Blues Clues responded to one of my comments RE a new witness around the early pages of this thread. It was a woman who lived near FA and recalled hearing a child scream.
Yes this is something I have explored. Not sure if we are allowed to share any possible info found on this as it has not been in MSM.
There is an article further back on the thread detailing a friend of Bio Gran being interviewed due to her connections to one of the neighbours who was considered a suspect at one point.
I don't find it that hard to believe a husband would lie to cover for his wife, and I find it even easier to believe a mother would lie and cover for her daughter
Or a daughter for her mother.
Poor thing. What a horrible way to grow up - to have to keep such a big secret from everyone else in her life. From personal experience, having family secrets feels just awful for a child. And now she *(apparently, from my reading of the media only)* has been taken from the only parents she has really ever known (ie the FPs), because they have hurt her!! IMO, there were 2 victims 12/9/14, WT and LT.
*edit
Absolutely this! Both children deserved so much better.
You can imagine the frustrating of the FM when she was originally told by the department that before she got WT that the mother was surrendering him over (when it was not the case the mother was having him removed by force) im not sure what she was told about the sister and im not sure if she got the sister 1st while waiting for the birth perents on the run with WT, once FM finally got him she was probably shocked that the perents were allowed to see him, she was probably angry thinking he was hers through a surrender then she had to wait for him while the perents ran, mad at them for having him on the run, then if there was an issue with adoption because WT was having visits with his BM she could of been even more mad
Imagine if you were age that can no longer hav children and how you would feel being told a baby boy is being surrender by his mother he will now be yours then you have to wait for him worrying while the perents on the run with him, then the perents are allowed to see him, from the start your lawyer would of told you adoption is an option this mother is surrendering the child now you find out that the children you raised with the internetion to adopt may never become your children because they are a sibling pair with the department, you try get rid of the BM through behaviour issues hoping that WT is not visiting his BM so the sibling pair will be adoptable but that fails as behaviour issues are normal with foster children, whats next you threaten the agency with the fact that you can't keep WT with the behaviour issues you tell them your going to the your mothers house for the weekend you continue to hav discussions with them Friday morning then whats next
How do we know FACS told the FC’s that WT’s parents had surrendered him? Hasn’t it been clarified that the FFC wasn’t involved in the adoption discussions via email that morning?
Wasn't WT removed from his mother when they were at a video shop in Ryde? From memory, I always wanted to know how they knew the perents were at the dvd shop who could of given the tip off? Who also gave the tip off about the perents being back together, I wonder at what point were the FF told about the sister when did they get her and when did WT come into the picture how did it all came together and why they were told that a 7month old baby will be surrender by its mother when that was never going to be the case, how can the department act on a tip off that the mother is back in a relationship with the father and order his removal how would there be any proof that the mother was back with the farther until the day that the police caught them together and actually removed WT,
IMO, it’s possible there was a domestic in the video shop and staff/witnesses called Police. Or if the parents were on the run, there was a public report made at some point asking for details on their whereabouts and someone recognised them.
Where a child is involved in a domestic, Police then have a duty to inform child services, particularly if there are historical incidents noted on the system.
If a child is under a protection order or involved with social services and considered at risk of harm due to exposure to domestic abuse, it’s likely IMO that a condition of WT remaining safe in Mum’s care was that she ended her relationship with the perpetrator (in this case Dad). I’m assuming there would have been regular visits to the family where workers picked up on the fact Dad was back in the family home, or it’s possible concerned maternal family members called to report the relationship had resumed. Where a child’s welfare is at risk or believed likely to be at risk, social services can and will act. It’s a legal duty. Mum may well have been a victim of domestic abuse and that’s tragic, but if it was impacting her capacity to parent and keep her children safe then removal must have been deemed appropriate.
The fact that WT’s sister was already looked after when he was removed indicates a history of issues within the family, they were on the radar. The welfare of a child is always paramount.
Hey websleuths,
Just a quick question. Sorry if this has already been addressed. I noticed something that confused me when comparing some comments by the FFC about their trip to Kendall. It might be nothing.
#1 Missing William Tyrrell - Caroline Overington Page 10.
---------------------------
"the family left the childcare centre shortly after 4pm."
#2 Where’s William Tyrrell Podcast: Episode: The Little boy in a spiderman suit
---------------------------
#3 Missing William Tyrrell - Caroline Overington Page 10.
---------------------------
As a mum of three little ones, I can't imagine stopping 3 times to tend to toileting matters in a 4 hour drive. Why so many toilet stops?
Is it just me or does the FFC give a lot of details and talk nearly too much?
JMO
I don’t think thats excessive. The second stop was for food and its reasonable to make use of facilities whilst there. The third stop was upon realising they’d forgotten to put pull ups on. Definitely not the most suspicious aspect of this case at all.
I have catastrophic thinking so I go straight to what if I think they are ok and Im wrong while looking around yelling their name all that stuff .
Same! Possibly due to my job and/or my interest in true crime…when you witness or hear some of the bad in the world, it’s easy to assume the worst.
Can any of the long timers here remember an article that came out about "someone known to William" were seen returning to the area to search? It was after we had known about the bio parents as I thought it was BD at the time. They said something about them being seen searching with a shovel? Can anyone remember this? I did look for it in the Media thread timelines but could not find anything. I wanted to see if this had been discounted? And I remember the picture of that tree that had William Tyrell's father painted on it too. Just a couple of red flags I remember from this case.
I’d be interested in this info too as I read something on SM about a tree.
Whoa, I feel stupid. I always thought WT ran from the back of the house to the front where he was supposedly snatched. Now I see he ran to the back. And the porch he was playing on seems like it faces the street, even if it's not right at the front of the house. The FFC and FGM were just beyond that porch making tea. If I was an abductor I don't think I'd risk snatching a kid when his parents are just beyond that porch ready to step back outside any second. And how did FFC and FGM not see any activity on the street when they had been sitting on a porch that must have a view of the street? Abduction makes even less sense.
This is why i believe WT has been unsupervised for longer, to have had time to wander off further along the street.
