Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) #78
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
Those PR people had quite a task. How do you keep something straight that never was straight and never stops moving?
What if she's only charged with perverting the course of justice? ie making false statements which impeded the investigation because wanted to look like a better mother? Would the inquest go ahead?
SLouTh
In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,427
- Reaction score
- 35,114
BBM
I think the inquest has to remain “suspended“ for any charge ….although it’s not black and white, (with the specific alleged charges) until the completion of criminal proceedings ..
If, before or during an inquest or inquiry, a person is charged with an indictable offence which raises the issue of whether they caused the death or fire in question, the coroner must suspend the coronial investigation or inquiry, pending the completion of the criminal proceedings: s 78(1)(b), (2)(b).
Coronial matters
www.judcom.nsw.gov.au
Section 44-120
Edit to add: That is why the Coroner sought a response from the ODPP with regards to a date, for that decision …
IMO
Last edited:
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,012
- Reaction score
- 183,689
I think the only reason the FM would be charged with perverting the course of justice would be if she had dumped William and knew where he was. And there seems to be no evidence of that.
At the inquest, a forensic psychologist testified about the memory recall of both FM and RC. I doubt there would be any charges (at all), especially charges based on what a witness (FM) has said.
There are a ton of stories on the internet about inaccurate memory recall of witnesses.
People have gone to prison due to witness statements that were later proven to be inaccurate.
Innocent statements, these witnesses really "remembered" things in the (erroneous) way that sent people to prison.
imo
SLouTh
In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,427
- Reaction score
- 35,114
I hadn’t actually considered the ODPP possibly only charging FM for one charge, with the Perverting the course of justice ….
If they have proof of that ??? (I-Think if I recall correctly this particular charge carries a much higher penalty, than the “interfering charge”, if found guilty ….)
Good thought though !!
But it would be very sad sate of affairs if it all was from trying to prove that FM was trying to be perceived as a “better parent” …
BBM
This would fit the other charge of Interfering with a corpse, more so, as that charge relates to moving a dead body from its place of death.
Rather than that of the Perverting the course of Justice Charge ??
The interfering with a corpse charge, could be very hard to prove now that Lonergan has said in court that he doesn’t know what happened that morning on Benaroon Drive ….
IMO
IMO
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,012
- Reaction score
- 183,689
No, I meant that she would have been perverting the course of justice by lying about not dumping William. That is what I have always had the impression that charge is about. But there is no evidence of her lying about that.
Just like the exoneration of her alleged perverting the course of justice by lying to the NSWCC. A person's memory recall (with regard to "lying") is a very hard thing to prove.
imo
SLouTh
In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,427
- Reaction score
- 35,114
Ah …. I see what you mean now ….. Thanks
Where as, I thought the “Perverting the Course of Justice Charge” could relate to the entire incident …. ????
From when William was first reported as missing, via the 000 call, if Police allege that FM disposed of William before that, following an accident …. And that FM allegedly knew what happened to him, and where he was the entire time ..
IMO
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,012
- Reaction score
- 183,689
I think we are speaking of the same thing.
I will try to explain better .... for example, I don't think FM would be charged with perverting the course of justice if she said William was gone for "about 5 mins, it could have been longer", because that didn't pervert the course of justice.
Nor could any of the other things she has said lead to charges of perverting the course of justice, if there is no evidence that she knew what happened to William the whole time.
Memories can be erratic, false, inaccurate (as has been proven in wrong conviction cases) or they can be accurate.
Without evidence of William's demise and her involvement in that, I don't think there is any way that FM can be charged with perverting the course of justice by anything she has said or done.
But that is just my opinion.
nightrider17
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2017
- Messages
- 569
- Reaction score
- 4,717
No evidence.
No Body.
Just like Lynette Dawson. IMO
So why not move on???
Has there been any interactions which are questionable between the people accused which can sew doubt?? JMO
Has there been any history of interactions including other people in their care which shows a pattern of escalating tensions. MOO
Why is that important in this story?? Everyone has bad parenting moments.
But is there a pattern of things cycing out of control??? IMO
A buried body, a murder weapon or a confession just makes it simpler. IMO
But are there any questionable circumstances that point to a possible involvement by the Foster Parents ??Just my opinion.
No Body.
Just like Lynette Dawson. IMO
So why not move on???
Has there been any interactions which are questionable between the people accused which can sew doubt?? JMO
Has there been any history of interactions including other people in their care which shows a pattern of escalating tensions. MOO
Why is that important in this story?? Everyone has bad parenting moments.
But is there a pattern of things cycing out of control??? IMO
A buried body, a murder weapon or a confession just makes it simpler. IMO
But are there any questionable circumstances that point to a possible involvement by the Foster Parents ??Just my opinion.
SLouTh
In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,427
- Reaction score
- 35,114
RSBM
Maybe that is why the inquest is poised to continue???
It is possible that at least 3 potential witnesses have already gone to the grave …
Who knows what Heather S saw that morning? There was no statement taken from her IIRC .. ??
It is possible that she may have witnessed the FGM car in the street that morning ???? And possibly witnessed other things occurring at 48 Benaroon Drive that morning, that we don’t know about? (Speculation only)
FGM … they can no longer question her about the events of that morning .. The media has also alluded to the FGM being named as a POI, and yet no information as to why that was ??
And RP … if they were to pursue the abduction theory with FA ….
It is also possible that actual perpetrator has since died……
In my opinion …
Questions:-
- If the FF drove up Benaroon Drive and arrived back at 10.33am, that is a very short space of time for the FF to note that the FM came to meet him after he had parked, and for her to converse with him about whether William was with him, and then to meet AMS at her house at 10.40am.
- Following some conversing/searching, the FM and AMS had returned to the FGM's house, with the FF then telling her to call 000; the FM had then retrieved the FGM's portable landline phone from inside the house, returned to the carport and phoned 000 at 10.58am.
- More importantly, if the FM (As she said) had met up with AMS before the MFC had returned to the house, why didn't she meet him on the road as he was driving back?
- Why did the MFC say that when he drove in, the FM had come to meet him from the direction of the back patio?
MOO
RSBM, Yes, I think the tangle of information around this point in particular needs to be teased out at the inquest. I feel strongly that FGM's walkthrough may give a good understanding of where all four of these people were in relation to each other upon MFC's return, however, she has passed away so cannot expand on that information. It also raises the point that he may have returned to the house later than we assume just by analysing the surrounding information of the other people's accounts.
An example of this is, imagine, FGM, AMS and FFC are on the road, FFC and AMS have already been down a couple of streets to look for WT. FGM is learning for the 1st time WT is missing. FFC says she has to call the police and the women start walking back up to the back patio, through the garden and along the route that WT disappeared from. While nearly at the patio, MFC returns along the street and doesn't see his wife or MIL. The FGM sits back down on the deck with the other child and the FFC runs through to the carport to meet her husband and tell him WT's missing. He's been told, WT was just around the patio 5 minutes ago and starts running and looking. If that is the case then he actually arrives back at the house at about 10.50? Looking over at his wife while he is searching, she indicates whether she should call the police and he agrees, which she does at 10.57am. If the scenario went something like that, then the MFC was absent longer, AMS is incorrect about the MFC being home before the FFC 1st came to her place, (or our assumption is wrong). MOO
Last edited:
For some reason I thought FGM said they parted ways down there . . . she retraced her steps through the garden, while FFC came back up via the road. Also she thought MFC was already back when she went down looking for FFC.
iiii's - with so many inconsistencies, and then there are some consistencies it is so difficult to know what to settle on believing to be the case. What was said at the Inquest has also served to confuse us.
It does appear that the time of the FF's return to 48 Benaroon Drive was verified by Police as per this link:
“Police logged his text at 10.30am and his arrival home at 10.33am.”
William Tyrrell foster mother's never before seen police interview
I can accept that the text was sent at 10.30am. It depends how they logged his arrival as 10.33. If it was by the assumption that the house was 2-3 minutes from when he sent the text, then in this instance it is not enough IMO. If it was because when his car was put under forensic examination that the car logged the ignition being turned off for a good period of time at 10.33am, I'd be prepared to accept that was the time of his return at face value.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,012
- Reaction score
- 183,689
FD also stopped to buy the newspaper for FGM. (as per CO's book Missing William Tyrrell, chpt 2)
That is probably when he sent the text message. There is a paper shop in Kendall. It was mentioned in the testimony by Mr Connell - RC's nephew in law - at the inquest. Link
The shop would probably be just a couple of minutes away from the house on Benaroon Drive, I would guess. It's a small town.
And if that is where FD stopped for the paper, there would be a witness who sold him the paper, and maybe even shop CCTV.
The police could likely also see (the side of) FD's vehicle as he returned past the tennis club CCTV.
And that may be how the police confirmed the time.
imo
Last edited:
My thoughts on how the time of 10.33am was verified were also to wonder how they had arrived at that time conclusion. Without knowing how they were satisfied that he had not driven elsewhere instead of heading straight back to 48 Benaroon after buying the newspapers at the Kendall General Store, I guess we can have some doubt about it, and the Police have the time wrong.
The FM has created a conundrum for her herself in explaining what had occurred before or after the return of the FF:-
William Tyrrell foster mother's never before seen police interview
“The foster mother said she had searched for William in the yard, the house and partly down the street before speaking to neighbour Anne Maree Sharpley, then going down to talk with another resident, Lydene Heslop, to search in the bus stop.
The foster mother said that all happened prior to the foster father texting her and then arriving home from making a conference call at a nearby town with better internet reception.”
“Quizzed further about when she went down the road to search for William, the foster mother conceded 'it must have been by myself', adding: 'And I got in mum's...'
This could be a reference to the fact that, as police later claimed, SD drove her mother's car on the morning William disappeared down to Batar Creek Road, which became the site of a massive search for the boy's remains in late 2021.”
Edited for clarity on Police time.
Last edited: