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

[Serenanicole]

How old?

3.5 years

 

[Serenanicole]

How old?

It happened twice with her. She wasn’t a wanderer but she was sociable.

 

[LolaAngelina]

I mean that you'd think of a distance (eg 5km or whatever distance you think a child could walk in the timeframe at an absolute stretch) and drive out to that point and all the points that distance from the house looking for him. You'd go up multiple roads, not just one way, loop back around to Albert St and Cobb & Co Rd in case he'd somehow gotten himself over there on foot.

Maybe that’s what you would do. Personally l would be so panicked l couldn’t think rationally, let alone pin point 5kms and cover the ground as efficiently as possible.

 

[Serenanicole]

Wil

Meanwhile he could have gone cross-country and fallen in a dam. Such a lot of ground missed if you stick to the roads. You need an army of searchers. You're in shock and you don't know what to do first.

he has w

It happened twice with her. She wasn’t a wanderer but she was sociable.

I was supposed to have been looking after her. It was after a period of time which I couldn’t determine she went missing and I didn’t know how long she’s been missing for and I didn’t actually know how serious the situation might have become. I know the police were called the basketball stadium came to a complete halt with her disappearance and they found her in a place where we would never ever ever ever ever have expected. Completely safe, but not something you think she would have been able to manage to walk it was a very long way

 

[Akai]

Meanwhile he could have gone cross-country and fallen in a dam. Such a lot of ground missed if you stick to the roads. You need an army of searchers. You're in shock and you don't know what to do first.

Not sure what you're getting at? I wouldn't have been making a single drive to one point and then back again, precisely because I don't think it accomplishes anything or makes any sense. There is more local ground to search and if the theory is that he's gotten a lot further than originally thought you'd need to do a much longer, bigger drive as I described. I certainly wouldn't be doing it without notifying my husband of what was going on, at the very least so he could keep a look out on his way home.

 

[JLZ]

Not sure what you're getting at? I wouldn't have been making a single drive to one point and then back again, precisely because I don't think it accomplishes anything or makes any sense. There is more local ground to search and if the theory is that he's gotten a lot further than originally thought you'd need to do a much longer, bigger drive as I described. I certainly wouldn't be doing it without notifying my husband of what was going on, at the very least so he could keep a look out on his way home.

No, my point was that he might not have been on a road or within sight of a road at all. So what do you do, keep driving or call police and recruit neighbours?

 

[Akai]

No, my point was that he might not have been on a road or within sight of a road at all. So what do you do, keep driving or call police and recruit neighbours?

Having been in a comparable situation, I would have handled this very differently from the outset so I am genuinely not sure how to answer your question. As soon as I couldn't find him in the immediate vicinity I would have texted my husband with the urgent message to come back immediately because he was missing and called the police because it would have been obvious to me that assistance was needed given the environment and lack of people around to assist. I would not have been going for random drives like that, unless I thought that there was a specific place he might be or I was doing a broader general search. I have found it impossible to genuinely put myself in the shoes of FM and understand her actions, which I don't usually have a problem doing, even if the person is behaving quite differently to me.

 

[JLZ]

Having been in a comparable situation, I would have handled this very differently from the outset so I am genuinely not sure how to answer your question. As soon as I couldn't find him in the immediate vicinity I would have texted my husband with the urgent message to come back immediately because he was missing and called the police because it would have been obvious to me that assistance was needed given the environment and lack of people around to assist. I would not have been going for random drives like that, unless I thought that there was a specific place he might be or I was doing a broader general search. I have found it impossible to genuinely put myself in the shoes of FM and understand her actions, which I don't usually have a problem doing, even if the person is behaving quite differently to me.

Yes, I didn't mean you personally necessarily. I meant it's a situation where one might behave chaotically and furthermore systematic driving so early in the search--before calling police--is a dubious strategy.

 

[JLZ]

Having been in a comparable situation, I would have handled this very differently from the outset so I am genuinely not sure how to answer your question. As soon as I couldn't find him in the immediate vicinity I would have texted my husband with the urgent message to come back immediately because he was missing and called the police because it would have been obvious to me that assistance was needed given the environment and lack of people around to assist. I would not have been going for random drives like that, unless I thought that there was a specific place he might be or I was doing a broader general search. I have found it impossible to genuinely put myself in the shoes of FM and understand her actions, which I don't usually have a problem doing, even if the person is behaving quite differently to me.

BBM I'd be more comfortable if I had a clear idea of just what she did do, and in what order. And yet we've heard so much, from her and about her, and it doesn't come together. At this point, to be mystified over what should be the unmysterious part of the story--!

 

[nightrider17]

I think I would have only entertained driving if I genuinely hadn't seen the child for more than 5 minutes.

 

[SouthAussie]

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?

I refound this article, posted a ways back. It doesn't explain why specifically FM might have thought that, but it does say how common it is for people to blame parents, it is a thing that is well known and well documented by many.

It seems that any time a child goes missing, all eyes swivel to the parents immediately ... foster parents, bio parents, both.



The OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) in the US says this ......

"Recognize that some people may blame you for the disappearance because of their own fears for their children. They may imply that if you had watched your child more closely, he or she would not have disappeared. Blaming you may make them feel somewhat safer in the world because they hold you -- and your supposed mistake -- responsible for your child's abduction, rather than the abductor."

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide

 

[SouthAussie]

I think I would have only entertained driving if I genuinely hadn't seen the child for more than 5 minutes.

Yes, I think it was more than 5 mins also. I think most of us think that.

Many people are not so good at estimating time. I think I would be pretty bad at it, myself. I don't think I could 100% be sure (if it was me) if 10 mins had passed, or 15 mins had passed. I would just know that it didn't seem very long. Unless I had a particular reason to be watching the clock.

 

[deugirtni]

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?

The stats seemingly quoted by Craddock were based on 'a missing child', which to me, would include all children up to age... 18? Or whatever age it is in NSW that kids are no longer considered children. I would imagine there are many more teens and adolescents that go 'missing', and imo the parents wouldn't be calling police as their first thing, they'd be calling around to all of the kids' friends, etc. It seems silly that Craddock would quote such an irrelevant statistic to try to make the point that the fosters called police much quicker than is statistically usual, seeing as how W was a toddler. imo.

 

[FromGermany1]

At this point, to be mystified over what should be the unmysterious part of the story--!

bbm
^^ This, IMO. It HAS to be clear, otherwise there is something not right and not right with a reason.

 

[Tessi V]

The child's health and safety would be anyone's immediate concern and IMO it could very well cause irrational or panicked behaviour. Every possible scenario would likely be playing in a person's mind and injury (or in William's case a medical issue - asthma attack) an initial worry. Probably a million other risks and dangers too.

Trial by media has unfortunately become the norm but notice not all suspicion is due to William being a foster child (whose FPs identity remain anonymous) but rather more because his last known whereabouts was with the FM, at the FGMs house.
Her statement is probably the most vital piece of information to the case and the account she's given in relation to her and William's timeline of events for that day, with no one to currently corroborate this, is why I feel she receives alot of scrutiny.
The AVO and assault charges now further add to certain doubts which have often been raised. The NSW Police service/investigators and FACs have also copped the same amount of criticism, as far as I can see.
This is obviously just my take on it though.

 

[FromGermany1]

If you think someone has just taken him, yes you would get in the car

You wouldn't expect, that the abductor is walking with little W on his hand along a busy road, if the abductor is in his right mind. If it was a neighbour, who might have found little W wandering, it was nearby certainly and also senseless, to take a car for searching. IMO
But obviously FFC had reasons to take her/a car.

 

[Akai]

BBM I'd be more comfortable if I had a clear idea of just what she did do, and in what order. And yet we've heard so much, from her and about her, and it doesn't come together. At this point, to be mystified over what should be the unmysterious part of the story--!

Yes, it doesn't come together and that is one of the things that really baffles me. I can understand being a vague on specific times and details, but the order of what happened should be clear. I wouldn't expect someone to say, "I did this at 10:05 for 6 minutes" but I would expect them to be able to say, "I did this and then this and then this." Especially when it is someone who can recount in excruciating detail exactly what otherwise occurred and in what order.

 

[Akai]

I refound this article, posted a ways back. It doesn't explain why specifically FM might have thought that, but it does say how common it is for people to blame parents, it is a thing that is well known and well documented by many.

It seems that any time a child goes missing, all eyes swivel to the parents immediately ... foster parents, bio parents, both.



The OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) in the US says this ......

"Recognize that some people may blame you for the disappearance because of their own fears for their children. They may imply that if you had watched your child more closely, he or she would not have disappeared. Blaming you may make them feel somewhat safer in the world because they hold you -- and your supposed mistake -- responsible for your child's abduction, rather than the abductor."

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide

Children are statistically most likely to be killed by someone they know. See eg Child homicide perpetrators worldwide: a systematic review for an example of a study - but as far as I can tell this is fairly common knowledge. It makes perfect sense that people would look at those closest to any child who disappears, especially in the absence of evidence of an alternative.

 

[JBowie]

Yes, it doesn't come together and that is one of the things that really baffles me. I can understand being a vague on specific times and details, but the order of what happened should be clear. I wouldn't expect someone to say, "I did this at 10:05 for 6 minutes" but I would expect them to be able to say, "I did this and then this and then this." Especially when it is someone who can recount in excruciating detail exactly what otherwise occurred and in what order.

I've always had a problem believing her version of events, not only because of the way she delivers it but also the inexplicable omissions that surface later.

I have to say, were I on a jury where she was a witness, the other 11 members would have to work on me hard to persuade me to change my impression of her lack of veracity.

 

[HilaryHormone]

I've always had a problem believing her version of events, not only because of the way she delivers it but also the inexplicable omissions that surface later.

I have to say, were I on a jury where she was a witness, the other 11 members would have to work on me hard to persuade me to change my impression of her lack of veracity.

I’ve struggled with this too, as well as the timescale and with the whole anonymity issue, whilst they were almost courting publicity.

I wondered if the search at the end of last year was prompted by William’s sister remembering something or by FGM writing a letter on her deathbed. Possibly that there had been an accident that William’s sister or FGM had been involved in, so it was covered up to protect them.

I’m still on the fence tbh, as I think the most recent searches were all very dramatised and public and wondered whether it was Coroner’s orders to ensure all avenues were explored or LE attempts to put pressure on the FC’s. I’ve never seen any LE allow the media a front row seat in a search for remains like that.

Based on the statement released by the FC’s via Where’s William?, I reckon the FC’s must have been aware FFC was a POI before the searches began. It could have caused significant stress in the household and the charges could have occurred as a consequence of that tension. Not that it’s an excuse, but if that is the case, LE do have a lot to answer for.

Sorry for rambling, I don’t have an actual theory or a specific perpetrator pegged for William’s disappearance. It still shocks me how many unsavoury characters were around. I just wish William could be found and his family and those who loved him given a semblance of closure.

All MOO.