So the Dept took W4W to court to prevent them disclosing William's care status on the facebook page.
W4W took it up to FACS. They did that for KT. Also to push for an inquest.
KT does not speak to NC. If the media is correct KT is back with BC since his release from prison in March.
Does it seem as though the only person that is having anything to say to the media ........is still only NC ...
IMO.
I'd guess that the FP are also speaking to the media, although it is not announced. I noticed in the article by Amy that there is no reference to where she received her information. She lists as facts, those which are her opinions. Her writing seems very slanted in favor of the FF, while it seems almost vengeful toward the bios. This case just gets weirder every day, imho.
-"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." - who says that it was always intended to be permanent? Amy the reporter?
-"His biological father was a career criminal who had spent most of William’s short life incarcerated." - in whose opinion was the bio father a career criminal? Amy the reporter?
-"Karlie Tyrrell was aware that William’s foster care was meant to be a permanent arrangement." - did KT tell the reporter this, or did someone else? There is no reference.
-"It is understood his biological father and mother, Karlie, whose name was released this week after a ruling in the NSW Supreme Court, have been linked to domestic violence-related incidents.
However, these occurred after William had been removed from their care and there is no suggestion either were ever violent towards him." - why bring this up, especially since these events occurred AFTER WT was 'removed from their care'? Does Amy the reporter have a problem with the bio family? If so, why? If not, why not back up her report with facts? It has now been disclosed that the child was in care - does that mean it should also be announced as to *why*?? Is it not more important to say in whose custody and control the child was, on the day he disappeared? I'm just not getting it.
-"However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not “Tyrrell”." - how does Amy the reporter know about this? Is she quoting someone but without a reference? Why would the FF refer to WT by something other than his name? The FACS, the bios, the govt, any schools/preschools, would all know WT by his *real* name.. so who exactly is Amy referring to? The FF's friends and relatives and neighbours?
-"William Tyrrell's
parents view pictures of their missing son in an appeal for his safety last year." - why is Amy the reporter still showing pictures of the FF and calling them the 'parents', even when the court of appeal has questioned why this was allowed or done in the first place? Later she even states: "“Moreover, the truth has, to date, been obscured: the public has admittedly been given to think that (his) carers are his parents.
“There is a substantial public interest in accountability and scrutiny of the out-of-home care system, and in accuracy of reportage of the circumstances of his disappearance,” he said."
-"The new revelations come as the identity of Karlie Tyrrell has been revealed in the wake of a ruling by the NSW Supreme Court which has allowed the fact that William was in foster care to be disclosed for the first time." - why reveal KT, but yet not the FF? The court did not distinguish that one could be identified and the other could not? Is there some kind of prejudice involved here?
-"
The ruling was made just over two years after his shocking kidnapping from a mid-north coast home during what was a visit to his foster grandmother." - Wasn't it just under three years? Or has this issue been going on for a year in the appeal court, trying to reverse the initial decision?
-The investigation into his disappearance is “very much ongoing”, according to police, but neither his foster family nor his biological parents are suspected of any involvement. William’s grandmother has since moved." - is this Amy's opinion, or did someone tell her this, and if so, why has she not referenced it, as reporter's normally do when they state 'facts'?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e
I'm just so disgusted. MOO.