Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #12

[Manny83]

Do you see that as 'threatening'? I dont really. Guilt-bombing, yes.

No i don't see it as threatening. I was answering someone else's question about what they were talking about. Guilt bombing absolutely. I sadly grew up with the queen of guilt bombing

 

[Thetruth11:11]

in 1987 ms children would have been young when she married bs, its known that paedophiles befriend vulnerable women with children, what a scary dangerous environment for the children with bs and jh and who knows who else, with children being raped and passed around.
i think most paedpohiles are very cunning and get away with it for years by threatening the children they hurt.
if bs is a paedophile i think the 1987 rape is only the tip of the iceberg
ive posted this link before but not sure if this person is related to the situation or not?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-19/paedophile-escapes-anger-over-delayed-warning/245344

Thanks for posting Bearbear
I haven't seen this article before. Is that ms son??

 

[sosocurious]

Not threatening to me either, I do wonder if they have a relationship already so it would probably be something that a wife and stepmother would do, if they regularly traded text messages, however, isn't this the same person who had BS and MS stay over at her home recently? Another consideration is, perhaps they had already discussed the historical evidence.

Did MS stay over as well? I did not know that. Is there a link?

 

[sosocurious]

My feeling about that is that it is the reporters view.
To me, it says that he knew family were coming to visit, not that he knew exactly when or exactly who. (unless he had information from someone who was following the movements of the FF and it was a planned abduction)

Interview with Williams parents

M: We’d gone up to visit Mum and Dad, well Mum because Dad had passed away, I keep calling it Mum and Dad’s, we’d gone to visit, it was a surprise visit.

D: We left early.

M: We left early the night before, surprised them [the kids], surprised Nanna.
M: Yeah we’d actually planned to go on the Friday, but we ended up the Thursday, leaving earlier, and it was a surprise for Mum and it was a surprise for the kids to go before, because they love going to Nanna’s, yeah it was a complete surprise.

P: So the kids had no idea either?

M: None, none, they were over the moon, we told them in the car once we picked them up.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...full-transcript-from-william-tyrrells-parents

 

[Wexford]

Thanks for posting Bearbear
I haven't seen this article before. Is that ms son??

I have seen this one before on MAKO. I would be interested to know more about this one.

 

[Manny83]

Wonder if there was any particular reason they went early? I know they've said it was a spur of the moment thing but I'm a curious cat

 

[Pink-flamingo]

I really hope that Jubelin drops some more info to the media soon. I feel like we've been rehashing the same stuff for ages and are just going around in circles. I'm desperate for some new info!

 

[Wexford]

No i don't see it as threatening. I was answering someone else's question about what they were talking about. Guilt bombing absolutely. I sadly grew up with the queen of guilt bombing

sorry yes I realised that, I just used the quote for reference. Yes I too am very familiar with it.

 

[sosocurious]

Not threatening to me either, I do wonder if they have a relationship already so it would probably be something that a wife and stepmother would do, if they regularly traded text messages, however, isn't this the same person who had BS and MS stay over at her home recently? Another consideration is, perhaps they had already discussed the historical evidence.

What do you mean by historical evidence?
Are we talking about the victim that BS asked for a declaration to say he did not sexually abuse her?

 

[Pink-flamingo]

in 1987 ms children would have been young when she married bs, its known that paedophiles befriend vulnerable women with children, what a scary dangerous environment for the children with bs and jh and who knows who else, with children being raped and passed around.
i think most paedpohiles are very cunning and get away with it for years by threatening the children they hurt.
if bs is a paedophile i think the 1987 rape is only the tip of the iceberg
ive posted this link before but not sure if this person is related to the situation or not?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-19/paedophile-escapes-anger-over-delayed-warning/245344

Surname and location are interesting, but not sure if there is a link.
If he is MS's son, he would have been 8 in 1987 when BS and MS married.

 

[Karo]

They surprised the kids and surprised Nanna by going a day earlier, so there is no way BS could have known to be lying in wait for the children to be unsupervised that early on Friday, since they were not expected to be there until later. Imo.

Interview with Williams parents

M: We’d gone up to visit Mum and Dad, well Mum because Dad had passed away, I keep calling it Mum and Dad’s, we’d gone to visit, it was a surprise visit.

D: We left early.

M: We left early the night before, surprised them [the kids], surprised Nanna.
M: Yeah we’d actually planned to go on the Friday, but we ended up the Thursday, leaving earlier, and it was a surprise for Mum and it was a surprise for the kids to go before, because they love going to Nanna’s, yeah it was a complete surprise.

P: So the kids had no idea either?

M: None, none, they were over the moon, we told them in the car once we picked them up.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...full-transcript-from-william-tyrrells-parents

 

[louisepiglet]

Thanks for posting Bearbear
I haven't seen this article before. Is that ms son??

I too would like to know if this is MS son. Would make for a very interesting situation

 

[Pink-flamingo]

They surprised the kids and surprised Nanna by going a day earlier, so there is no way BS could have known to be lying in wait for the children to be unsupervised that early on Friday, since they were not expected to be there until later. Imo.

I've always found the surprise element weird.

Having kids, I wouldn't spring a surprise visit on anyone (not even my mum). I know the grandma was expecting them the next day, but it's still quite a risk to rock up early. What if grandma wasnt home? What if the beds weren't ready? It's not like grandma would be over the moon, they were coming the next day anyway. It just never seemed like the natural thing to do to me. And the way it is described as "nobody knew" is weird too. You didnt mention it when you left work? 'Oh we're heading away tonight so I'll be dialling in for that conference call in the morning". Why wouldnt you tell anyone?

Furthermore, if they were expected Friday, and william went missing on Friday, then the surprise visit isnt really relevant at all anyway? If he went missing Thursday, it would be... because nobody would know thye are there. But it's irrelevant to me.

Anyway, I know that there's not meant to be anything suss about the foster parents, and I'm not implying anything. Just that I've found it weird that this part is stressed in the media, as though it is important.

 

[Manny83]

Agree flamingo. Almost as if they're trying to push the public to believe it was opportunistic when they may think otherwise and may be trying to keep a suspect comfortable? But it's been 8 months, how much more comfortable do they need to get? !

 

[louisepiglet]

Agree flamingo. Almost as if they're trying to push the public to believe it was opportunistic when they may think otherwise and may be trying to keep a suspect comfortable? But it's been 8 months, how much more comfortable do they need to get? !

Totally agree. I have found the whole"surprise visit" quire irrelevant. And somebody had to know they were going Thursday. FF employer, daycare etc. Eight months is quite enough time to start turning up the heat on someone. Trying to make someone feel guilty by talking about William's birthday etc is not working. Time to get serious.

 

[Karo]

I suppose that depends on the family as to surprise visits, we do it in my family but not in my partners family, that has to be prearranged.
I guess I was saying that the distance meant they would not have been there as early as 10am if they were arriving that day.
Does the FF work from home? is he the boss? I have no idea.

 

[Angeline]

From the interview with the parents, I got the impression that the "surprise" was that they were arriving early for the visit, not that the visit itself was a surprise.

There was the article in the Daily Telegraph that revealed Grandma had told Spedding about the visit. I assume she would've told him they were arriving on Friday.

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news...-william-tyrrell/story-fni0cx12-1227314208802

 

[Wexford]

I've always found the surprise element weird.

Having kids, I wouldn't spring a surprise visit on anyone (not even my mum). I know the grandma was expecting them the next day, but it's still quite a risk to rock up early. What if grandma wasnt home? What if the beds weren't ready? It's not like grandma would be over the moon, they were coming the next day anyway. It just never seemed like the natural thing to do to me. And the way it is described as "nobody knew" is weird too. You didnt mention it when you left work? 'Oh we're heading away tonight so I'll be dialling in for that conference call in the morning". Why wouldnt you tell anyone?

Furthermore, if they were expected Friday, and william went missing on Friday, then the surprise visit isnt really relevant at all anyway? If he went missing Thursday, it would be... because nobody would know thye are there. But it's irrelevant to me.

Anyway, I know that there's not meant to be anything suss about the foster parents, and I'm not implying anything. Just that I've found it weird that this part is stressed in the media, as though it is important.

I agree it is odd. Is it just that the earlier day was the surprise and that they were always going, just not that early?

Also...and I could be confused here...I thought they were the bio parents, not the foster parents...assume also that the Nan is the bio Nan? So wouldnt that mean they have to pick the kids up from the FF to take them for the weekend? I dunno I think Im missing something here....

 

[Karo]

No, they were the Foster family and the FF Nanna by all accounts.

I agree it is odd. Is it just that the earlier day was the surprise and that they were always going, just not that early?

Also...and I could be confused here...I thought they were the bio parents, not the foster parents...assume also that the Nan is the bio Nan? So wouldnt that mean they have to pick the kids up from the FF to take them for the weekend? I dunno I think Im missing something here....

 

[frogwell]

I could not confirm that for you as I have not sleuthed it. It has been a long running assumption that I have taken from other posters that the parents and GM are foster parents and I have assumed that someone on here had clarification of that premise and I have just trusted that.

I agree it is odd. Is it just that the earlier day was the surprise and that they were always going, just not that early?

Also...and I could be confused here...I thought they were the bio parents, not the foster parents...assume also that the Nan is the bio Nan? So wouldnt that mean they have to pick the kids up from the FF to take them for the weekend? I dunno I think Im missing something here....