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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Police definitely don’t just send the DPP a “theory” …. I think that is just media talk …. IMO
Correct in a way. But all briefs are just a very tightly scripted "theory", generally backed up with evidence of some type (including circumstantial).
......how can someone be charged with interfering with a corpse when no corpse has been found? AFAIK, a coroner has not yet even declared WT to be deceased!........
Under the NSW Crimes Act - Interfere "...includes alter, deface, remove, obliterate, conceal or add anything...."
www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s81c.html

Possible police are alleging William's body was removed and/or concealed.
 
Under the NSW Crimes Act - Interfere "...includes alter, deface, remove, obliterate, conceal or add anything...."
www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s81c.html

Possible police are alleging William's body was removed and/or concealed.

However, there are still other possibilities for William's disappearance.

Which is what we mean about how can someone be charged with interfering with a corpse if we are not sure that there is a corpse that could be interfered with?
If William could still be lost in the bush and not found?
If there are still other POIs with no proven alibi? (as per the inquest)

Surely there would need to be proof that nothing else happened. Otherwise there is an obvious (to the DPP and any potential judge or jury) bucketload of reasonable doubt. imo
 
Not sure. Niggling. The discussion about the red blanket....

Would there have been clothes on the line that morning? A blanket to grab....

A desperate concealment fits for me. A terrible, fatal accident and a panicked attempt to save the second child, meaning not to lose the foster daughter over a sure judgment of neglect/poor parenting, as well as a move to save her marriage, if it was shaky (she couldn't let him know that her inattention led to the death of his beloved foster son).

I don't know that Wm would've had to fall. He could have tried to climb down and his costume got hung up on the railing and he could have asphyxiatiated. She goes around the side of the house after some minutes, sees him there, goes back into the house, grabbing a blanket or a coat or a bag, gathers Wm and scurries away in the car.

Why would she do that? Fear of losing the foster daughter.

Jmo
We may never understand the reasoning behind a cover up. If fc is guilty of abuse allegations of other child, her train of th ought may not be straight forward or logical when under stress.
 

Police have found an old hessian bag buried about one metre under the ground on the sixth day of the search for the remains of missing three-year-old William Tyrrell.


Possibly a hessian bag could be used to conceal and use to transport items in a boot of a car. MOO
 
Surely there would need to be proof that nothing else happened. Otherwise there is an obvious (to the DPP and any potential judge or jury) bucketload of reasonable doubt. imo
A brief of evidence for DPP doesn't contain all the exhibits, evidence and arguments that will be presented at trial. It's more like a well-written theory. DPP has to consider multiple criteria - one of them being that DPP must decide if there is a "reasonable" prospect of conviction. They don't need to see 'proof' of anything at this stage - burden of proof is for the court stage of the process.

Chapter 1 of this document is very short and has a good summary of what DPP requires for their part of the process www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines/chapter-1
 

Also the Shirt FFC was wearing in the McDonald's footage the previous night was a pinkish colour a bit like the material they found in the "dig". MOO
 
A brief of evidence for DPP doesn't contain all the exhibits, evidence and arguments that will be presented at trial. It's more like a well-written theory. DPP has to consider multiple criteria - one of them being that DPP must decide if there is a "reasonable" prospect of conviction. They don't need to see 'proof' of anything at this stage - burden of proof is for the court stage of the process.

Chapter 1 of this document is very short and has a good summary of what DPP requires for their part of the process www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines/chapter-1

Believe it or not, I actually read that document yesterday, or whenever the "news" first broke. :)

I am just not arriving at the same interpretation (I don't think).
The impression I have is that the prosecution "should" only prosecute when there is a good chance of conviction.
They will sit and run through the two tests - and the subtests - and see there is reasonable doubt.


Point 2:
Consideration should also be given to:
  1. any inferences that may be drawn from circumstantial evidence
  2. whether the prosecution is able to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the accused being innocent
  3. any other matter that could impact on the prospects of conviction.
 
Last edited:
Yes, pictured here in FF walkthrough, from memory this was 6 days after William went missing View attachment 431771
Thanks …. And nice to see you back on the thread @Green beans :)

Edit to add.. That darker pink (possible) top on the clothes line looks suspiciously like the top FM was wearing the night before at Maccas IMO
To me it just looks like a similar colour….. but very hard to see exactly
 
Last edited:
I've gone looking for her quote but am struggling to find it, maybe you could search for it as well as I can definitely see your point, it's just that I remember the wording a little differently to your recollection. So if anyone could help with a link that would be great.
From one of your previous posts, quoted from an article:

William Tyrrell: Gary Jubelin planned secret “immunity ...
No Cookies | Daily Telegraph...
William’s sister had also told detectives in her interview that she saw William running towards “daddy’s car” before he vanished. Their foster father had a grey station wagon, just like Savage did, and the children had been waiting for him to return from an appointment on the morning of William’s …



Link to article quoted: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/t...e/news-story/a0699df42f3d2cd7728151525c44f92c
 
Not “washing” per se, as the washing machine was broken as per @SouthAussie post ….
But a blanket MAY have been possible if it had been accidentally wet thru the night, just to dry it out …. Until it could be washed ….
But AFAIK there is nothing documented about that ….
Good thinking though …. :cool:

IMO
They may very well have also been handwashing in the meantime until the washing machine repair was done.
 
If Police have now thrown out the timeline on the morning of Williams disappearance, then the drive(s) that the Foster Father took that morning would also have provided opportunities to dispose of “things”.

It means everything they said is off the table, as they are no longer reliable witnesses, which has to include all the adults in the house at the time. The camera, pings, and third party witnesses are all they can rely on.
 
If Police have now thrown out the timeline on the morning of Williams disappearance, then the drive(s) that the Foster Father took that morning would also have provided opportunities to dispose of “things”.
His trip to town has never bypassed me.

Curious as to why he seems to be out of frame now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,957
Total visitors
2,098

Forum statistics

Threads
601,832
Messages
18,130,386
Members
231,155
Latest member
Aqfina2000
Back
Top