Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #62

[PainExpress]

.I hope she's referring to the little girl and not the person charged with child abuse.

That makes sense.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Why?

Why not?

 

[The gavel]

I've lost the trail here. Who receives extensive sympathy?

FM.

A previous poster said that she can't see how factitious disorder could apply because FM hasn't gotten sympathy.

 

[Waverider]

Interesting observation. Yes, I think most of us would use the past tense. Talking in the present tense does suggest maybe watching a movie playing in the mind.

And rather than describing what actually happened the day W disappeared, she describes what she was thinking. Her vocabulary / word finding is also surprisingly poor during these descriptions.

 

[bfew]

It reminds me of some criminal fiction where you see women who can't have kids so they try to kill the mother and or abduct a whole family and raise them as their own.
speculation...Did she see BM as her personal surrogate?

Sort of like a reverse cuckoo syndrome.

Cuckoo - Wikipedia
Some species are brood parasites, laying their eggs in the nests of other species and giving rise to the metaphor cuckoo's egg
(Like the spring migratory (to NSW) very noisy common Koel's and huge Channel-billed cuckoo's.)

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, I believe it was WiWT Podcast. I heard it just last week and I went looking for it yesterday and it appears to have been edited out unless I just keep missing it again.

IIRC FFC stated that she had searched online for activities to do and I believe she did say horse riding. When I realised where the new search is I got goose bumps. I can't remember if she searched the night before or that morning though. Very bizarre imo.

What is the WiWT podcast? There are at least a couple of podcasts.

 

[Milisi]

When you're a loving mum you can't imagine that a mother could do something purposely evil, but sadly, mothers are the most likely people to kill their children. More likely than strangers, step father's, pedophiles, serial killers.

That sux. Just gotta say.

 

[The gavel]

Sort of like a reverse cuckoo syndrome.

Cuckoo - Wikipedia
Some species are brood parasites, laying their eggs in the nests of other species and giving rise to the metaphor cuckoo's egg
(Like the spring migratory (to NSW) very noisy common Koel's and huge Channel-billed cuckoo's.)

The things you learn in a crime thread

 

[SleepyJoe]

I know that the famous photo of WT doing a "roar" on the deck has been discussed before, but I just want to mention it again. And may not even be relevant, but....

I have re-watched the Michael Usher 2015 60minutes episode with the FCs (I think that episode would be running hot the last week or so!!), and when MU refers the FCs to the photo. The FFC, without missing a beat, and without being prompted, starts to elaborately explain that "he is actually looking at me", but "I am crouched down at an awkward angle". Why did she feel the need to add that in and justify this? She wasn't asked anything about where he was looking. And, having looked closely at that photo, I am in the camp here at WS who believe he was looking specifically at someone or something. He certainly wasn't looking at whoever took the photo IMO (my husband has a Bachelor of Photography, was a professional photographer and I have looked at many, many hundreds of his photos of people of all ages, including our children over the years). In light of my beliefs about the photo, the fact that she seems to randomly offer this explanation is suspicious IMO. As I said, it may not be relevant at all, but there are things that certainly don't add up.

(ETA this and the doubt about the time of the photo all points to doubt about her credibility and given timeline of events. And if he was looking at someone, was it the MFC who apparently wasn't there at the time???)

As for the smile she gives when MU starts crying, I know that one or two other WSers have said this may have indicated "dupers delight". I'm not sure though, it was in the context of her apologising "Sorry" for making him cry and I thought it might be just an embarrassed smile. I am not a body language expert though and would be very interested to hear what how other WS members interpret it. It's of course difficult when you can't see the rest of her face. If it turns out in the course of things that she was involved in WT disappearing, then it must be an example of "dupers delight". That prospect gives me the chills.

 

[Milisi]

Benaroon dr to the show grounds is 5 minutes drive on google earth so im not 100% if the pony club is at the show grounds or the other end of batar creek Rd, either way to go to batar creek road and drive around a little to look for WT its about a 5 min drive maby less depends of where on batar creek road you go and pull over or it could be more that 5 mins depends how far you go plus the same to return, seems strange to go that far when he was only meters away from you at the house, also strange to say it 6 days later on the walk through video with police do we have any other evidence that she told anyone any earlier she didn't mention it in 000 call

Oh gosh very off topic and random but reading this post took me back to ABC’s case. The Showgrounds, the speculation on roads travelled, the timeframes. The speculative routes JBC followed

 

[Milisi]

What makes you think that? The FGM left everything to the FFC.

Really? There were sisters etc…did they not factor in the will?

 

[The gavel]

I know that the famous photo of WT doing a "roar" on the deck has been discussed before, but I just want to mention it again. And may not even be relevant, but....

I have re-watched the Michael Usher 2015 60minutes episode with the FCs (I think that episode would be running hot the last week or so!!), and when MU refers the FCs to the photo. The FFC, without missing a beat, and without being prompted, starts to elaborately explain that "he is actually looking at me", but "I am crouched down at an awkward angle". Why did she feel the need to add that in and justify this? She wasn't asked anything about where he was looking. And, having looked closely at that photo, I am in the camp here at WS who believe he was looking specifically at someone or something. He certainly wasn't looking at whoever took the photo IMO (my husband has a Bachelor of Photography, was a professional photographer and I have looked at many, many hundreds of his photos of all ages of people, including our children over the years). In light of my beliefs about the photo, the fact that she seems to randomly offer this explanation is suspicious IMO. As I said, it may not be relevant at all, but there are things that certainly don't add up.

(ETA this and the doubt about the time of the photo all points to doubt about her credibility and given timeline of events. And if he was looking at someone, was it the MFC who apparently wasn't there at the time???)

As for the smile she gives when MU starts crying, I know that one or two other WSers have said this may have indicated "dupers delight". I'm not sure though, it was in the context of her apologising "Sorry" for making him cry and I thought it might be just an embarrassed smile. I am not a body language expert though and would be very interested to hear what how other WS members interpret it. It's of course difficult when you can't see the rest of her face. If it turns out in the course of things that she was involved in WT disappearing, then it must be an example of "dumpers delight". That prospect gives me the chills.

Your expertise is much appreciated. I think though, that a layman can see that he wasn't looking at her. It's a little insulting to be expected to believe this clear and obvious mistruth. Unless she's got a hidden octopus limbs there is no way he's looking at her. IMO

 

[JBowie]

It's hard to distinguish fact from fiction.
IMO !

If we had full access to transcripts of the Coroner's hearings then we'd probably be able to nail some things down as accepted facts.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

With one of my old mobile phone companies I'd have to go outside the front of my house to get a signal.

When we first got a mobile we had to leave the house and stand in the middle of the street to use it! Things have improved a lot since then but we still have intermittent problems.

 

[JBowie]

Really? There were sisters etc…did they not factor in the will?

The FM has mentioned brothers (who she said raised their kids in the Kendall area) and there's the sister she said she picked up at the airport.

I don't know if it's been verified how many brothers and sisters in total she has.

As for her mother's Will, we couldn't possibly know the details of that unless she published them -- and I very much doubt that she would.

 

[PainExpress]

The FM has mentioned brothers (who she said raised their kids in the Kendall area) and there's the sister she sad she picked up at the airport.

I don't know if it's been verified how many brothers and sisters in total she has.

As for her mother's Will, we couldn't possibly know the details of that unless she published them -- and I very much doubt that she would.

None of them are publicly offering support that I've seen.

 

[Waverider]

I know that the famous photo of WT doing a "roar" on the deck has been discussed before, but I just want to mention it again. And may not even be relevant, but....

I have re-watched the Michael Usher 2015 60minutes episode with the FCs (I think that episode would be running hot the last week or so!!), and when MU refers the FCs to the photo. The FFC, without missing a beat, and without being prompted, starts to elaborately explain that "he is actually looking at me", but "I am crouched down at an awkward angle". Why did she feel the need to add that in and justify this? She wasn't asked anything about where he was looking. And, having looked closely at that photo, I am in the camp here at WS who believe he was looking specifically at someone or something. He certainly wasn't looking at whoever took the photo IMO (my husband has a Bachelor of Photography, was a professional photographer and I have looked at many, many hundreds of his photos of all ages of people, including our children over the years). In light of my beliefs about the photo, the fact that she seems to randomly offer this explanation is suspicious IMO. As I said, it may not be relevant at all, but there are things that certainly don't add up.

"

Agreed 100%. A) W clearly isn’t looking at the photographer - he’s looking up at someone behind the photographer; b) why explain that when no one asked and c) her explanation makes no sense; d) why has LE not questioned this??

 

[SleepyJoe]

Your expertise is much appreciated. I think though, that a layman can see that he wasn't looking at her. It's a little insulting to be expected to believe this clear and obvious mistruth. Unless she's got a hidden octopus limbs there is no way he's looking at her. IMO

Octopus limbs LOL ! And I certainly don't have any expertise, that's my husband .... but the point I was trying to get at and didn't word it well, was that it has been suggested on WS is that WT may have just not looked at the FFC "directly" when she took the photo. I believe, however, that he WAS looking at someone/ something SPECIFICALLY. And, even more than that, why did she feel the need to say that he WAS looking at her, when he clearly WASN'T! I think that is fishy. Because if he was looking at someone else apart from her, then who was he looking at????? (We can see FGM and LT in the photo and apparently, according to her, no one else was there.)

ETA: The fact that she has said that he is looking at her when he (IMO)obviously isn't means that she was not telling the truth ie a lie. So, JMO, there is one lie she has told. What others are there?

 

[Warshawski]

She said he was only meters away, but she drives all the way to the pony club to look for a child that is only meters away away from her on her mother's property, it opens up a time frame of no alibi, and I think at this stage we may not know the order of events as to what stage in the search for WT did she hav no alibi driving to the pony school, everyone's statement is a little different, the tea is still warm after all this time

Just some thoughts:

If I recall the story - FFC made tea ( strong & in a mug for her, weak in a pretty cup for FGM), she can’t remember putting out any food - and they sat on the patio / deck ‘whatever’ drinking their tea, whilst Wiliam roared around the garden . .. until the sudden silence ..

Did FGM actually hear William’s roaring around the garden then ? Did Lindsay ?

or was perhaps William already missing by that stage ?

maybe the drive to the Riding centre had already occurred
maybe the tea was made on return from that drive, which could account for it being warm when police arrived.
hence perhaps it was only ‘5 mins ‘ from when she said to FGM ‘ I suddenly can’t hear him’ to ‘ he’s not here anywhere’...

 

[missepic]

I know that the famous photo of WT doing a "roar" on the deck has been discussed before, but I just want to mention it again. And may not even be relevant, but....

I have re-watched the Michael Usher 2015 60minutes episode with the FCs (I think that episode would be running hot the last week or so!!), and when MU refers the FCs to the photo. The FFC, without missing a beat, and without being prompted, starts to elaborately explain that "he is actually looking at me", but "I am crouched down at an awkward angle". Why did she feel the need to add that in and justify this? She wasn't asked anything about where he was looking. And, having looked closely at that photo, I am in the camp here at WS who believe he was looking specifically at someone or something. He certainly wasn't looking at whoever took the photo IMO (my husband has a Bachelor of Photography, was a professional photographer and I have looked at many, many hundreds of his photos of people of all ages, including our children over the years). In light of my beliefs about the photo, the fact that she seems to randomly offer this explanation is suspicious IMO. As I said, it may not be relevant at all, but there are things that certainly don't add up.

(ETA this and the doubt about the time of the photo all points to doubt about her credibility and given timeline of events. And if he was looking at someone, was it the MFC who apparently wasn't there at the time???)

As for the smile she gives when MU starts crying, I know that one or two other WSers have said this may have indicated "dupers delight". I'm not sure though, it was in the context of her apologising "Sorry" for making him cry and I thought it might be just an embarrassed smile. I am not a body language expert though and would be very interested to hear what how other WS members interpret it. It's of course difficult when you can't see the rest of her face. If it turns out in the course of things that she was involved in WT disappearing, then it must be an example of "dupers delight". That prospect gives me the chills.

I didn’t know about duper’s Delight myself and felt so disturbed too if this was what it was.
For many people I’ve seen who are genuinely upset, I’ve noticed they may smile when others are around (like “ I know I’m silly crying”) with no intention of tricking people around.