Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) - #75

[Coldpizza]

William Tyrrell: ‘One million reasons’ to come forward over toddler’s abduction
7:29pm September 12, 2016

A $1 million reward, the largest in New South Wales history, has been announced for information that leads to the arrest of the person who abducted missing toddler William Tyrrell, or for the boy’s safe return or recovery.

William, then aged three, went missing from the backyard of his grandmother’s home in Kendall, on the state's mid-north coast, on September 12, 2014.

[...]

"You’re in a much better position if you come to us than if we come to you."

Det. Insp. Jubelin also said the investigation was "a long way" from going to a coronial inquest, and that police did not believe William's family were involved.

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS WRITTEN BELOW. YOU MUST FOLLOW WHAT IS OUTLINED OR YOU WILL BE TIMED OUT OR BANNED!!!!

Thanks to DrSleuth for your help in writing up the information needed for the discussion.

Here is what we can and cannot discuss.

No identifying the biological family, the foster family or any associates ( ie siblings, etc ) or their addresses, places of employment or childcare, etc

They can be identified as bio mother etc & female foster carer etc

At the inquest, they are known as biological mother & father. Foster family are known as FFC ( female foster carer ) MFC ( male foster carer ) FFGM ( female foster grandmother ) etc
REMEMBER THE ABOVE PEOPLE CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED USING THEIR INITIALS.

Prior to the coronial inquest, the bio families could be identified, but it was overturned by the coroner for the inquest.

I am very sorry it took me so long to open this thread back up. Please keep in mind we are short handed so if this thread starts to get out of control with alerts we will have to close it again.
Please do not hesitate to alert but make sure the alert is truly needed. We have experienced a lot of tit for tat alerts and that makes me foam at the mouth, grow hair on my hands and my teeth turn into fangs. In other words please be sure when you post you are posting within our terms of service.

Thank you,
Tricia

Rules Etiquette & Information

William Tyrrell MEDIA/MAPS/TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40 Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48 Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56 Thread #57 Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread #62 Thread #63 Thread #64 Thread #65 (Thread #66 pulled for review) Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70 Thread #71 Thread #72 Thread #73 Thread #74

 

[Sillybilly]

So, does that mean it's OK to discuss any other books on the subject?

There is no blanket approval. Please contact a Mod or Admin with the name of the book and the author and we will make a decision.

Chumley's book "Searching for Spiderman" is not approved.

Gary Jubelin's book and Caroline Overington's book are the only two that are approved for discussion at this time.

I think they should be okay - as one is a journo and one is an ex-lead detective on the case - but I will alert on my post and see if a mod can clarify how we should reference. Whether that be the book and page number, or a screenshot of the specific excerpt from the page of one of the allowable books.

IIRC stormbird was putting up screenshots when she spoke of particular passages from Overington's book.

Both books can be discussed.

Always give credit to the author. Book title, page # and paraphrasing or brief quotes are allowed.

Screenshots and more extensive quoting requires approval of the author (the copyright holder).

Do not try to get more content in by breaking it up into multiple posts.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This case has its very own set of very unique circumstances that we are having to work around and we know it is difficult for our members.

Of course we have William's case, but we also have the complicating factors of the foster situation, a living minor child, a coronial inquest that prevents publication of names, an AVO not known 100% to be immediately connected to William's case.

Taking all the above into consideration, we can not allow sleuthing of individuals who have not been publicly named.

Discussing what is in MSM is fine, but actual sleuthing of unnamed persons and posting about their background, their personal information or social media is not allowed.

Thanks to everyone here for trying to post accordingly through all this murkiness.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

IMPORTANT

PLEASE READ AND 'LIKE' THIS POST SO WE KNOW YOU HAVE READ IT.

Thread #66 remains pulled due to a recent influx of trolls. We may be able to get it reinstated in a couple of weeks.

Those individuals that we have been able to identify have been banned. There may be others who registered earlier and are waiting in the wings.

This new thread is for discussion only by our long term, veteran Websleuths members who have a sincere dedication to William's case.

As a result of this recent troll invasion we are not allowing new members to join in this discussion.

We are requesting that our trusted members Report posts by new members who join Websleuths after today (December 23, 2021) to participate in William's thread. We will review the matter and deal with it accordingly.

Those whose goal is to incite conflict are not welcome at Websleuths.

Thank you to all our members who have been able to participate respectfully and responsibly in this discussion. We truly appreciate you.

Sillybilly
WS Administrator

 

[Sillybilly]

Also, as there is no approved source regarding a statement to the Director of Young Hope, that is considered rumor at Websleuths. Posts and responses related to it have been removed or modsnipped.

Please don't bring it back into this discussion unless there is an approved source to substantiate such information.

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey everyone,

The Spedding award by the court is of interest, but discussion of the actual historical charges have nothing to do with William's case.

Please move past that discussion.

Thanks.

ETA: Changed "settlement" to "award by the court".

 

[Knitty]

Please continue here.

 

[Couldbe]

“It remains up to the DPP to give advice on whether the woman should go before a court.”

Detectives recommend charges against William Tyrrell's foster mother over 2014 disappearance

.... Guess we will now just have to wait to hear that result.

 

[mussopossum]

Channel 7 Sunrise this morning.

Strange that a Channel 7 reporter is reporting before daybreak from Kendall outside the old house on Benaroon Drive.

I wonder if something is going on up there and the media camped outside the house.

Major details emerge over disappearance of William Tyrrell

Major details emerge over disappearance of William Tyrrell

7news.com.au

 

[SouthAussie]

Channel 7 Sunrise this morning.

Strange that a Channel 7 reporter is reporting before daybreak from Kendall outside the old house on Benaroon Drive.

I wonder if something is going on up there and the media camped outside the house.

Major details emerge over disappearance of William Tyrrell

Major details emerge over disappearance of William Tyrrell

7news.com.au

A talking head on Ch7 this morning (I didn't catch his name). He doesn't know why the police would have leaked the info, maybe the large public interest. Handing the brief to the DPP is asking for an opinion if they have enough to charge. It is a very real possibility that what the police have is not enough.

Another talking head on Ch7 this morning, this could drag on again and we could see no-one being charged.

Source: Ch7 morning news

 

[bearbear]

if they did, what would be the reason or strategy for police to leak this info, rather than give a brief press conference?

 

[SouthAussie]

if they did, what would be the reason or strategy for police to leak this info, rather than give a brief press conference?

I have yet to see or hear any explanation. No-one seems to know.

Was it a rogue cop who leaked the info? Considering the official police statement said "Nothing has changed".
One talking head said "It is interesting that this leak happened after William's birthday".

All the talking heads have said this does not mean charges will be laid.

 

[Doesitmakesense]

if they did, what would be the reason or strategy for police to leak this info, rather than give a brief press conference?

Yes I'm finding this a really weird way to go about things.

 

[JLZ]

I have yet to see or hear any explanation. No-one seems to know.

Was it a rogue cop who leaked the info? Considering the official police statement said "Nothing has changed".
One talking head said "It is interesting that this leak happened after William's birthday".

All the talking heads have said this does not mean charges will be laid.

I think police want the public to blame the DPP instead of themselves for failing to solve the case.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think police want the public to blame the DPP instead of themselves for failing to solve the case.

You could be right.

I was thinking last night, if the police are sure of their "evidence" and the DPP does not feel there is enough there to prosecute, why would the police not prosecute via a police prosecutor instead of the DPP (as they are two separate entities).

As the talking head said (that I referenced earlier) ... they are looking for an opinion in giving the brief to the DPP.


"Police Prosecutors prosecute about 95% of criminal cases on behalf of the NSW Police Force and various other government agencies in court of summary jurisdiction, enjoying a success rate of 90% or above." Link

"ODPP - NSW's independent prosecution service, recognised for its excellence and leadership
The ODPP prosecutes serious criminal offences in NSW courts on behalf of the people of NSW." Link

 

[Couldbe]

I think police want the public to blame the DPP instead of themselves for failing to solve the case.

JMO -
Or…. could it be that what we think is weird is in fact Police strategy to take this route first … and not forewarn the Foster Mother / her Lawyer about what their line of questioning would be in line with what they claim is their evidence.

Thereby not providing a Defence opportunity early….before a Committal for Trial is held.

 

[SouthAussie]

JMO -
Or…. could it be that what we think is weird is in fact Police strategy to take this route first … and not forewarn the Foster Mother / her Lawyer about what their line of questioning would be in line with what they claim is their evidence.

Thereby not providing a Defence opportunity early….before a Committal for Trial is held.

Or .. it could be that the Coroner has said "if you think you have enough to charge, then try that route, and if you don't have enough we are back to the inquest".

They have indirectly forewarned the FM by leaking this info to the whole of Australia.

 

[Couldbe]

Or .. it could be that the Coroner has said "if you think you have enough to charge, then try that route, and if you don't have enough we are back to the inquest".

They have indirectly forewarned the FM by leaking this info to the whole of Australia.

Yes SA .... but does that forewarning to the FM reveal the all-important what that 'evidence' is?

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes SA .... but does that forewarning to the FM reveal the all-important what that 'evidence' is?

It doesn't matter. Before any trial full disclosure (discovery) is required. And a trial wouldn't happen before the lawyer has had the opportunity to form a defence. It is a fundamental right of the accused to receive full disclosure of the evidence and thereby defend themselves.


Minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings include:

• to be informed promptly of the charge
• to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and to communicate with counsel
• to be tried without undue delay
• to be tried in person
• ..... and more dot points in the link

https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/minimum-guarantees-criminal-proceedings

 

[Mrs G Norris]

God isn't it frustrating, maybe police have leaked this info to media because they've had enough of waiting and just want to get the ball rolling, nothing like bringing a matter to the top of the pile by making the whole thing public. No doubt the DPP will be taking a look at this first thing today.