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

[deugirtni]

I want to know why the last people to see WT alive have not been publicly identified. Why have they deliberately been protected and taken outside the parameters of this investigation from very early on. Publicising their identity may have given leads or breakthroughs on this case. Maybe not.... How have they been cleared so certainly? MOO

Just catching up from yesterday.. but this is exactly the difference it makes, as to who had responsibility for WT's custody/care when he disappeared. This case has been handled so very differently than other cases, because of this foster-care issue.. and in my humble opinion, that has had to have really hurt the case. There has been so much confusion, misinformation, etc.

We all know how it usually goes for families who have the terrible misfortune of having a child disappear or even die under unusual circumstances, and although it is cruel that the families normally undergo scrutiny from the public, which is assisted by the media, that is sometimes what helps cases become solved. Sometimes a little something that is said or published may spark a memory in someone who perhaps saw something, which at the time may have seemed insignificant, which could have turned out to be a very important tiny piece of a puzzle, which could help police put a case together. With the hidden identities and secretiveness in this case, all of that, which is 'normal' in every other case, was not able to happen.

Some may feel that is a good thing, since why should the already-suffering families be scrutinized like that. This is not a discussion about what is right and wrong in that regard.. just saying that this case has been handled so very differently from any other case, just because of the custody/care issue, and why? If a bio family must endure all the details being spilled in the media, then why should a foster-family receive special treatment? I sincerely hope that this issue has not been a factor in this case remaining unsolved for so long. Even more, I hope that it is not now too late to follow up on, or even receive, tips from those who may have inadvertently seen something, or may have possibly known something, but never knew the link.

 

[deugirtni]

RSBM

.... Both FM and , search the streets for WT as it has been acknowledged in several witness accounts, the grandmother was at the neighbor's door. She knocked on Lydene Heslop's door at the other end of the street and the grandmother of 10's door.

Why have we never heard her account of that day and the initial search, why does the FM never refer to her being a part of the initial search. Two able bodied adults lost sight of each other and a 3 year old child at the same time for a period of less than 5 minutes and he disappeared. In the 1st week of his disappearance, Fehon has said there was not one shred of evidence to suggest what had happened to WT. Both of those adults are familiar with the geography of Kendall, it has only been reported in MSM that the FM witnessed 3 of the 4 vehicles in Benaroon Dr that police are interested in identifying. What other evidence does the police have to have cleared these 2 women. It has been reported that the FF helped with the searchers for WT, but it is unknown and I have assumed that the 2 women were not a part of the searches.

They must have more evidence otherwise, with the information we do have, I cannot understand why the FM and her mother's face have not been shown in the media at a police conference. There has not been any opportunity for the public to be able to refute the FM's claims. That is what is unfair about this case, and the leading detective has used emotive language to shame anybody who suggests the obvious. Maybe the W4W could start putting these points and the names of the last 2 adults to see WT on their website, with a view to challenging, the secretary of FACS to take them to court to seek a permanent injunction on that information. I think it would be interesting for a supreme court judge to rule on whether the needs of a potential homicide victim are more or less than keeping the identity of 2 adults secret.MOO

It is just *unheard* of, for MSM NOT to have interviewed the other adult who was present at the time of the disappearance. I have wondered why. There must still be lots of information being kept secret, imho. My own guess is that FGM was perhaps having issues with her memory at the time, whether due to age, health/convalescence from her surgery(?), or whatever.. and perhaps she made a weak witness? The police and media cut her some slack? There are just sooooooooo many weird little oddities, discrepancies, secrets, too-good-to-be-trues, too-bad-to-be-trues, etc., in this case.

It is not surprising to me that this case hasn't moved anywhere when dealing with such limitations and seeming close-mindedness, and it makes my heart hurt because it is WT who has suffered through all of this. He deserves to be found and put to proper rest, with whomever caused whatever happened to him being served a large dose of justice. If the truth may lead to people and/or situations which may be more uncomfortable to consider, that should be secondary to getting to the truth. jmo

 

[frogwell]

Thank you for your posts Deugurtni, they are eloquent and diplomatic.

 

[deugirtni]

Should the media really be outing Williams bio mum?

It would make more sense to me, if they outed the foster mom. And the foster mom's mom. Afterall, they were with WT at the home and responsible for his care when he disappeared. Anything that may help people to think if they may have seen, or heard, or know of a name, or a face, etc., that could potentially become a valid tip, one may presume it could potentially be helpful. To me, it should have been William's name that was withheld, not the foster family's name. William is the one needing protection, and his sister. Not the foster parents. Not the government agencies. It seems like this case was the exact opposite. jmo

 

[deugirtni]

Yeah should they be? Wasn't the appeal about the media being able to release that William was in out of home care when he went missing?

So does this mean that the media can released the names and images of the foster parents. Or does the fact that they are still foster parents prevent that?

Along with a complicated family history preventing them from being legally identified, William’s mum and dad say they would not put themselves in the public eye regardless, because they do not want his other siblings to be identified.

“It’s important because there are children involved and they’re young. They deserve an opportunity for privacy,” his mum said.

“They deserve to grow up as individuals and not grow up being known as the brother or sister of the little boy who went missing. And it’s not denying them they’re relationship with him because that will never happen, but it’s about giving them the opportunity to become the people that they’re meant to be.
“So if our faces are known by the general public, if we walk down the road, people will know by association who William’s sister is. It’s not fair. It’s not fair to them and we’re not doing it for us, were doing it for children.”

But his mum said the story was only about their missing boy, not about them.
“We’re not the story, we’re the curiosity, but were not the story,” she said.
“The story is William was stolen by someone.”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...n/news-story/b30a20e61a3ccd41a55f9bc861e03002

Interesting perspective, to say the least. Any other family who has the misfortune of having their child disappear into thin air is 'known', and that would include that child's siblings. William's name was/is 'known'. William's surname is the same as his sister's surname. Wherever that little girl's name is known, people are undoubtedly already wondering if she is William's sister. The little girl's name is not the same as her caregivers' name. It seems to me that it is ONLY the foster parents' names/identities that are being hidden here.

 

[sosocurious]

Interesting perspective, to say the least. Any other family who has the misfortune of having their child disappear into thin air is 'known', and that would include that child's siblings. William's name was/is 'known'. William's surname is the same as his sister's surname. Wherever that little girl's name is known, people are undoubtedly already wondering if she is William's sister. The little girl's name is not the same as her caregivers' name. It seems to me that it is ONLY the foster parents' names/identities that are being hidden here.

It does!
imo

 

[sosocurious]

As William’s birth mother was revealed as Karlie Tyrrell, her mother Natalie Collins told The Weekend Australian it had been a “painful” fight to clear the air around her grandson’s disappearance. Ms Tyrell’s identity emerged this week after being kept confidential through child-protection laws for three years.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/818c648b51f276c4ea6a206e2b59b371
William Tyrrell’s birth family say government secrecy may have cost him his life
August 26, 2017
EMILY RITCHIE

Now I am confused.
Is that correct?

 

[sosocurious]

Williams bio grandmother Ms Collins was involved with the fight to lift the veil of secrecy.
Nobody was interested in helping us to get the truth out there...not even the police............

There is no suggestion that William’s biological or foster families were involved in his disappearance or have any knowledge of his whereabouts.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/818c648b51f276c4ea6a206e2b59b371

 

[deugirtni]

As William’s birth mother was revealed as Karlie Tyrrell, her mother Natalie Collins told The Weekend Australian it had been a “painful” fight to clear the air around her grandson’s disappearance. Ms Tyrell’s identity emerged this week after being kept confidential through child-protection laws for three years.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/818c648b51f276c4ea6a206e2b59b371
William Tyrrell’s birth family say government secrecy may have cost him his life
August 26, 2017
EMILY RITCHIE

Now I am confused.
Is that correct?

I believe this is yet another instance of sloppy/careless reporting in this case. We know the bio dad's name is 'Collins', the same as Natalie's, so common sense would tell us that since she is self-reportedly also WT's bio grandmother, Brandon would be her son, and Karlie may be her daughter-IN-LAW (if the two had ever been married??).. otherwise, I guess we could be looking at incest, which would add another little piece to the 'oddities list'?? J/K!!!!!!

What is so interesting to me is that the bio family, which includes, as a minimum, the mother, the father, the grandmother (and also taking into consideration that the mother knows that she has 2 additional children at home with her).. were all fine with the truth being outed in regard to WT having been in foster care at the time. Meanwhile, the foster carers were NOT okay with that info being released. Shouldn't it be the other way around? ie if *my* children were, or ever had been, in foster care, I may not want the world to know about that, for obvious reasons. It stigmatizes themselves and the other children. But if I was a foster parent, what is to hide about that, considering that their remaining fosterchild has the same name as the missing boy, which is a different name from their own? The bio family is willing to share that info if it can be thought to be potentially helpful, but yet the foster family is self-reportedly not.

 

[Angeline]

Good points deugurtni. And it's true, the story IS about the foster family as well as William because they were the last ones to see him. I wonder if this ruling means their names will be published in time? I've never heard of parents of a missing child keeping anonymous in MSM by choice.

 

[sosocurious]

And speaking to Daily Mail Australia on Friday, Ms Smith said she did it all for the boy's biological mother, Karlie, whose identity was revealed this week.
'I have a primal connection with a woman I have never met…and I feel her loss, that primal loss, through no fault of her own,' Ms Smith said.
'The only thing she did wrong was being young, with no support of her own… I feel for that young woman and I have never even met her.'


He said it was inexplicable why the boy's carers had been represented as William's parents.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-William-Tyrrell-mission.html#ixzz4qo6UpvOt

 

[PainExpress]

I feel really angry and frustrated for William. Poor boy. Seems so much self interest has hindered him being found.

Makes me wonder that there's much more we don't know.

Either way he was left unsupervised by people that were supposed to be taking better care if him. Harsh but true. If true.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[sunnybree]

I am not sure that, prior to now, the foster parents' views and wishes about keeping their names private were ever considered. This was all FACS. If FACS says they can't reveal that they were carers, they can't. If they do they are liable for hefty fines, even imprisonment, not to mention the likely removal of William's sister from their care and the cancellation of their approval as carers. I'm not kidding, confidentiality is a legal requirement for carers and lasts forever. So how would that help William's sister or other children they fostered? People who know William's sister will of course know now, if they didn't before. But a stranger in the street will not be able to recognise the foster parents, see William's sister, and think/say "that's William's sister and she is in care."

I'm glad it's come out that William was in care as this now allows his biological family to speak for him. I feel they have been the real victims in this FACS debacle. This may be an effective way to influence a key witness. However I can see how it is also going to be a distraction. For whatever reason, the police are adamant that neither family, nor his foster status, led to his abduction. But people do have a negative view of foster care and it is showing, and it will be distracting. It might even work against the police, if it makes any witnesses feel less guilty about coming forward (although as I said it hopefully will have the opposite effect).

Also, I do think it's a little harsh to blame FM for leaving William unsupervised. They were not in the street or at a park. They were at FGM's private home on private property. If any mothers here are honest, have you never left your kids alone in the yard to answer your phone, or go to the toilet, or grab something to drink? Or had to take one kid inside because they needed something and you didn't want to bring the other kid/s inside too? The only person at fault is the person who took William. I don't care if he was close to the road. Any normal person would have taken him by the hand and walked him back to the house. Saying otherwise is assuming that the average person is just an opportunity away from committing a deviant crime.

 

[Angeline]

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.

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

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.

And let's pray he still is


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[purpleandgreen]

Good post, sunnybree.

I am not sure that, prior to now, the foster parents' views and wishes about keeping their names private were ever considered. This was all FACS. If FACS says they can't reveal that they were carers, they can't. If they do they are liable for hefty fines, even imprisonment, not to mention the likely removal of William's sister from their care and the cancellation of their approval as carers. I'm not kidding, confidentiality is a legal requirement for carers and lasts forever. So how would that help William's sister or other children they fostered? People who know William's sister will of course know now, if they didn't before. But a stranger in the street will not be able to recognise the foster parents, see William's sister, and think/say "that's William's sister and she is in care."

I'm glad it's come out that William was in care as this now allows his biological family to speak for him. I feel they have been the real victims in this FACS debacle. This may be an effective way to influence a key witness. However I can see how it is also going to be a distraction. For whatever reason, the police are adamant that neither family, nor his foster status, led to his abduction. But people do have a negative view of foster care and it is showing, and it will be distracting. It might even work against the police, if it makes any witnesses feel less guilty about coming forward (although as I said it hopefully will have the opposite effect).

Also, I do think it's a little harsh to blame FM for leaving William unsupervised. They were not in the street or at a park. They were at FGM's private home on private property. If any mothers here are honest, have you never left your kids alone in the yard to answer your phone, or go to the toilet, or grab something to drink? Or had to take one kid inside because they needed something and you didn't want to bring the other kid/s inside too? The only person at fault is the person who took William. I don't care if he was close to the road. Any normal person would have taken him by the hand and walked him back to the house. Saying otherwise is assuming that the average person is just an opportunity away from committing a deviant crime.

 

[Scaven]

What I don't understand is if FACS are OK with Karlie keeping her other children, why couldn't she take William and his sister back?

 

[frogwell]

RSBM

Also, I do think it's a little harsh to blame FM for leaving William unsupervised. They were not in the street or at a park. They were at FGM's private home on private property. If any mothers here are honest, have you never left your kids alone in the yard to answer your phone, or go to the toilet, or grab something to drink? Or had to take one kid inside because they needed something and you didn't want to bring the other kid/s inside too? The only person at fault is the person who took William. I don't care if he was close to the road. Any normal person would have taken him by the hand and walked him back to the house. Saying otherwise is assuming that the average person is just an opportunity away from committing a deviant crime.[/QUOTE]

I agree with all you have said and I don't think this is a "going out to dinner, checking on the children every half hour situation." We have been told repeatedly, that the odds of being at home and an unheard, unseen person, random or organised, abducting WT is next to nil. Why is it that we have to consider seriously this possibility, but not the reaity that the last people to see WT, cannot say definitively what the other was doing, at exactly the time he disappeared, as they were doing separate activities. Funny but that is trusting the FM's account of a timeline.I and other sleuthers have felt for some time that her timeline is a bit off and have made allowances for it. When asked about the moment she realised he had disappeared, I have heard her evade the answer several times in interviews or become vague. In reality the last confirmed sighting of WT, outside of FGM or FM's accounts, was at 9.45 when his photo was taken.I would say the chances of an outside person to this situation being able to take advantage of this couple of minutes is next to none. AT least in a park or street there is the chance other people or technology can give more information about the situation. As an aside has anyone ever had any information about the 2 homes and the occupants of them at the end of Benaroon Drive before the bush track begins? MOO

 

[bearbear]

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!

 

[purpleandgreen]

That's the problem with Government Red Tape, bearbear.

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!