Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #42

[deugirtni]

It's interesting the difference in reporting on each podcast about this event. One reports that a casual enquiry was made about adoption, the other reports that a formal inquiry.

I wonder if the two podcast versions seem different because the 'enquiry' seems to be the very first stage of the 'formal' process?

What is the process of adopting a child in care?
The possibility of an authorised carer adopting a child in the Parental Responsibility of the Minister is explored through the following steps:

Enquiry

This is the stage where adoption is raised as a possibility for the child. This may be raised by the child, the child’s carer(s), birth parents, another member of the birth family, or the child’s caseworker. The child (where age appropriate) will be given the child and young person’s version of ‘Mandatory Written Information on Adoption’ so that they can learn about adoption and decide whether it is something they think is right for them. Discussions happen with the child’s caseworker about whether adoption should be explored.

Pasted from:
Family and Community Services | Information for authorised carers on out-of-home-care adoption
Download

 

[deugirtni]

Adoption sure does give a motive for abduction...but I guess until we know the real facts whether it was known about by bios or whether it was known about before or after William's disappearance, then the answer remains unknown

I am having some difficulty understanding how talk of potential adoption would give a motive for abduction, under the circumstances of this particular case.

The children have been said to have already been under long-term care orders, which were known to both bio parents according to their statements.

Visitation with bio family was reportedly extremely minimal, with visits taking place for I believe only one hour every second month. That is only 6 visits per year for a total of 6 hours.

Conversely, I believe I have read that adoption in Australia is 'open adoption', which I understand to mean that the bio family remains in the picture, in some capacity, even though the children may have been adopted? (I believe there was a bit of discussion around this just recently.)

We also know through statements/testimony/MSM, that visits seemed to be attended mostly by the BM, with the BD frequently missing the already-minimal visits, due to work, or whatever.

My confusion I guess, lies in - how would it make a tangible difference in the BP's lives if the children were to become adopted, as opposed to being in long-term care? Long-term care ends I believe, at age 18. And likewise, even if adopted, children are considered free to see whom they want, and live where they want, at age 18? So either way, the 'rules' of whichever arrangement, would end at age 18.

It seems like... IF an 'associate' were to have plucked W in order to prevent adoptive (or even fostercare) proceedings, the only one to be affected would be the BM... but yet BM has been going through a rough time for a long time (this is evidenced by published interviews with her, and more recent reports of her mental well-being). I'm sure that LE have also been keeping a good eye on everyone involved, since the disappearance occurred. It seems that if someone took him to reunite him with the only person who was apparently up-until-then, enjoying visits with him, this has not happened. So what would therefore have been the purpose?

 

[deugirtni]

As I was looking through news articles looking for something else a little earlier, I came upon articles published first thing in the morning on September 14, 2014. They refer to a friend of the FF named 'Nicole' being a spokesperson for the FF. She has been heard on video, and her photo(s) shown in articles.

My point is...

There has been some confusion about when it was exactly, when FFC told LE about the two cars she saw. We had historically heard that she was reminded of the cars on her way back to 48 after picking up her sister at the airport. I believe most of us had assumed this had occurred on the same date of September 12, 2014. At the inquest, there seemed to be confusion about when exactly the airport trip *did* occur, with some reports saying as long as six days later, IIRC.

But here we have the FF's friend(s) on camera, in photos, and quoted in articles, speaking there on-site in Kendall, seemingly as early as September 12th or 13th, 2014. No mention was made at the inquest (to my knowledge at least) of this visit/arrival by this friend(s).

When did they arrive? Did they fly or drive? Is it possible they were picked up at the airport by FFC, and that trip could have been when FFC remembered about the cars and subsequently made her report to police about them? It seems bizarre to me that FFC didn't remember about these cars until days later, so just wondering.

September 13, 2014 8:42am

“He is a much-loved, cherished little boy,” a close family friend speaking on behalf of the parents said this afternoon.
...
The family friend, who wanted to be known only as Nicole, said William’s relatives had been moved by the enormous show of community support during the search.

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

 

[deugirtni]

Now that it has been revealed via news podcast(s) that apparently PS got lost in the bush for two hours, does the coroner's request for any photos/footage from the searches take on new meaning?

Missing William Tyrrell Podcast:
He has told police that he went into the bush to look for William, got a bit lost, and found his way out via one of the back tracks about two hours later.
‎Nowhere Child on Apple Podcasts

News Article:
The NSW Coroners Court has taken the extraordinary step of requesting photos and videos of multiple searches for missing boy William Tyrrell from news outlets.
....
Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame contacted news organisations on Thursday, requesting "any photographs and videos it recorded of the original search for William Tyrrell in Kendall from 12-15 September 2014".
....
"Her Honour only wishes to inspect the photographs and videos at this stage," the request reads.

Coroners Court requests news photos of hunt for William Tyrrell

 

[Wexford]

Draft Witness list :

A convicted paedophile- ? male ? female
2 mystery women - ??
Un-named male- ??
Anthony Jones - convicted child sex offender
Debbie Gardoll- ex
"other relatives" - of Anthony & Debbie???
Bill Spedding - washing machine man
Margaret Spedding - wife of Bill Spedding
Valda Ballesty - Laurieton Public School official
Angela Eschler- hairdresser
Paul Savage - neighbour #
Patrick Teeling - NSW Mid North Coast local
Gordon Wiegold - Laurieton milk vendor and former journalist
Geoff Owen - installed the decking
Elizabeth Rowley - wife of Laurieton police officer Senior Constable Christopher Rowley
Three police officers - ???
Daniela Parish - owned Laurieton’s Cafe Buzz
Martin Parish - owned Laurieton’s Cafe Buzz
“Amy” - ?
“Tanya”- ?

That's about 22 , wonder who the other 20 are??

Paedophile to testify at William Tyrrell inquest

BBM
I assume 'Amy' and 'Tanya' are the two mystery women?

 

[Wexford]

I am having some difficulty understanding how talk of potential adoption would give a motive for abduction, under the circumstances of this particular case.

The children have been said to have already been under long-term care orders, which were known to both bio parents according to their statements.

Visitation with bio family was reportedly extremely minimal, with visits taking place for I believe only one hour every second month. That is only 6 visits per year for a total of 6 hours.

Conversely, I believe I have read that adoption in Australia is 'open adoption', which I understand to mean that the bio family remains in the picture, in some capacity, even though the children may have been adopted? (I believe there was a bit of discussion around this just recently.)

We also know through statements/testimony/MSM, that visits seemed to be attended mostly by the BM, with the BD frequently missing the already-minimal visits, due to work, or whatever.

My confusion I guess, lies in - how would it make a tangible difference in the BP's lives if the children were to become adopted, as opposed to being in long-term care? Long-term care ends I believe, at age 18. And likewise, even if adopted, children are considered free to see whom they want, and live where they want, at age 18? So either way, the 'rules' of whichever arrangement, would end at age 18.

It seems like... IF an 'associate' were to have plucked W in order to prevent adoptive (or even fostercare) proceedings, the only one to be affected would be the BM... but yet BM has been going through a rough time for a long time (this is evidenced by published interviews with her, and more recent reports of her mental well-being). I'm sure that LE have also been keeping a good eye on everyone involved, since the disappearance occurred. It seems that if someone took him to reunite him with the only person who was apparently up-until-then, enjoying visits with him, this has not happened. So what would therefore have been the purpose?

BBM
That could have been the intention and things went wrong. Or it is possible that an associate/family member was particularly fond of him (or both children) and was not getting the access that the BM was getting and they could have taken him for themselves? I daresay there are more sinister possibilities too.

 

[papertrail]

This is from the 'horse's mouth', MFC, during his interview at the one-year mark.

4:38 FD: I just finished umm, doing what I was doing in, in town, um near Laurieton, and I’d driven back and I’d drive in, in the garage.

So we are now ...near Laurieton ...not nearby Lakewood ...and out of the mouth of MFC. My point stands solid. Phew and thankyou.

What his interesting to me now is MFC clearly indicated ....driven into garage... when he returned to 48. The 1st responder has said when he 1st checked 48 on his arrival on scene, checked inside the building of 48 but didn't check the garage. Thread 40 and discussed upthread.

Could one of the perpetrators who may have been connected to one of the 2 vehicles parked on the street and apparently observed by only FFC, have been personally hiding in the garage after parking a vehicle elsewhere. Or maybe there was more than 1 person connected to each one of those parked vehicles and the extra person drove the car off scene.

From memory real estate pics showed this garage to be a massive undercroft space under the house with a massive pile of excavated dirt, by no means like a normal sized garage that just fits one or two cars.

Just pointing out nuances.

Edit to add. If this scenario happened then FFC could have been in a bit of danger herself when she jumped into family vehicle parked in the garage to drive Batar Creek Rd.

 

[papertrail]

I am having some difficulty understanding how talk of potential adoption would give a motive for abduction, under the circumstances of this particular case.

The children have been said to have already been under long-term care orders, which were known to both bio parents according to their statements.

Visitation with bio family was reportedly extremely minimal, with visits taking place for I believe only one hour every second month. That is only 6 visits per year for a total of 6 hours.

Conversely, I believe I have read that adoption in Australia is 'open adoption', which I understand to mean that the bio family remains in the picture, in some capacity, even though the children may have been adopted? (I believe there was a bit of discussion around this just recently.)

We also know through statements/testimony/MSM, that visits seemed to be attended mostly by the BM, with the BD frequently missing the already-minimal visits, due to work, or whatever.

My confusion I guess, lies in - how would it make a tangible difference in the BP's lives if the children were to become adopted, as opposed to being in long-term care? Long-term care ends I believe, at age 18. And likewise, even if adopted, children are considered free to see whom they want, and live where they want, at age 18? So either way, the 'rules' of whichever arrangement, would end at age 18.

It seems like... IF an 'associate' were to have plucked W in order to prevent adoptive (or even fostercare) proceedings, the only one to be affected would be the BM... but yet BM has been going through a rough time for a long time (this is evidenced by published interviews with her, and more recent reports of her mental well-being). I'm sure that LE have also been keeping a good eye on everyone involved, since the disappearance occurred. It seems that if someone took him to reunite him with the only person who was apparently up-until-then, enjoying visits with him, this has not happened. So what would therefore have been the purpose?

It sounds to me from what the mother of former associate of biomum (Jacob Nichols) has said to media, that he is the one that was upset by the prospective adoption and taken personal liberty to remove William and secrete him in another location as described in media article linked last night.

I would imagine that if that adoption process became finalized he would no longer have any possibility of interaction with William who he believed, according to his mother's media interaction, to be William's father. Whether he was right or wrong with that consideration is another matter but still highly relevant.

He may also have been upset at not gaining access through visitation access whilst William was in OOHC.

Biomum said at inquest she had continued her legal battle to have both children returned to her custody. If she had been successful this may have been a scenario where Jacob Nichols could see William by arrangement with biomum.

That is why SC Craddock made the particular statement at inquest and he chose his words ...by a relative or associate for a very particular and distinct reason.

For all we know Jacob Nichols or his mother may have a familial connection to bio mother or members of her family or bio mother's father's or step father's family. I am sure readers will know I mean.

This is such a very very complicated case. The one consolation is that if the above is correct William may be alive and cared for! I have goosebumps writing that this!

I do not believe either bio mother or bio father or their immediate bio family members have had any knowledge of what occurred with William's disappearance or had taken any action at any time to ensure removal of William from OOHC carers' custody.

Where is dearest sweetest William?

 

[deugirtni]

So we are now ...near Laurieton ...not nearby Lakewood ...and out of the mouth of MFC. My point stands solid. Phew and thankyou.

I'm not sure the importance of which specific place MFC actually visited (aside from time-lines, as Laurieton is twice as far, it seems), however this was my attempt at clarifying, (and this is my final stab at it). The nearby town of Lakewood is Lakewood, and at the same time, it is near Laurieton; however 'near Laurieton' is not 'Laurieton', and 'near Lakewood is not 'Lakewood'. I don't believe reporters have ever said 'near Lakewood'. 'Nearby' said in the context the various reporters have written it, is not interchangeable with the word 'near'.

IIRC there was only the one reporter who wrote that FD had visited Laurieton that day, and she herself had also written Lakewood within 6 days of that one. I believe it was just a mistake on her part.

(note this is written by Candace Sutton on March 26, 2019 wherein I believe she made an error)
She told the court that William had been “getting very bored” just before he vanished and they were waiting for his foster father to return from the nearby town of Laurieton.
William Tyrrell’s foster mum: ‘I beat myself up’

(note this was also written by same author, Candace Sutton, on March 31, 2019)
When the foster father returned from nearby Lakewood and the Kendall shops
https://www.news.com.au/national/co...t/news-story/d0e0d3664d113387adef9083d094040f

It seems most reporters simply shortened their Lakewood sentence to read 'went (or drove, or returned from, or whichever verb happened to be used) to nearby Lakewood', from the longer 'went to the nearby town of Lakewood'.

These examples are all from reporting during the inquest after MFC's direct testimony:

The man said he drove to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to be home around 10.30am.
Tyrrell's foster father searched everywhere

The man said he had driven to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to return to the house about 10.30am.
William Tyrrell's foster father 'hysterical' when child went missing, inquest hears

* William's foster father went to nearby Lakewood
https://www.9news.com.au/national/w...aken-him/14aec7ed-e655-4707-82b5-e301bc6114db

 

[deugirtni]

It sounds to me from what the mother of former associate of biomum (Jacob Nichols) has said to media, that he is the one that was upset by the prospective adoption and taken personal liberty to remove William and secrete him in another location as described in media article linked last night.

I would imagine that if that adoption process became finalized he would no longer have any possibility of interaction with William who he believed, according to his mother's media interaction, to be William's father. Whether he was right or wrong with that consideration is another matter but still highly relevant.

He may also have been upset at not gaining access through visitation access whilst William was in OOHC.

Biomum said at inquest she had continued her legal battle to have both children returned to her custody. If she had been successful this may have been a scenario where Jacob Nichols could see William by arrangement with biomum.

That is why SC Craddock made the particular statement at inquest and he chose his words ...by a relative or associate for a very particular and distinct reason.

For all we know Jacob Nichols or his mother may have a familial connection to bio mother or members of her family or bio mother's father's or step father's family. I am sure readers will know I mean.

This is such a very very complicated case. The one consolation is that if the above is correct William may be alive and cared for! I have goosebumps writing that this!

I do not believe either bio mother or bio father or their immediate bio family members have had any knowledge of what occurred with William's disappearance or had taken any action at any time to ensure removal of William from OOHC carers' custody.

Where is dearest sweetest William?

That fellow already didn't have any visitation rights, whether a long-term-care order or adoption. That fellow had already missed 30 months of W's short 39-month life (up to point of disappearance). Additionally, BM was living with W, along with his dad, for at least almost 2 months of those first 9 months, when W's parents had absconded with him to prevent his being taken into care.

If this fellow were going to 'steal' him, wouldn't he have acted much sooner? If adopted, there may be greater opportunities to snatch a child from potential locations and situations in a larger city. This wouldn't have needed to be done at a time when the possibility of success was practically non-existent.

 

[papertrail]

That fellow already didn't have any visitation rights, whether a long-term-care order or adoption. That fellow had already missed 30 months of W's short 39-month life (up to point of disappearance). Additionally, BM was living with W, along with his dad, for at least almost 2 months of those first 9 months, when W's parents had absconded with him to prevent his being taken into care.

If this fellow were going to 'steal' him, wouldn't he have acted much sooner? If adopted, there may be greater opportunities to snatch a child from potential locations and situations in a larger city. This wouldn't have needed to be done at a time when the possibility of success was practically non-existent.

Snatching a child in the city has greater chance of cctv footage and witnesses. Was Kendall closer to this alleged Aboriginal Community raised by Nichol's mother? Surely if this was a (very well) preplanned abduction the future hiding location would be prearranged. Where was Nichol's living prior to Sept 2014 ...it might not have been Sydney?

Yes I get your points re his lack of access but if biomum had talked to anyone about this adoption process kickoff which would override her legal battle to retake custody of both children then word may have got back to Nichols through the grapevine. I am certain it was mentioned way way back somewhere not necessarily on WS that biomum had posted info on her social media account about adoption process. Someone told me as I don't do FB or perhaos in the media. Nichols' mother was on biomum social media account with relative babe in arms and had apparently posted messages I am told. Female sibling was born in 2010 I understand from her age mentioned in early media articles.

Given biomum was loosing a mighty legal battle against FACS to regain custody Nichols may have panicked knowing full well he would not have a chance to see William again as biomum was about to loose any chance of access as well.

All supposition drawn from his mother's media contact and detailed infirmation. If that was not out there, there would be no avenue from which to draw the supposition.

It has been opined by FFC she had considered both children may have been targeted. Female sibling had a call of nature and that may have prevented her abduction as well. It kinda leads to a quandary about who was the biofather of this child if both children were allegedly targetted.... Nichols?

It is known that initially the police believed known bio parents may have been involved but announcements soon after the disappearance of William cleared both bio parents and I believe immediate grandparents of the 2 children of any involvement in a re-abscondment episode.

This alternative biofather raises other possibilties and the timing of his mother's media contact is considered peculiar from my perspective. Could there possibly be a familial relationship with a person outed as a POI and not necessarily one with the same surname as alternative biofather?

 

[papertrail]

I'm not sure the importance of which specific place MFC actually visited (aside from time-lines, as Laurieton is twice as far, it seems), however this was my attempt at clarifying, (and this is my final stab at it). The nearby town of Lakewood is Lakewood, and at the same time, it is near Laurieton; however 'near Laurieton' is not 'Laurieton', and 'near Lakewood is not 'Lakewood'. I don't believe reporters have ever said 'near Lakewood'. 'Nearby' said in the context the various reporters have written it, is not interchangeable with the word 'near'.

IIRC there was only the one reporter who wrote that FD had visited Laurieton that day, and she herself had also written Lakewood within 6 days of that one. I believe it was just a mistake on her part.

(note this is written by Candace Sutton on March 26, 2019 wherein I believe she made an error)
She told the court that William had been “getting very bored” just before he vanished and they were waiting for his foster father to return from the nearby town of Laurieton.
William Tyrrell’s foster mum: ‘I beat myself up’

(note this was also written by same author, Candace Sutton, on March 31, 2019)
When the foster father returned from nearby Lakewood and the Kendall shops
Inside the divided inquest into the three-year-old’s disappearance

It seems most reporters simply shortened their Lakewood sentence to read 'went (or drove, or returned from, or whichever verb happened to be used) to nearby Lakewood', from the longer 'went to the nearby town of Lakewood'.

These examples are all from reporting during the inquest after MFC's direct testimony:

The man said he drove to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to be home around 10.30am.
Tyrrell's foster father searched everywhere

The man said he had driven to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to return to the house about 10.30am.
William Tyrrell's foster father 'hysterical' when child went missing, inquest hears

* William's foster father went to nearby Lakewood
‘Somebody has taken him’: William Tyrrell’s foster mother shares grief over loss of three-year-old

I have posted upthread a media article reporting from inquest that said Laurieton. Whatever way Spedding is connected to Laurieton and his mate Youngberry is connected to Lakewood.

All just coincidental of course that MFC in his own words said Laurieton. He did not say he went near or nearby to Lakewood.

He chose to name a town the furtherest distance from Kendall. Maybe there was better internet reception on the day there and he knew there was pharmacy there as well. Maybe FGM advised him. Who knows but at the end of the day he chose to say Laurieton not Lakewood.

And just maybe reporters are using Lakewood to detract a connection of MFC to Laurieton due to Spedding's connection to Laurieton and the widely publicized police of premises once occupied by Spedding at Laurieton. I am not inferring a connection between Spedding and MFC either.

I am moving on now ...

 

[kiwi50]

I'm not sure the importance of which specific place MFC actually visited (aside from time-lines, as Laurieton is twice as far, it seems), however this was my attempt at clarifying, (and this is my final stab at it). The nearby town of Lakewood is Lakewood, and at the same time, it is near Laurieton; however 'near Laurieton' is not 'Laurieton', and 'near Lakewood is not 'Lakewood'. I don't believe reporters have ever said 'near Lakewood'. 'Nearby' said in the context the various reporters have written it, is not interchangeable with the word 'near'.

IIRC there was only the one reporter who wrote that FD had visited Laurieton that day, and she herself had also written Lakewood within 6 days of that one. I believe it was just a mistake on her part.

(note this is written by Candace Sutton on March 26, 2019 wherein I believe she made an error)
She told the court that William had been “getting very bored” just before he vanished and they were waiting for his foster father to return from the nearby town of Laurieton.
William Tyrrell’s foster mum: ‘I beat myself up’

(note this was also written by same author, Candace Sutton, on March 31, 2019)
When the foster father returned from nearby Lakewood and the Kendall shops
Inside the divided inquest into the three-year-old’s disappearance

It seems most reporters simply shortened their Lakewood sentence to read 'went (or drove, or returned from, or whichever verb happened to be used) to nearby Lakewood', from the longer 'went to the nearby town of Lakewood'.

These examples are all from reporting during the inquest after MFC's direct testimony:

The man said he drove to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to be home around 10.30am.
Tyrrell's foster father searched everywhere

The man said he had driven to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to return to the house about 10.30am.
William Tyrrell's foster father 'hysterical' when child went missing, inquest hears

* William's foster father went to nearby Lakewood
‘Somebody has taken him’: William Tyrrell’s foster mother shares grief over loss of three-year-old

I dont think you could possibly have explained it any better. i’m sure 99% of us understand. You have the patience of a saint.

 

[frogwell]

This is from the 'horse's mouth', MFC, during his interview at the one-year mark.

4:38 FD: I just finished umm, doing what I was doing in, in town, um near Laurieton, and I’d driven back and I’d drive in, in the garage.

So, he drove into the garage upon his return and then ran out of his car when he understood the situation and closed the garage door. The garage was not initially searched by police, nor the FC's or FCM"s cars. The 1st responder coming to the conclusion that the garage door would have been too heavy for a 3 year old to lift? Sound like the garage door was open at the time WT went missing. IMO
BBM

 

[sleepinoz]

So, he drove into the garage upon his return and then ran out of his car when he understood the situation and closed the garage door. The garage was not initially searched by police, nor the FC's or FCM"s cars. The 1st responder coming to the conclusion that the garage door would have been too heavy for a 3 year old to lift? Sound like the garage door was open at the time WT went missing. IMO
BBM

It wasn't said that he closed the garage door. He could have been referring to the car port and not the garage.

 

[sleepinoz]

Garage door is open in front of the command post in the very early stages.



https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...ts-dark-shadow-over-town-20141101-11fbdi.html

 

[JLZ]

It wasn't said that he closed the garage door. He could have been referring to the car port and not the garage.

One of the police people at the inquest said that on first searching the house the garage was closed and they didn't check it.

 

[sleepinoz]

One of the police people at the inquest said that on first searching the house the garage was closed and they didn't check it.

He didn't check it, don't assume nobody else did.

 

[stormbird]

Garage door is open in front of the command post in the very early stages.

View attachment 194826

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...ts-dark-shadow-over-town-20141101-11fbdi.html

The garage door was closed when the first police officer did his initial check of the house:

"Sen Const [CR] searched the family property when he got to the scene and asked another officer to do the same when he arrived.
His initial search did not include the roof space or the garage.
'I would've tried to do it but it was either locked or too heavy for a young child to lift himself,' the senior constable said."

- "William Tyrrell inquest: Police officer said someone asked for directions to Benaroon Drive", Port Macquarie News, 28 March 2019

But I agree that MFC might have meant the carport when he said "garage". Unless the house has an internal staircase, the garage would be a nuisance to access: you'd have to walk around the outside of the house and up and down the slope. The carport appears to have a door into the western wing of the house, plus it's only metres from the patio.

 

[sleepinoz]

Where's William Tyrrell?

Ep 7 - Breaking Point

The inquest approaches and William's foster parents speak out