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

[JBowie]

Having argued against revelation of the foster status, Gary Jubelin did a quick volte-face after Alana Smith's court win (selected paragraphs and BBM):

[Jubelin] conjectured that releasing the foster information 'in an unmanaged way ... is likely to provoke significant interest and lead to intense speculation and rumour in the media and among the general public'.

[Jubelin] warned the foster revelation 'may also divert police resources away from the investigation' to respond to that rumour.

[Jubelin] said information should be revealed 'in a managed way' and revealing that the missing toddler had been removed from his biological parents and placed with the foster couple 'would be damaging to the investigation'.

About the repercussions of revealing William's foster status, [NSW Supreme Court] Justice Brereton said 'I am quite unpersuaded that it would hinder it (the police investigation)'.


Mr Jubelin stated publicly after Ms Smith's court win, that the foster revelation had not damaged his investigation.

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

 

[Tiff23fr]

Mod Note:

A spiral of 25 posts have been removed as part of a thread clean up. When a few Posters begin to bicker and others then reply on those posts it requires all posts to be removed as part of the clean up.

Bickering and arguing amongst one another is not helping bring forth justice in this case. It is harming the thread and discussion flow. Be civil with one another and stop with the personal jabs and all caps to make a point. If you disagree with a point of view, communicate in a mature manner or simply scroll past.

 

[nightrider17]

I just need clarification on the timeline.

9.37 - Proof of life photo

10.30 - MFC text to say he's on his way home.

10.35 - MFC returns home -
"I then said to … 'well, where is he? Where has he gone'? She said, 'he was here five minutes ago' … all sitting down, I said 'well where has he gone'? … She said, 'I can't find him'.

"She's calling out for him; she's looking down that side. I can see that she's distressed as well." -Police walkthrough reveals details about William Tyrrell's foster parents (nine.com.au)

10.56 - Call to OOO

Between 9.37 and 10.35 - (58 Minutes) Can we assume FFC has made the Car Journey already - driven to Cobb and Co and returned in Foster GM car? So that she is there when MFC returns to have the conversation with him that "he was here five minutes ago"

That trip from Benaroon Drive takes at least 4 minutes there and back - she may have gone slow at some points to look around etc.

So that is a possible 4-10 minutes out of the timeline. If she in fact came back before MFC returned.

So that 4-10 minutes off the 58 minutes since the Proof of life photo.

So going backwards from 10.35 (MFC returns) 4-10 minutes.

FFC left Benaroon drive at about 10.25?? - That leaves 48 minutes between 9.37 to 10.25

Do you think the FFC had a rough idea of the time when she thought the MFC would have been coming home?? was it always going to be around 10.30??? MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

Having argued against revelation of the foster status, Gary Jubelin did a quick volte-face after Alana Smith's court win (selected paragraphs and BBM):

[Jubelin] conjectured that releasing the foster information 'in an unmanaged way ... is likely to provoke significant interest and lead to intense speculation and rumour in the media and among the general public'.

[Jubelin] warned the foster revelation 'may also divert police resources away from the investigation' to respond to that rumour.

[Jubelin] said information should be revealed 'in a managed way' and revealing that the missing toddler had been removed from his biological parents and placed with the foster couple 'would be damaging to the investigation'.

About the repercussions of revealing William's foster status, [NSW Supreme Court] Justice Brereton said 'I am quite unpersuaded that it would hinder it (the police investigation)'.


Mr Jubelin stated publicly after Ms Smith's court win, that the foster revelation had not damaged his investigation.

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

It is obvious to most people that there were concerns for the safety and privacy of William's sister, and the safety of all the parents, as clearly documented in the 2016/2017 Caselaw.
This was not only about the police investigation - although it seems from those selected sentences that the DM may be attempting to portray it as such.

And those safety concerns were not unfounded.


Both of these criminal actions happened after that 2016 FACS vs Smith case.

William Tyrrell: Man jailed for stalking missing boy's foster father | Daily Mail Online (2018/2019)
Lisa Watmore accused of calling William Tyrrell's foster dad 14 times in eight hours | Daily Mail Online (2020)

 

[nightrider17]

Just an addition to my previous post.

Between 10.35 MFC returns and 10.56 OOO call - that is 21 minutes.

The MFC is looking outside because his logic said that his wife had already searched the immediate area. So he spread out further around the property and the FFC got neighbours involved in searching their properties.

I feel that is a long amount of time before calling OOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Just an addition to my previous post.

Between 10.35 MFC returns and 10.56 OOO call - that is 21 minutes.

The MFC is looking outside because his logic said that his wife had already searched the immediate area. So he spread out further around the property and the FFC got neighbours involved in searching their properties.

I feel that is a long amount of time before calling OOO.

Took CS' mum 23 minutes to call 000 to report CS missing, after they searched for a while.

Maybe that is about the length of time it takes before the parents of a missing child get truly frantic and pick up the phone.


Mum revealed she woke up at 6am on Sunday to find tent zipper hanging open
Crucial details CS' mum revealed in first TV interview since little WA girl went missing | Daily Mail Online

6.23am — CS' mum Ellie calls triple-0 to report her daughter missing.
See the timeline: Police reveal most details yet

 

[Serenanicole]

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.

I wonder why she presumed that making Williams status as a foster child would cause the public to assume their involvement in his disappearance?
The irony IMO is that hiding their identities may have actually caused a higher level of scrutiny and suspicion from the public. I think there is a lot of anger about that.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder why she presumed that making Williams status as a foster child would cause the public to assume their involvement in his disappearance?
The irony IMO is that hiding their identities may have actually caused a higher level of scrutiny and suspicion from the public. I think there is a lot of anger about that.

Because that is what happens. In CS's case, the police were asking trolls to quit speculating and targeting the parents 13 days after CS went missing.

The same thing happened in William's case. The foster parents (particularly FD) were targeted by SM trolls very quickly. imo


When asked about the trolls that had been targeting CS’ parents online, Supt Wilde described the behaviour as “terrible” and reiterated that police had no suspects at this stage.

“(CSs parents) have been very helpful,” he said.

“They’re holding up but I just ask any members of the public not to post anything online.”

How long it took police to get to CS' camp

 

[SLouTh]

Between 10.35 MFC returns and 10.56 OOO call - that is 21 minutes.

I feel that is a long amount of time before calling OOO

During the Inquest Gerald Craddock remarked that the Police were called very early in this case, he said that the usual time frame (shown by statistics) is 2 hours, when the Police are called for a missing child.

Despite police being called within the hour,
William Tyrrell inquest findings delayed | Northern Beaches Review | Manly, NSW

 

[Serenanicole]

Because that is what happens. In CS's case, the police were asking trolls to quit speculating and targeting the parents 13 days after CS went missing.

The same thing happened in William's case. The foster parents (particularly FD) were targeted by SM trolls very quickly. imo


When asked about the trolls that had been targeting CS’ parents online, Supt Wilde described the behaviour as “terrible” and reiterated that police had no suspects at this stage.

“(CSs parents) have been very helpful,” he said.

“They’re holding up but I just ask any members of the public not to post anything online.”

How long it took police to get to CS' camp

But more specifically I am wondering why she may have felt it would be public knowledge of his foster status that would cause speculation of her involvement?

 

[Serenanicole]

But more specifically I am wondering why she may have felt it would be public knowledge of his foster status that would cause speculation of her involvement?

Is it because she feared public perception that she may care less because he is a foster child rather then a biological child? (This is not my perception by the way), I’m just trying to tease this fear out, understand it better.

 

[LolaAngelina]

I wonder why she presumed that making Williams status as a foster child would cause the public to assume their involvement in his disappearance?
The irony IMO is that hiding their identities may have actually caused a higher level of scrutiny and suspicion from the public. I think there is a lot of anger about that.

The fact he was in foster care was going around social media very early on. Many people saw he was in foster care and immediately had the view the foster parents were responsible. So her saying revealing his foster status would mean people blame them makes total sense since it’s already happened

 

[Wexford]

During the Inquest Gerald Craddock remarked that the Police were called very early in this case, he said that the usual time frame (shown by statistics) is 2 hours, when the Police are called for a missing child.

Despite police being called within the hour,
William Tyrrell inquest findings delayed | Northern Beaches Review | Manly, NSW

I don't see how anyone can put a timeframe on something like that. Surely it depends on the child, the age, the circumstances and the location.....in this case the child was 3 and in a fairly unfamiliar place and not known to wander.
I think of my own at the same age, one was a wanderer and may not answer if called, the other absolutely not a wanderer. One I would spend some time looking before being concerned, the other I would have been much quicker to panic if he was missing.
either way, 2 hours seems a very long time.
Is there a protocol with foster caring too?

 

[SLouTh]

Do you think the FFC had a rough idea of the time when she thought the MFC would have been coming home?? was it always going to be around 10.30???

Going way back in the thread, FF was actually running a few minutes later than expected that morning, from very early reports, he was anticipated home around the 10:15am mark......

It has been reported that FM sent both the children down to look for "Daddy's Car" earlier on ...

Reference: Caroline Overington's Book Pg.169 Missing William Tyrrell

IMO

 

[Serenanicole]

The fact he was in foster care was going around social media very early on. Many people saw he was in foster care and immediately had the view the foster parents were responsible. So her saying revealing his foster status would mean people blame them makes total sense since it’s already happened

Yes I see…that makes sense then, it was already occurring. It is interesting that perceptions were influenced by his foster status. How much of this was related to hidden identities as a factor?
I do believe this has caused suspicion- warranted or otherwise.
You would think that because she was the last person known to see him alive would be the main reason the public (some members of) to believe she may have been involved?

 

[Akai]

It is obvious to most people that there were concerns for the safety and privacy of William's sister, and the safety of all the parents, as clearly documented in the 2016/2017 Caselaw.
This was not only about the police investigation - although it seems from those selected sentences that the DM may be attempting to portray it as such.

And those safety concerns were not unfounded.


Both of these criminal actions happened after that 2016 FACS vs Smith case.

William Tyrrell: Man jailed for stalking missing boy's foster father | Daily Mail Online (2018/2019)
Lisa Watmore accused of calling William Tyrrell's foster dad 14 times in eight hours | Daily Mail Online (2020)

The safety and privacy of all siblings in these situations is an issue, and that does not result in the suppression of the identity of actual parents. In this particular situation, if they are claiming that the safety and privacy was particularly an issue because they were foster carers, there was an easy solution: she could have been placed with someone else and then there was far less risk to her. Indeed, there was a unique solution in this situation that was not as easily available in situations where a child is with actual parents (who will sometimes have children stay with relatives during periods like this precisely to protect them).

It is now beyond question that William's sister was unsafe with them because a Magistrate issued an AVO after assessing the situation. However, this is not just the case in hindsight. It was not without merit at the time to question William's sister staying with the FPs. A child had disappeared in suspicious circumstances that realistically could have involved the FM, and the circumstances were different precisely because they were foster carers and not parents.

Something else that bothered me in this situation is that there was very little consideration for the revelation potentially helping to find William. Jubelin made his comments about it hindering the investigation, but there was no real explanation for why this was the case in a manner that was supported by evidence. There were many arguments as to why the revelation would actually assist in the investigation. Moreover, as we know, Jubelin went way over the line and his investigation lacked both objectivity and legitimacy.

My point is: did anyone really prioritise the welfare of William's sister and finding William (which was a welfare issue)? It doesn't seem that way to me. And in light of that, how much about what may have happened that day was obfuscated in amongst the obsession with protecting the privacy of the foster carers specifically?

 

[SLouTh]

2 hours seems a very long time

I agree, but that is what statistics showed, as per Craddock at the inquest.....

 

[JLZ]

I just need clarification on the timeline.

9.37 - Proof of life photo

10.30 - MFC text to say he's on his way home.

10.35 - MFC returns home -
"I then said to … 'well, where is he? Where has he gone'? She said, 'he was here five minutes ago' … all sitting down, I said 'well where has he gone'? … She said, 'I can't find him'.

"She's calling out for him; she's looking down that side. I can see that she's distressed as well." -Police walkthrough reveals details about William Tyrrell's foster parents (nine.com.au)

10.56 - Call to OOO

Between 9.37 and 10.35 - (58 Minutes) Can we assume FFC has made the Car Journey already - driven to Cobb and Co and returned in Foster GM car? So that she is there when MFC returns to have the conversation with him that "he was here five minutes ago"

That trip from Benaroon Drive takes at least 4 minutes there and back - she may have gone slow at some points to look around etc.

So that is a possible 4-10 minutes out of the timeline. If she in fact came back before MFC returned.

So that 4-10 minutes off the 58 minutes since the Proof of life photo.

So going backwards from 10.35 (MFC returns) 4-10 minutes.

FFC left Benaroon drive at about 10.25?? - That leaves 48 minutes between 9.37 to 10.25

Do you think the FFC had a rough idea of the time when she thought the MFC would have been coming home?? was it always going to be around 10.30??? MOO

If she's already been for a 4 minute drive, plus one minute because they didn't see each other approaching or driving up Benaroon, she must be understating the time William's been missing. That leaves no time at all for searching the house or grounds. He could be accidentally trapped in the washing machine or dryer, or fallen from the balcony and they haven't found him. Has she not searched because she knows where he is? Or is she speaking carelessly about an actually important thing?

Or was the drive later?

 

[SouthAussie]

There were many arguments as to why the revelation would actually assist in the investigation.

No, in the FACS vs Smith case (which is what we are discussing, due to the DM article) there were no arguments like that.


Justice Brereton:
"While there is nothing to suggest that disclosure of Julian’s legal status would in any way add value to or enhance the investigation, or otherwise assist in finding Julian – indeed Ms Smith, when asked, was unable to suggest any way in which it would do so .... "
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith - NSW Caselaw

 

[Akai]

One of my problems with the FM's story is that I have to do so much mental gymnastics to make it fit. In every situation I can think of involving someone in a criminal case, where they have been innocent of wrongdoing, I can reasonably easily understand why they would have behaved the way they did. Sometimes it is exactly what I would do and other times it is different but still relatable. Occasionally I will have to do mental gymnastics on one or two things out of half a dozen or a dozen. I certainly don't expect someone to behave exactly as I would because we are different people. But in this instance I have trouble with almost everything. While each individual item can be explained, it paints a different picture when every single thing requires a laborious justification. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so to speak.

1. The certainty that William was only gone for 5 minutes. I don't see how anyone could be certain of that under the circumstances, and I'd be saying "I'm not sure; it could have been longer." I don't understand why someone would stick to that timeframe with such adamance when it might make all the difference in an investigation.

2. Not checking the house or dispatching FGM to check the house and not mentioning that the house had not been checked. Yes he disappeared outside, but it would be a normal reaction for me to check the house itself in case he had somehow gone back inside and injured himself, particularly given the belief that he was not a wanderer.

3. Not contacting her husband. If a child went missing on me I would be contacting my husband immediately, not waiting for him to return. Certainly under the circumstances when he texted "Home in 5 minutes", I'd be texting him back, "Is William with you?" if that's where my head had bizarrely gone at that moment.

4. Going for a drive to a specific place that was a hard ask distance-wise for a child in the time he went missing (and which, given his age he would not have directionally understood how to walk to). I am not sure I understand even going for a drive at that early stage, but even if I stretch it to that, I can see a general drive looking for him, not heading to one particular place like that.

5. Hearing a scream and not running to it, imagined or not, or frantically sending someone to check. That one I can't get over. There was no urgency consistent with panic.

6. Believing someone has taken him almost immediately, given the environment in which they were. At the point at which she claims she thought that, even factoring in him not being a wanderer, the likelihood was far greater that he had strolled somewhere and injured himself. Kids do crazy and unpredictable things and easily have their attention diverted by items of interest.

7. Not checking on his sister and ensuring she was with an adult. If I've had a child go missing, I am obsessive about where the other one is. Her whereabouts is practically never mentioned. We have all these adults running around searching so who was keeping an eye on her and where was the concern for her welfare?

8. Nobody else on that street saw the cars she claimed she did, despite people noticing things out of place on a street like that and it being a time of morning when many people would have been moving around going to work, taking kids to school etc. These cars were supposedly there for a considerable period of time. She didn't mention it to anyone in the morning, despite claiming she knew it was odd at the time, and it didn't prompt her to be more protective of the children.

Yes, I can explain each of these individually, but it is a stretch to do even that, let alone when I realise that I'm having to work hard to explain so many. There are also inconsistencies in the explanations: some are explainable by panic, but others are explained by a lack of panic.

And then I assess the abduction theories and I struggle with the primary one. There are two possible abduction theories: one that involved some level of pre-meditation and one that was entirely opportunistic. The primary one is that it was a pre-meditated abduction and yet this seems fanciful to me.

One individual from an extremely small group of people who knew William was at his FGMs place either takes that information themselves and formulates a plan to abduct him or shares that information with someone who then formulates a plan to abduct him. This person or persons is/are willing to park on a country suburban street where people notice unusual things, in broad daylight at a time when people are moving around going to work and school, on the off-chance that they may have an opportunity to abduct a child. They face a high likelihood of being seen, may have to wait for hours, and may never have an opportunity.

When said opportunity presents itself, despite it being impossible for them to know that they couldn't be seen from one of the houses or even that William wasn't in view of his carers from a window, they are brazen enough to take the child. They manage to spot the opportunity, take account of the circumstances and grab or lure him in the space of a few minutes. Because this is pre-meditated, they have confidence they will get away with this.

It's all very well to say in hindsight that they did get away with it, but the crucial thing is that they have to have believed they would at the time. It doesn't make sense to me that a person who was apparently calculating would see this as a viable opportunity that was low enough risk to attempt. Even if I adjust some of the moving parts to account for various slight differences, it still comes back to the fact that a person planning to do this or calculating the risks would not have seen it as viable. In my view it has to be someone who did not even think about anything because the moment they thought about it the moment it loses its viability.

The other theory is that this was an entirely opportunistic abduction. A person with the pre-disposition to take a child happened upon the street at the exact time that William was on his own. They didn't intend to take a child but suddenly there he was and they acted on impulse without thought of difficulty or consequences. This one is more realistic to me, because it does away with the need for any sort of assessment on their part, which is the most problematic component to me of the other abduction theory.

The challenge I face with this one is is that a lack of any thought also means this person had no idea what they were going to do with William, either. I can suspend this to a point, however, because if they weren't thinking then, applying the same logic as before, they didn't care what they were going to do with him and it could be just "lucky" (I hate that word in this circumstance) that they ultimately got away with it. As the situation intensified what they decided to do could have evolved because they were reactive and impulsive rather calculating.

So two theories: FM involved or random abduction. And when I look at the likelihood, the former stands out to a far greater degree.