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

[Akai]

The police that brought these accusations are the same police that are ramping up their pressure against their new found POI's. ALL OF THIS happened at the same time---the avo, the lying charges, the searches, the negative articles in the press, the secret interviews,, ALL of it is part of this ongoing pressure created by the police, to crack this case.

So I do not trust everything they are saying right now. It seems so much like what they did to BS, and another POI previously. And if so, then some of it is manufactured to rattle the family and force them to make a confession because there is not any other kind of evidence available.

There are different police in charge of the current investigation. There were a myriad of issues with the prior investigation including a failure to properly search the place William was last seen and the prior lead detective (Jubelin) being charged with and convicted of illegally surveilling a POI. The current investigation has had to make up for mistakes with the prior one and none of the current police are even remotely accused of stepping over the line. Completely different circumstances IMO.

 

[Akai]

We found earlier that stalking and intimidation - if dealt with in the Local Court - carries the same penalty as breaching an AVO.

Yes, it has a higher penalty if dealt with in another (presumably higher) court.

The FP cases are being heard in the Local Court.

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

The preliminaries would always be handled in a lower court, and the matter may be moved to another one subsequently. Stalking and intimidation are more serious than breaching an AVO and they carry with them the possibility of more serious consequences, whether or not those consequences ultimately eventuate, was my point.

 

[katydid23]

There are different police in charge of the current investigation. There were a myriad of issues with the prior investigation including a failure to properly search the place William was last seen and the prior lead detective (Jubelin) being charged with and convicted of illegally surveilling a POI. The current investigation has had to make up for mistakes with the prior one and none of the current police are even remotely accused of stepping over the line. Completely different circumstances IMO.

Strike Force Rosann has been the team involved, all along, as far as I can tell. Some officers come and go, but it is the same strike team. And it is the same Modus Operandi , JMO

<modsnip>

 

[SouthAussie]

The preliminaries would always be handled in a lower court, and the matter may be moved to another one subsequently. Stalking and intimidation are more serious than breaching an AVO and they carry with them the possibility of more serious consequences, whether or not those consequences ultimately eventuate, was my point.

No need for clarification, but thank you.

I posted the info again, in case you had missed it the first time it went up on the thread.

 

[Akai]

The Parents had the daughter in their care since she was a tiny infant. Reportedly, they were going to be long term carers, in essence, until she was 18. If so, I would see that as her family. She called them mom and dad and lived with them 24/7.

An AVO does not automatically equal GUILT. There still has to be a trial. It surprises me that so few are willing to wait for the evidence before asking for the FP's heads.

The law does not see them as her family, and the fact that they are not technically her family is an important distinction. Fostering is not the same as adopting.

First of all, it means that they were subject to ongoing monitoring and reporting, and while this may have decreased as the arrangement became more stable, it would not have completely stopped. This is difficult to a typical family arrangement where, unless there is a specific reason for intervention, nobody monitors anything.

Second, at the time of William's disappearance, we know from various reports that the FPs were considering adoption. This adoption clearly never subsequently eventuated. So either they decided not to pursue it or they were told they would not be likely to succeed despite it having been implied previously that they would. This in and of itself raises questions about the degree to which FACS and the particular case workers saw them as suitable permanent parents.

Third, it is reasonable under the current circumstances of the charges and of FM being a POI to question whether William's sister may have spoken up about something that happened that day and whether the assault may have been punishment for that. If this is the case, and I'm not saying it is, but I am saying it's a valid thing to examine, it would mean that William's sister was manipulated for seven years. Such manipulation could also extend to indoctrination about her views of them as parents. It wouldn't be the first time - you would, I presume have seen this type of thing happen in custody cases.

Fourth, in my view it is the narrative that the FPs qualified as parents of both her and William that has contributed to obfuscating this situation and a lack of proper examination of what might have happened. If you turn it around and look at them as carers, as they were, it is much easier to objectively examine them.

ETA: The AVO does not indicate guilt of the other charges, but it meets a higher threshold than mere allegations or charges.

 

[seekingjustice**]

<modsnip>

During the Court Case to reveal William's foster status, the below statement is from the Judge:

"His Honour said it was inexplicable why William's carers (the foster parents) had been represented as William's parents."

William Tyrrell foster mother files: How she fought war to keep truth about missing toddler secret | Daily Mail Online

 

[seekingjustice**]

<modsnip>

It's also interesting to read from the following article, that the Foster carers were not in support of an inquest being held into the disappearance of William.

"The foster mother said in the affidavit that many details about her and the foster father were on social media and that FACS' lawyers had told her Ms Smith wanted the foster fact out there.

'Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest.

'If she is allowed to do that ... if a much larger number of people become aware that William was in foster care .. . the more likely it is that people "will be able to put two and two together" and identify and locate us.

'People will assume that (we) were involved in William's disappearance ... we will be harassed."

William Tyrrell foster mother files: How she fought war to keep truth about missing toddler secret | Daily Mail Online

 

[LolaAngelina]

It's also interesting to read from the following article, that the Foster carers were not in support of an inquest being held into the disappearance of William.

"The foster mother said in the affidavit that many details about her and the foster father were on social media and that FACS' lawyers had told her Ms Smith wanted the foster fact out there.

'Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest.

'If she is allowed to do that ... if a much larger number of people become aware that William was in foster care .. . the more likely it is that people "will be able to put two and two together" and identify and locate us.

'People will assume that (we) were involved in William's disappearance ... we will be harassed."

William Tyrrell foster mother files: How she fought war to keep truth about missing toddler secret | Daily Mail Online

Where does it say they weren’t in support of an inquest?

 

[Akai]

I think that there is a narrative that the FP are pushing a narrative.

When Daniel Morcombe disappeared, no-one said that the Morcombes were pushing a narrative by doing interviews, website, billboards ......

Maybe narratives only apply to foster parents.

imo

Completely different circumstances. There were independent witnesses to the fact that Daniel was waiting at the bus stop. They were also Daniel's actual parents, not his foster carers, so them referring to themselves as Daniel's parents was completely legitimate and could not be construed to have an agenda. William's foster parents were not passive participants in the idea that they were his parents - they actively pushed it and avoided acknowledging his birth parents, even after the fact that they were foster parents was officially revealed. And there was no motive for Daniel's parents to cover anything up.

 

[seekingjustice**]

Where does it say they weren’t in support of an inquest?

It appears that her priority was to keep her identity hidden rather than support an inquest to try and ascertain what happened to William.

"Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest."

William Tyrrell foster mother files: How she fought war to keep truth about missing toddler secret | Daily Mail Online

 

[Akai]

It's also interesting to read from the following article, that the Foster carers were not in support of an inquest being held into the disappearance of William.

"The foster mother said in the affidavit that many details about her and the foster father were on social media and that FACS' lawyers had told her Ms Smith wanted the foster fact out there.

'Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest.

'If she is allowed to do that ... if a much larger number of people become aware that William was in foster care .. . the more likely it is that people "will be able to put two and two together" and identify and locate us.

'People will assume that (we) were involved in William's disappearance ... we will be harassed."

William Tyrrell foster mother files: How she fought war to keep truth about missing toddler secret | Daily Mail Online

It's fascinating to me that the FM felt uniquely entitled to privacy and protection from scrutiny above that to which actual parents have felt entitled. Had she been an actual parent, her details would have been known, as they are with parents in these circumstances. We all know who Madeline McCann's parents are, we all know who Cleo Smith's parents are. They accepted the knowledge of who they were to enable them to fight for their children to be found. But FM wanted to have all the acknowledgement of being William's parents without the scrutiny that comes with that. I note that her primary concern is for herself as well, not with William's sister or his biological family and other siblings, or finding William.

 

[LolaAngelina]

It appears that her priority was to keep her identity hidden rather than support an inquest to try and ascertain what happened to William.

"Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest."

William Tyrrell foster mother files: How she fought war to keep truth about missing toddler secret | Daily Mail Online

The comments made were referring to their identity being revealed. They made no comment about the inquest.

 

[seekingjustice**]

The comments made were referring to their identity being revealed. They made no comment about the inquest.

I think the article is quite clear:

The foster mother said in the affidavit 'Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest.
'If she is allowed to do that ... if a much larger number of people become aware that William was in foster care .. . the more likely it is that people "will be able to put two and two together" and identify and locate us.

'People will assume that (we) were involved in William's disappearance ... we will be harassed.

 

[Akai]

It appears that her priority was to keep her identity hidden rather than support an inquest to try and ascertain what happened to William.

"Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest."

William Tyrrell foster mother files: How she fought war to keep truth about missing toddler secret | Daily Mail Online

Oh, and that article reminded me of something. The entire Where's William PR campaign was about helping William's PARENTS find William. It was done on behalf of his foster parents, so yes, they were actively running and pursuing the narrative that they were his parents. That is what THEY wanted to be seen as.

 

[Akai]

I think the article is quite clear:

The foster mother said in the affidavit 'Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest.
'If she is allowed to do that ... if a much larger number of people become aware that William was in foster care .. . the more likely it is that people "will be able to put two and two together" and identify and locate us.

'People will assume that (we) were involved in William's disappearance ... we will be harassed.

They were definitely not in favour of an inquest from the quote in that article because they were upset that Ms Smith was calling for one. They also didn't call for an inquest themselves, which most people in these situations do when an investigation has stalled (which it had).

 

[LolaAngelina]

I think the article is quite clear:

The foster mother said in the affidavit 'Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest.
'If she is allowed to do that ... if a much larger number of people become aware that William was in foster care .. . the more likely it is that people "will be able to put two and two together" and identify and locate us.

'People will assume that (we) were involved in William's disappearance ... we will be harassed.

She’s stating what is being done by a random person and then talking about her circulating a petition which reveals he was in foster care. At the time Jubelin made it clear it was still an ongoing investigation and they would decide when it went to inquest. I would assume the foster parents would listen to his advice on this and this maybe why you interpret her comments that way.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think the article is quite clear:

The foster mother said in the affidavit 'Ms Smith intends to publish the fact that William was in foster care in the internet,' she says in the affidavit, 'she also wants to circulate a petition calling for an inquest.
'If she is allowed to do that ... if a much larger number of people become aware that William was in foster care .. . the more likely it is that people "will be able to put two and two together" and identify and locate us.

'People will assume that (we) were involved in William's disappearance ... we will be harassed.

It seems to me that the statement (and the entire case) was about identity suppression. Some may assume that because the petition was included in that sentence, that FM was opposed to the inquest, or that a petition spurred the inquest.

But an inquest was the next natural step in the chain of events. The Coroner had been involved from the 12-month mark.
And I have never seen anything that says that FM or FD were opposed to the inquest.
They were opposed to William's case becoming a cold case.

(Unfortunately, Cold Case dept is where these cases go if there is an open coronial finding, and until any new info is received or someone looks them over again.)

imo

 

[LolaAngelina]

It seems to me that the statement (and the entire case) was about identity suppression. Some may assume that because the petition was included in that sentence, that FM was opposed to the inquest, or that a petition spurred the inquest.

But an inquest was the next natural step in the chain of events. The Coroner had been involved from the 12-month mark.
And I have never seen anything that says that FM (or FD) were opposed to the inquest.
They were opposed to William's case becoming a cold case.

(Unfortunately, Cold Case dept is where these cases go if there is an open coronial finding, and until any new info is received or someone looks them over again.)

imo

BBM Sadly l think that is where it’s going to end up now

 

[InFocus]

Where has Insight Communications' Facebook page disappeared to?

How long has this been like this? Is it since the late 2021 developments in FFC becoming a POI?
Log in or sign up to view

For a PR company they've sure gone quiet all of a sudden, I wonder why?

 

[k-mac]

BBM Sadly l think that is where it’s going to end up now

no way is this case getting cold.

Laidlaw is steam rolling along.

IMO