Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) #77

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
<modsnip - broken link>

The public only became aware of Ws foster care status in 2017 when a Supreme Court Judge upheld a previous ruling made earlier that year. Justice Brereton ruled that releasing the information would not have a negative impact on the case.

So I’m not quite sure what “conspiracy theories” you are referring to SthAussie but Ws care status has never been a conspiracy, only a FACT.

In 2015 Fp did a televised interview with police as well as 60minutes. At this point the public were completely unaware of this crucial information.


Where is William? | 8.20 Sunday on 60 MinutesYouTube · 60 Minutes Australia2 Sept 2015

So if there was, as you have stated, an imbalance of public opinion especially in the first couple of years I would have to say the scale was definitely tipped in favour of the fosters.

Exactly my point ... no-one knew why the parents weren't coming out and speaking, so conspiracy theories grew and spread.

I will transcribe some bits from CO's book that might be more understandable to you than my post.


Chapter 2
It is against the law in New South Wales to reveal the identity of anyone in either family, primarily to protect the privacy of William's older sister ....

This secrecy tended to deepen the mystery. Gossip, rumour, innuendo: you will find all this in William's case. The Australian public - good people, not given generally to cruel suspicion - wondered for many years what was being hidden from them. Providing the honest explanation - William was at the time of his disappearance a foster child - was until recently an offence punishable by prison time.


Chapter 7
Remember that nobody had heard a word from William's foster parents since he went missing. All kinds of gossip - they're involved, if not in this, then in something dangerous - was swirling around the internet.

Were they in witness protection? If so, what kind of people end up in witness protection? Were they associated with criminal gangs? Was this a ransom kidnapping? Had they done something wrong?
......

The interview makes for distressing listening. Both parents cry as they imagine William's fate.
Based on online comments underneath the [police interview] video, however, many people still wondered why they were 'hiding'.

Source: Missing William Tyrrell, by Caroline Overington

(ETA ... and also IMO)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is how I see it iiiis, the scale of justice weighed in favour of finding WT. W MUST BE FOUND. Sacrifices were made. L is finally free of the fp, free of the burden and trauma and free to be whomever she wants to be.

This very well may not have made the child happy, despite the personal feelings expressed in your post. She cried when she was taken away.

I think she had hoped that rebelling against another foster child would mean the other foster child would be taken away and not her.

imo

 
IMO SFR was probably listening to the recordings for those months and building their case against the FM.

If charges are ever laid against the FM then IMO a jury could be convinced that she has a history of striking out against little people who cant defend themselves. Both verbally and physically.

Just like little 3 year old William Tyrrell.
 
IMO SFR was probably listening to the recordings for those months and building their case against the FM.

If charges are ever laid against the FM then IMO a jury could be convinced that she has a history of striking out against little people who cant defend themselves. Both verbally and physically.

Yes, their focus was definitely on the case and not the living child.

As iiiii said, there will be a big question about the tail wagging the dog - and (imo) this will be used to counter any attempt to show a "pattern" or "tendency evidence". If this matter should ever go to court.

imo
 
This is how I see it iiiis, the scale of justice weighed in favour of finding WT. W MUST BE FOUND. Sacrifices were made. L is finally free of the fp, free of the burden and trauma and free to be whomever she wants to be.

I hope this speech makes you solve the case," she said. If it doesn't, when I am officially adult, I will be in the police force, a detective specifically, and I will find my brother and not give up until he is found.”

And I believe her!!!!!
The only thing that could justify this for me would be if there were indications early on in the surveillance that strongly suggested the FM had knowledge of WT's whereabouts or was responsible for the disappearance and they were awaiting more elaboration. No one else has been suggested to be charged around WT's disappearance so I doubt the FFC was walking around the house talking to herself when no one was home about what she had done to WT. What I 'm saying is, through listening devices, I think it unlikely that SFR gained any knowledge about what happened to WT or where he is. MOO
 
This is how I see it iiiis, the scale of justice weighed in favour of finding WT. W MUST BE FOUND. Sacrifices were made. L is finally free of the fp, free of the burden and trauma and free to be whomever she wants to be.

I hope this speech makes you solve the case," she said. If it doesn't, when I am officially adult, I will be in the police force, a detective specifically, and I will find my brother and not give up until he is found.”

And I believe her!!!!!
Sacrifices do not have to be made if they have actual evidence. Why is it okay to sacrifice his sister? And for what? Nothing so far. IMO they have nothing that will stand up in court and when the first assault happened they still had nothing. In their desperation they took no action. I think they waited until the warrant expired and they weren’t able to obtain another. They had nothing they could charge them with in regards to William so went with whatever they could get. Absolutely appalling police work. A child should never be made a “sacrifice” in the scant hope you might be able to further another case.
 
JMO - If the fostering of a second much younger little girl was causing the 11 year old to experience jealousy and the FM, knowing what the assaulted had been through since the disappearance of her little brother, I wonder why there was a persistence to maintain fostering the much younger child in preference to alleviating the jealousy pain of the 11 year old?

There was an attempt to break her:

https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/she...r/news-story/7b5b18775c7bbf0f0712df5ab8123b65
“The prosecutor told the court there was evidence the foster mother called a friend and said “I need to break her”.

Too late after that approach taken by the FM, but even if the 11 year old girl had been removed when the first assault incident occurred, the younger girl would no doubt have been removed at the same time as well .... thereby disrupting continuity of the fostering of both of them. MOO
 
The only thing that could justify this for me would be if there were indications early on in the surveillance that strongly suggested the FM had knowledge of WT's whereabouts or was responsible for the disappearance and they were awaiting more elaboration. No one else has been suggested to be charged around WT's disappearance so I doubt the FFC was walking around the house talking to herself when no one was home about what she had done to WT. What I 'm saying is, through listening devices, I think it unlikely that SFR gained any knowledge about what happened to WT or where he is. MOO

There is probably a good chance that the child can sue the State of NSW, when she is 18 and out of their permanent care. For their part in the pain and suffering she experienced during the covert police operation. Due to the fact that the police (mandated reporters) knew what was happening to her and did nothing to stop it or reduce the risk (in fact, they heightened the risk imo).

imo
 
JMO - If the fostering of a second much younger little girl was causing the 11 year old to experience jealousy and the FM, knowing what the assaulted had been through since the disappearance of her little brother, I wonder why there was a persistence to maintain fostering the much younger child in preference to alleviating the jealousy pain of the 11 year old?

There was an attempt to break her:

https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/she...r/news-story/7b5b18775c7bbf0f0712df5ab8123b65
“The prosecutor told the court there was evidence the foster mother called a friend and said “I need to break her”.

Too late after that approach taken by the FM, but even if the 11 year old girl had been removed when the first assault incident occurred, the younger girl would no doubt have been removed at the same time as well .... thereby disrupting continuity of the fostering of both of them. MOO
Well, I don't think she would have been removed from that scenario, I think DCJ would work with them and provide more support for what appeared to be a young person not able to get through or staying stuck or resisting for months and months. If the surveilled phonecall was true, the FFC had been requesting more support and it was declined. I think there were points where she had enough insight to think she was out of line but was buckling under distress due to what she was facing from the media and SFR. It depends what people interpret "break her" means. If it means holding the line as a parent while the young person comes up against themselves, boundaries, etc. then I understand. If the effect of doing that after months isn't working, then you're either not doing it well or the young person probably need more or a different kind of support. MOO
 
Sacrifices do not have to be made if they have actual evidence. Why is it okay to sacrifice his sister? And for what? Nothing so far. IMO they have nothing that will stand up in court and when the first assault happened they still had nothing. In their desperation they took no action. I think they waited until the warrant expired and they weren’t able to obtain another. They had nothing they could charge them with in regards to William so went with whatever they could get. Absolutely appalling police work. A child should never be made a “sacrifice” in the scant hope you might be able to further another case.

As you say Lola "Why is it OK to sacrifice his sister?"

IF they have a shred of proof or even high expectations of the FF being guilty of Williams disappearance - why would they leave a child in their care after the first incident?

Did it not occur to them that "IF" their thoughts were correct, the same could have happened to this child?

I truly hope that someone will have to answer for this stupidity. IMO
 
IMO the way this is going , the action of the Police and their lack of action in protecting Lindsay right from the start their excuses in failing to protect her.
They had a warrant to bug FP place for information on William, what did they find/about on William? Even applying pressure with the public search played out in the Media
Looking at the action and the fallout, it was not about William at all.
To get other evidence on Foster Parents , yes, they got that, which was their intention in the first place.
Get them on other charges to get a confession no matter what.
 
Well, I don't think she would have been removed from that scenario, I think DCJ would work with them and provide more support for what appeared to be a young person not able to get through or staying stuck or resisting for months and months. If the surveilled phonecall was true, the FFC had been requesting more support and it was declined. I think there were points where she had enough insight to think she was out of line but was buckling under distress due to what she was facing from the media and SFR. It depends what people interpret "break her" means. If it means holding the line as a parent while the young person comes up against themselves, boundaries, etc. then I understand. If the effect of doing that after months isn't working, then you're either not doing it well or the young person probably need more or a different kind of support. MOO
What type of support was the Ffc denied?
 
JMO – The following demonstrates where the FM appears to be showing avoidance in a bid to avoid the consequences of conviction.

Working backwards from the most recent:-
  1. Alleged Assault and Intimidation:
    …. First she tries on the Mental Health excuse (That failed);
    …. Then she pleads Not Guilty;
    …. On 4/9/2023, she pleads Guilty to the Assault Charges (Surveillance tapes evidence);
    …. She pleads Not Guilty to Intimidation Charges (Now to be heard as a Prima Facie).
  2. Alleged Lying Charge:
    …. Result of Not Guilty because she did not intentionally lie.
JMO - Right from the get-go, the FM has been ‘loose’ with the details that she gave regarding that fateful morning:

E.g.: In the 000 Call:
  1. Operator: How long has he been missing?
  2. Foster Mother: I think... well, I think, well, we've been looking for him now for about fifteen or twenty minutes but...
  3. Operator: OK.
  4. Foster Mother: Ah, I thought it could be five, it could be longer 'cause he was just playing around here we heard him and then we heard nothing.
    …. She modifies the amount of time to suit herself!

  5. Operator: OK. Would he have had any shoes on do you know? Any other distinguishing features?
  6. Foster Mother: Um, um, um he has oh he's got a freckle on the top of his head when you part the hair on the left hand side (Operator: yep) you'll see a freckle on the top of his head.
    …. She doesn’t seem to want to answer about wearing shoes!

  7. Operator: OK, alright. Do you know where he might have gone?
  8. Foster Mother: Um, we're a li-, we actually live, well mother's property's near a State forest
  9. Operator: OK and they're on huge blocks.
  10. We've walked up and down Benaroon Drive and we can't find him.
    …. No mention of FM driving Mazda as far as Riding School.

  11. Operator: OK has he been known to sort of go anywhere before...
  12. Foster Mother: No, this is the first time; completely out of character.
  13. Operator: There wasn't anyone um suspicious in the area? Any vehicles?
  14. Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I no not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so...
    …. Answers with lots of no that there was anyone suspicious in the area.
NB: For whatever reasons, it seems that FM has seen fit, a couple of days later, (Maybe because she learned that she had been seen by someone) to declare that she had driven to the Riding School.

NB: The female foster carer gave a statement to police on September 14, 2014 that "does not make any reference to sighting vehicles", the inquest heard. But on a filmed "walk-through" four days later, she recalled seeing two cars, one grey and one white with "dark tinted windows".

NB: There was also a green or teal-looking car which reversed in a neighbouring driveway and drove off. She said the driver was “a big man” in his late 50s who was Caucasian, had “sandy, reddy-coloured hair”, a “thick neck” and looked “weathered”.

NB: Then later at the Inquest:

She said that the man was 'not overly tanned', had no facial hair or glasses.
The foster mother was questioned at the inquest over a previous 2015 statement where she told police a different account of seeing the car driving down the street.
Then, she said: 'I cannot remember whether the windows were down. I could not see any of the occupants'.
Asked to explain the difference in the statements, the foster mum said she had just read the police statement, 'and I just thought, I don't know why I said that.'
 
As you say Lola "Why is it OK to sacrifice his sister?"

IF they have a shred of proof or even high expectations of the FF being guilty of Williams disappearance - why would they leave a child in their care after the first incident?

Did it not occur to them that "IF" their thoughts were correct, the same could have happened to this child?

I truly hope that someone will have to answer for this stupidity. IMO
I actually didn’t even think of it that way. They seem to be of the opinion that fm harmed William, yet after knowing there was one incident they still left her there? So wouldn’t they know there’s a chance something may happen to Williams sister? That is just pure negligence
 
in my opinion thank goodness police were surveilling, and rescued the child before the abuse escalated, they may have saved her life

And a lot of others don't agree with that. As is their prerogative on a discussion board.

The police didn't intervene when they should have, or notify DCJ and let them intervene.

It is a matter of perspective - whether a person feels that the violence should have been stopped after one assault, or after an assault, 9 months of verbal fights, and another assault.

imo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And a lot of others don't agree with that. As is their prerogative on a discussion board.

The police didn't intervene when they should have, or notify DCJ and let them intervene.

It is a matter of perspective - whether a person feels that the violence should have been stopped after one assault, or after an assault, 9 months of verbal fights, and another assault.

imo
yes, I think some don't agree because they are focusing on the short term. Very high chances that if after the "first" incident, the fosters would have gone and got some help and been "fixed" and back she would go to live with the foster parents, who are then no longer being watched. Zero protection after that for the child. The police have said that they have sought advice.

I definitely think she is better off now, not having any contact with them, then her going back after a month. It also now has protected other possible future foster kids from being abused both physically and emotionally. but I guess all that matters to some is the appearance to be doing the right thing, rather than the right thing for the long term health of the foster child and future foster children.

All IMO.
 
There is probably a good chance that the child can sue the State of NSW, when she is 18 and out of their permanent care. For their part in the pain and suffering she experienced during the covert police operation. Due to the fact that the police (mandated reporters) knew what was happening to her and did nothing to stop it or reduce the risk (in fact, they heightened the risk imo).

imo
Maybe she can sue the actual abusers?

No doubt the abuse was escalating and had been ongoing long before the police monitoring /intervention and discovery and they ultimately got her away from them.

Can't see how the police could be made responsible for the abuse when as some have suggested it really wasn't 'that bad.'

A case against the STATE (nsw police actions) would in this instance fall over pretty quickly IMO.
 
What type of support was the Ffc denied?
I'm struggling to find the article with the direct quote. In evidence the friend recounted when FFC disclosed kicking the child and saying she was not coping. The friend said maybe she needed more support to which FFC said she had applied for it but it was declined. I'm assuming it was support to help manage the child's behaviour based on the word "applied" in context to the conversation. If you want your own support, you just go out and get it, it's not someone else's decision. MOO
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLZ
Maybe she can sue the actual abusers?

No doubt the abuse was escalating and had been ongoing long before the police monitoring /intervention and discovery and they ultimately got her away from them.

Can't see how the police could be made responsible for the abuse when as some have suggested it really wasn't 'that bad.'

A case against the STATE (nsw police actions) would in this instance fall over pretty quickly IMO.
BBM - can you provide a link to this fact?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
3,727
Total visitors
3,849

Forum statistics

Threads
602,750
Messages
18,146,479
Members
231,525
Latest member
vec416
Back
Top