Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #26

[Wexford]

just wondering if the foster parents chose to remain anonymous or was it a facs ban on them being identified? i remember reading, or hearing on the tv interview with them, they stated they had chosen to remain anonymous,to (understandably) protect williams sister, and didnt williams playgroup/kindy have a gag order also?
right from the first day they had a family friend front the media, how was that implemented so fast?
but then there seems to have not really been any gag orders on williams bio family with his mother and grandmother public on facebook and msm interviews etc
i know the important thing here is finding william but feel if there had been transparency from the start more people would have come forward, too many coincidences and moments and coverups!

Agree, surely the last thing on your mind when a child is missing is to quickly issue a gag order. I wonder if anyone has contacts in the department or a government minister. Was it ever stated that anyone else was there at the time that William went missing? I seem to remember some people hinting that perhaps there was maybe due to a reflection in a photo?
I agree there should have been more transparency. Look how quickly background dirt was dug up on Spedding when he was named as having been at the house recently.

 

[Wexford]

From smh.com.au

Police warn toddler William Tyrrell's foster care status not linked to disappearance

Article states that the ruling lifts restrictions around identifying William's biological mother and the couple William was in out-of-home care with.

Fairfax Media has chosen not to name the carers. They live on Sydney's north shore.

Police say William's status is not linked to the investigation - it's a distraction - he was in a loving family environment.

BBM

And why is that? Since when do MSM do that?

 

[butterstick]

William's surname is the same as his sister's surname..

Is this known?

We don't know what the family disturbance was to cause the fostering. If the bio family were seperating, then might the children have different surnames? Is it even known for sure if the sister shares the same two parents? (Is this already known? Sorry if casting doubt needlessly).

In any case..... I understand to some extent the need for privacy. But outside of foster arrangements there is no such respect given....

I think it helps to have a clear picture.... It's not necessarily about casting doubt on the foster parents. Knowing creates context.

For example, given the right clarity, someone at the time could of come forward to say "I know a friend of a foster parent, and he said something odd" ..... but that information is less likely to be identified without accurate news reports.

 

[Jennifer17]

I have always been a bit suspicious of the story told of his abduction. Wasn't he playing with his sister when, out of the blue, he just disappeared? If he was abducted, he had been wandering around by himself for a lot longer than the foster family are admitting.

 

[matey]

I have stayed away from this case because it personally insults me so much...

The fact that William was a Foster child has absolutely no significance whatsoever. ..... and people suggesting it does upsets me.

Yes the foster family kept their identities hidden.... (sinister intentions obviously!!!) .... along with Bio Mother and Father (sinister also) ....

The fact that they all had muzzles put on them by FACS irrelevant. .....

Anyone of them could have said stuff it and spoken out...... as a bio.... in my opinion ..... you should be the first to rock the boat ...

Time for a royal commision....

Ask dirtbag Debbie why she didnt....ohh f. FS didn't know why "her" car was in the neighbours garage....

Ask her why as a simpleton....she felt the need to get a lawyered up response to say how disgusted she was in her partner...... baby didnt want to loose her boo boo if you ask me..... sick.

Puggle...I have stayed away from William's case for similar reasons to yours.

I firmly believe that the main reason for the foster family not wanting their names put out there to the public was to keep their identities hidden for their own protection, as they are quite wealthy people with a high profile business.

I also believe that by not making their identity known on the 60 Minutes Story on Channel 9 by not showing their faces made many members of the public feel suss about this whole case right from the beginning.

I could go on and on but I don't want to get timed out so I will continue to stay away from William's thread because I get too emotional. MOO

 

[bearbear]

there are 20,000 children in out-of-home care in New South Wales. and like william the identity of most remains protected under The Children and Young Persons Act which is a piece of legislation designed in the interests of the safety, welfare and well-being of young people in care.

so this does not explicitly prohibit media from disclosing that a child is in care, it only does if the child is involved or mentioned in Children’s Court proceedings in which case the child's identity must not be published or broadcast in any form that may be accessible by a person in New South Wales.

Because there was no mention of such proceedings in relation to William, Judge Brereton ruled in January that Walking Warriors disclosure of his in-care status would not be in breach of the Act.
But that isn't the only reason the identity of children like William remains protected.
the CEO of the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies, Andrew McCallum, explained to media that media and the Department should only disclose confidential information about children in care if it's in the best interests of the child.

i copied and edited this from a well known msm site which i dont think we are allowed to link here (mm) its an interesting read

 

[SouthAussie]

So, they have lifted the suppression on the well-known fact that William was in foster care.

Too bad they won’t lift the suppression on the court proceedings and activities of all of the disgusting pedos … give all the victims the name ‘Julian’ and let the world know what the creeps are up to.
Too bad they won't create a public National Sex Offender registry so we can protect our children a little more from the sick deviants.

 

[Angeline]

The more I think about this the more I start to think it's as simple as Jubelin says it is.

An opportunistic crime by someone who had a reason to be on that street at that time. A person who turned out to be a pedophile, or linked to them.

Maybe it's all been complicated by the secrecy around William's family, and the fact that he was playing on a quiet cul de sac. It's easy to think he was taken by someone who knew him, but maybe it really was someone who had a reason to be there. Maybe it was all horrible timing.

I think, if there hadn't been so much secrecy, people would be less likely to speculate about the family.

 

[butterstick]

The more I think about this the more I start to think it's as simple as Jubelin says it is.

An opportunistic crime by someone who had a reason to be on that street at that time. A person who turned out to be a pedophile, or linked to them.

Yes worst case scenario is someone with no connections, just random. Someone now largely untrackable, given the length of time with no trail.

The alternate scenario, where someone was waiting specifically for him, is quite risky for the perpetrator. It's an exposed street. It's a quiet street where people would notice lurking for long periods. The perimeter of the house is quite wide, not easy to get close to without a good reason from what I can see. And the odds of WT being left alone at your time of visit would be small. To have pulled this off - to of had WT be out of sight to everyone but the perp - and for him to be alone - is enormously lucky (/ horrendously unlucky for WT).

 

[SouthAussie]

The more I think about this the more I start to think it's as simple as Jubelin says it is.

An opportunistic crime by someone who had a reason to be on that street at that time. A person who turned out to be a pedophile, or linked to them.

Maybe it's all been complicated by the secrecy around William's family, and the fact that he was playing on a quiet cul de sac. It's easy to think he was taken by someone who knew him, but maybe it really was someone who had a reason to be there. Maybe it was all horrible timing.

I think, if there hadn't been so much secrecy, people would be less likely to speculate about the family.

I think you are right. And I think Jubelin is right. He is the man with all the knowledge, the experience, the gut instinct. Others can speculate, but Jubelin has all the details. All the things that we do not know about yet. And not quite enough evidence to satisfy a prosecutor and get charges laid.

If they can find William, that may change. The perpetrator has been very lucky so far, although I think that karma may finally be catching up with him.

 

[sosocurious]

Is this known?

We don't know what the family disturbance was to cause the fostering. If the bio family were seperating, then might the children have different surnames? Is it even known for sure if the sister shares the same two parents? (Is this already known? Sorry if casting doubt needlessly).

In any case..... I understand to some extent the need for privacy. But outside of foster arrangements there is no such respect given....

I think it helps to have a clear picture.... It's not necessarily about casting doubt on the foster parents. Knowing creates context.

For example, given the right clarity, someone at the time could of come forward to say "I know a friend of a foster parent, and he said something odd" ..... but that information is less likely to be identified without accurate news reports.

[82] The interests of the carers are relevant only to the extent that they may have implications for Julian or his sister Sarah. While the welfare of Sarah is relevant – and while it is possible that an order might be made for her protection, prohibiting publication of information that might lead to her identification as Julian’s sister – no such order is sought, and the indirect connection between the proposed disclosure of Julian’s status and her is insufficient to support the injunction that is sought.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5996755ce4b074a7c6e17e4c

 

[sosocurious]

William arrived at the home of foster parents when he was 8 months old. The arrangement was intended to be permanent.

The baby boy had been removed from his biological parents — both of whom had encountered problems with police — and placed in the care of foster parents.
Bio father - a career criminal incarcerated for most of Williams short life..

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e
William Tyrrell’s foster home intended to be permanent
AMY HARRIS, The Sunday Telegraph

 

[sosocurious]

William was known to the public as his foster parents surname.(which can't be disclosed) and not Tyrrell.
There is no suggestion that either of the bio parents were ever violent toward William. Though there has been some link to domestic violence since Williams removal.
Karlie was having infrequent supervised visits before William disappeared.

William was snatched while playing on grandmothers front lawn.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e

 

[iailwa]

From what I understand about FACs, is that nobody is expected to be permanent carers straight away. There are case managers to look over the adjustment period (of some time) and court then proceedings, before any "permanent" arrangement is made. I have a friend going through this for the past 5 years. It wasn't till about 2 years in - that any permanent arrangement was discussed and then initiated. I know it is different for each case, but the idea of a permanent arrangement straight off the bat, is just plain ludicrous

 

[Alli1982]

Puggle...I have stayed away from William's case for similar reasons to yours.

I firmly believe that the main reason for the foster family not wanting their names put out there to the public was to keep their identities hidden for their own protection, as they are quite wealthy people with a high profile business.

I also believe that by not making their identity known on the 60 Minutes Story on Channel 9 by not showing their faces made many members of the public feel suss about this whole case right from the beginning.

I could go on and on but I don't want to get timed out so I will continue to stay away from William's thread because I get too emotional. MOO

Hi Puggle and Matey, I haven't read anything on this thread for nearly a year so excuse my ignorance. Plus there are 26 threads so I wouldn't know where to start! I know you said you don't want to get into it too much, and please don't for my account.....but I was just interested in hearing a summarised version of your thoughts/beliefs about who may be responsible or what may be being covered up....and who Debbie is? No drama if you're not up to sharing this stuff

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM

"Community Services Minister Pru Goward said the ice epidemic was partly to blame for the increase in children in out-of-home care, but hopes new early intervention programs could help bring the numbers down.

"If we could get on top of drug addiction in parents and the violence that comes with it then I think we could get that trajectory to change direction," she said.

However she pointed out that in the past 12 months NSW had seen a record number of out-of-home-care open adoptions — where foster carers adopt foster-placed children with the permission of their birth parents.

Finalised adoption orders have more than doubled to more than 127 cases compared to the previous year after the Government invested in additional case workers to speed up the adoption process."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-...for-older-children-in-new-south-wales/8671238
2 Jul 2017

 

[Alli1982]

Hi Puggle and Matey, I haven't read anything on this thread for nearly a year so excuse my ignorance. Plus there are 26 threads so I wouldn't know where to start! I know you said you don't want to get into it too much, and please don't for my account.....but I was just interested in hearing a summarised version of your thoughts/beliefs about who may be responsible or what may be being covered up....and who Debbie is? No drama if you're not up to sharing this stuff

Actually.......I've managed to find a section of posts from you guys and others from a couple of years back to answer my questions.....thank you

 

[gregjrichards]

WHEN an eight-month-old *William Tyrrell arrived at the home of his new foster parents, it was an arrangement that was *always intended to be permanent.

The baby boy had been *removed from his biological parents — both of whom had *encountered problems with police — and placed in the care of foster parents.

His biological father was a *career criminal who had spent most of William’s short life incarcerated.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e

 

[SouthAussie]

THERE is a desperate need for at least 660 new foster carers across NSW within the next year — as the lack of people willing to help condemns our most vulnerable children to a life of abuse, crime or death.

Family and Community Services Minister Brad Hazzard has made an emotional plea for more “lifesavers” to come forward to rescue children “living in horror”.

He said the stark reality was many of these kids were “safer on the streets than they are in their own home”.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...a/news-story/769356e54bf468c813962ffe85c64f81


The reason I am posting this foster care information here is that I think it is good to understand how decent William's foster parents (parents) are for taking the children in and giving them a stable, happy life .... which radiated in every photo and video we have seen of William.

 

[frogwell]

WHEN an eight-month-old *William Tyrrell arrived at the home of his new foster parents, it was an arrangement that was *always intended to be permanent.

The baby boy had been *removed from his biological parents — both of whom had *encountered problems with police — and placed in the care of foster parents.

His biological father was a *career criminal who had spent most of William’s short life incarcerated.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e

I'm guessing the FP's had permanent guardianship as opposed to adoption based on the judge's comments that it was inexplicable why the carers were presented as parents to WT. KT knew of the arrangement. Did BC know? Did this happen while he was incarcerated? Did any other family members apply to have custody of WT? Also wondering about the 000 call if WT was known by the FP's surname? How much of it is even true? MOO