There is nothing and no one to independently verify that [the FFC's] version of events is factual ... (fgm has passed on and wasn't pressed hard at the time and has little left behind to support) moo
Yes.
Additionally, that includes the
twin cars on Ellendale Crescent. There is nothing and no one to independently verify the FFC's assertion, for which she said she spotted twice throughout the morning, and had never, ever seen before in all of her years visiting Kendall. In neither instance did she comment to her mother--who has lived there all these years--about the peculiarity (i.e.
"Hey mum, do you recognise these cars?" "hey mum, have you ever seen cars parked on Ellendale Crescent before?" etc). And no neighbours came forward as well about this vehicular abnormality. And no neighbours came forward to identify the people missing from these cars (FFC said the windows were down and no one was in them).
Yet on Lia Harris' podcast
Where's William Tyrrell? ("Not Her Mantle" @ 23:12),
Xanthe Mallett oddly weighs FFC's memory far greater than Ronald Chapman's, even though forensic psychology academic Helen Paterson testified at the inquest that neither could be trusted anymore than the other (she couldn't rule if FFC's was true or false, and that Chapman's may or may not have been impacted by information released after the investigation started).
Mallett on Chapman:
"Somebody can tell an absolutely true ... account of something they've witnessed ... not based in fact."
"I'm not really sure it progressed us any further in understanding what happened to William ... no conclusion ... can be reached from that."
"He could well have been absolutely telling his truth, but whether he saw it or not, we can just not determine." (24:18)
Mallett on FFC:
"We have no reason to think she didn't see them ... We don't know whether they were connected or not.
"Just because nobody else saw them, that doesn't undermine the FFC's testimony as to what she witnessed."
"I already took it as a given she saw the cars ... I'm not sure why we have a memory expert commenting .. when I already accepted she was telling her truth." (26:11)
One could argue that the
law of probabilities would suggest that--in the case that both memories were accurate--there would be a greater chance of an Ellendale Crescent neighbour supporting FFC's memory of two stationary cars parked unattended in an abnormal way for about 2 1/2 - 3 hours verses someone else noticing a moving vehicle with a kid standing up in Spider-Man suit racing down Batar Creek Road.
We in fact know that an Ellendale Crescent neighbour returned from
grocery shopping before the supposed kidnapping would had to have taken place (part III
Little Boy Lost, @6:09). The neighbour attested that based on the time FFC approached her, the supposed kidnapping would had to have happened whilst she was unloading groceries from her vehicle. And, if the supposed kidnapping had happened before her return, she still failed to see these "abnormally" parked cars
on her way to grocery shopping. The twin cars would have been parked from about 7:30 AM when FFC said hi to the kookaburras to the time of WT's disappearance (10:05 - 10:35 AM-ish).
FFC insists that these twin cars would know something about WT's disappearance.
Why isn't that this neighbour did not notice these twin cars parked in a way never seen before by FFC on Ellendale Crescent? That is a legitimate question for an investigator to ask and explore. It's shocking to me that
60 Minutes validated the FFC's memory on national television with that artist rendition (and not FFC's memory of the green/grey car driving by the man with the old-timey beer belly, which apparently was substantiated by a second witness, WT's sister [the car, at least]).
