WT and LT were being considered for adoption given their biological parents involvement and desire to have their children back.

I know 2 lots of foster parents and know 2 different people who work for the equivalent of FACS in different states and none of them can understand it either.

Foster care in Australia is (meant to be) about reunification with the biological parents. It very rarely results in adoption and normally it's long term placement.

IMO, something has gone awry here and needs to be looked at.

 

[SouthAussie]

Regardless of what happens to the foster carers in this case, this needs to be seriously looked at IMO.

I can't understand why WT and LT were being considered for adoption given their biological parents involvement and desire to have their children back.

I know 2 lots of foster parents and know 2 different people who work for the equivalent of FACS in different states and none of them can understand it either.

Foster care in Australia is (meant to be) about reunification with the biological parents. It very rarely results in adoption and normally it's long term placement.

IMO, something has gone awry here and needs to be looked at.

A law was brought in, in NSW. It said that if foster children were to be considered long term foster placements, then they could be considered for adoption (I think after two years placement). It has been discussed in back-threads.

They brought in the law so that foster children are not in this perpetual state of limbo. Living here, living there, until their bio parents get their act together (if ever). So the children could have some security and permanency.

I think you can find the details under NSW Permanency Placement Principles.

Restoration to the bio parents is still the primary focus ... but they have put a time limit on the bio parents. Maybe to try to make them get serious about their life decisions.

 

[Curiouskatz11]

Like if I'm questioning when the cuppa tea happened - why not question was there a strong bond - because this information is all coming from the same person.

Interesting observation. Once one element of the narrative seems questionable, the rest can’t be taken at face value.

There was another person there, the FGM. I believe she was interviewed just once. I cannot understand why she was not more thoroughly questioned.

 

[Awakening]

A law was brought in, in NSW. It said that if foster children were to be considered long term foster placements, then they could be considered for adoption (I think after two years placement). It has been discussed in back-threads.

They brought in the law so that foster children are not in this perpetual state of limbo. Living here, living there, until their bio parents get their act together (if ever). So the children could have some security and permanency.

I think you can find the details under NSW Permanency Placement Principles.

Restoration to the bio parents is still the primary focus ... but they have put a time limit on the bio parents. Maybe to try to make them get serious about their life decisions.

I was aware of the law change but will have to look into it more. It still seems peculiar to me given how young these kids were and that the bios were still interested in their kids.

And I'm not just thinking about the children and bio parents, I'm thinking of future foster parents who think they are going to be able to adopt through the foster system.

But as SB pointed out, perhaps LT turning 12 prompted some of these recent events? Maybe she didn't want to be adopted and that caused tension in the house?

 

[Curiouskatz11]

I can't understand why WT and LT were being considered for adoption given their biological parents involvement and desire to have their children back.

I understand the BM has William’s siblings in her care. I don’t understand why it’s ok for her to raise those two, but not William and LT.

 

[SouthAussie]

I was aware of the law change but will have to look into it more. It still seems peculiar to me given how young these kids were and that the bios were still interested in their kids.

And I'm not just thinking about the children and bio parents, I'm thinking of future foster parents who think they are going to be able to adopt through the foster system.

But as SB pointed out, perhaps LT turning 12 prompted some of these recent events? Maybe she didn't want to be adopted and that caused tension in the house?

I doubt any adoption would have gone through until William's case was resolved. imo

Also, I think the law was brought in in 2018. It wasn't in existence when the FP took William (and then his sister) in.

Adoption without parental consent legalised in NSW

 

[Doesitmakesense]

I understand the BM has William’s siblings in her care. I don’t understand why it’s ok for her to raise those two, but not William and LT.

That's what I've never understood either. She still had the younger siblings in her care at the time of WT disappearance

 

[Monsoon]

A theory: all speculation only:

7.37 photo taken

fall from balcony

8 ish. MFC drives to hide body

8.50? MFC captured on tennis club camera, returns home

9? MFC leaves again for meeting/chemist

10.30 MFC returns home

10.30 FFC realises shoes still here - drives to hide them near riding club. Uses family car, not grandmother car. (speculation)

 

[Eloise]

I was aware of the law change but will have to look into it more. It still seems peculiar to me given how young these kids were and that the bios were still interested in their kids.

And I'm not just thinking about the children and bio parents, I'm thinking of future foster parents who think they are going to be able to adopt through the foster system.

But as SB pointed out, perhaps LT turning 12 prompted some of these recent events? Maybe she didn't want to be adopted and that caused tension in the house?

FYI the adoptions under the newer 'scheme' are open adoptions where the children are encouraged to still see their bio parents. While you legally become their 'parents' in the legal sense, their bio parents aren't pushed out of the picture entirely. I don't know how much difference there would have been in the day to day life of the household between the long term fostering situation they had and the open adoption that would have potentially taken place if everything had proceeded.

And I know that open adoption has been the policy for a long time, as we had family friends in the late 90s who chose to persist with IVF rather than pursue adoption because they didn't like the idea of bio parents still being involved, and that was the only kind of adoption available in NSW even back then.

 

[JLZ]

8.50? MFC captured on tennis club camera, returns home

(snipped) If he was captured on the tennis club camera returning home, he would be driving in the opposite direction--not towards Lakewood.

 

[JBowie]

(snipped) If he was captured on the tennis club camera returning home, he would be driving in the opposite direction--not towards Lakewood.

And I think any vehicle that resembled the make model and colour of the FF's or the FGM's on that CCTV footage would have revved up the police pretty quickly as regards identifying the owner, especially if no one fronted the "Come and identify your car" event held by police to claim that vehicle.

 

[Megnut]

A theory: all speculation only:

7.37 photo taken

fall from balcony

8 ish. MFC drives to hide body

8.50? MFC captured on tennis club camera, returns home

9? MFC leaves again for meeting/chemist

10.30 MFC returns home

10.30 FFC realises shoes still here - drives to hide them near riding club. Uses family car, not grandmother car. (speculation)

I have often wondered if the photo was taken at 7:37 and the time was manipulated (corrected) to 9:37+/-.

I look at Wm's feet in the now iconic photo. Busy boy, all over the house, the deck, the yard, biking, crashing, with and without shoes, I'd expect adorable, little, well-traveled, dirty feet by 9:37.

His are still pretty pink.

I have wondered if tea didn't happen twice -- and FGM and FD were occupied again, when the drive happened, and were unaware of her absence.

It might add more hours into the morning timeline.

JMO

 

[JLZ]

I have o:37?ften wondered if the photo was taken at 7:37 and the time was manipulated (corrected) to 9:37+/-.

I look at Wm's feet in the now iconic photo. Busy boy, all over the house, the deck, the yard, biking, crashing, with and without shoes, I'd expect adorable, little, well-traveled, dirty feet by 9:37.

His are still pretty pink.

I have wondered if tea didn't happen twice -- and FGM and FD were occupied again, when the drive happened, and were unaware of her absence.

It might add more hours into the morning timeline.

JMO

What makes you think he'd been off the patio without shoes by 9:37?

 

[SleepyJoe]

A pic of the bruise is in this non-paywalled article. Third photo in the article.
William couldn't have been that skinny ... he has a double chin in the pic.

Why suspicion has lifted on missing boy's family

Yes, I agree he looks like a normal, healthy weight in that picture. This is in contrast to the last photos we see of him at FGM's house in which he appears to have lost weight.

 

[KateM]

Right but BM never reported any concerns to FACS about bruising, under weight etc.

Are you sure about that? I thought the the BM did report her concerns to FACS about those very things?