Australia Australia - Pheobe Bishop, 17, failed to board a flight from Queensland, Bundaberg, 15 May 2025 *Arrests* #3

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
This looks like Pheobe’s gorgeous dress……

1749625957155.webp




1749626087544.webp
 
SLouTh said:
Paraphrased

New information from court documents reveal today that PB was murdered on Airport Drive in Kensington where she was last seen carrying luggage but never boarded her flight.


Paywalled
Click to expand...
But who saw her last carrying her luggage? Wasn't that said only by JW the accused? Is there an independent witness or cctv of PB walking with her luggage?
 
HinterlandObserver said:
Its been a while, but I'm sure I had friends that were "emancipated" at 16 and didnt actually need a parent or guardian to receive their Centrelink or other payments.
Can anyone confirm if an official guardian is actually required to receive payments on behalf of individuals over the age of 16 currently?
Click to expand...
No they can demonstrate that they are living independently and obtain their own Centrelink payments.

MathildaM said:
In light of yesterday’s confronting images, which appeared to show concerning conditions in the home environment, I’ve been reflecting on the possible community safeguards that may have relevance to Pheobe’s situation, and where, in my personal view, these may not have operated as intended. These thoughts are based solely on my own understanding and interpretation of relevant frameworks, particularly those around Mandatory Reporting in Queensland.

As I understand it, under Section 13E of the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld), individuals employed by prescribed entities, such as registered teachers, medical professionals and NDIS providers, have a legal obligation to report any reasonable suspicion that a child may be experiencing, or is at risk of experiencing, harm. From my perspective, a child residing with an adult who is on bail for serious weapons offences may give rise to such a suspicion, particularly when considered in the broader context of potential risk factors.

It’s also my interpretation that concerns about a child’s living environment could fall under this reporting requirement. Under Section 10 of the Act, a child is considered in need of protection if they have suffered, are suffering, or are at an unacceptable risk of suffering significant harm, and if there is no parent able and willing to protect them. Again, this is only my personal understanding, but it leads me to wonder whether the suitability and safety of a residence, especially in circumstances where significant criminal charges are involved, may warrant further attention under these provisions.

These reflections are not intended as conclusions or accusations, but rather as a layperson’s attempt to understand how protective systems function and where there may be room for closer scrutiny in the interest of child safety.
Click to expand...

Correct, if any mandatory reporters knew about the scenario it should have been reported to Child Safety.

But as I have mentioned before, if a potential Notifier provided information such as “PB’s mum is aware, has been trying to get her home, has been trying to support her and minimise harm” etc then it would likely not screen in (meet the criteria of requiring an investigation).

Or if the Notifier also said “PB is independent of her family, living independently and does not wish to return home, is gillick competent and has no capacity issues to meet her own needs” it also probably wouldn’t screen in.

Sadly there are many adolescents in QLD and Australia who are choosing to live in these types of conditions and in very unsafe and unhealthy environments with unsafe people, for whatever reason. Who knows what PB’s motivation to live there short or long term was, it’s all speculation. But young people do vote with their feet and sadly at that age their autonomy is respected, with no other option.

All my opinion.
 
We were told 7th June:-


It will be alleged Pheobe, Mr Wood and Ms Bromley were all in the car when it arrived on Airport Drive near Bundaberg Airport on May 15.

“Our evidence will outline the fact that three people arrived near to the airport, and three people never exited that vehicle,” he said.


And now we are told:-



“New information, viewed on Wednesday, suggests the 17-year-old was murdered on Airport Drive in Kensington where she was last seen carrying luggage but never boarded her flight.”


I assume this means that the “three people never exited that vehicle” is no longer valid?








 
Marg944 said:
We were told 7th June:-


It will be alleged Pheobe, Mr Wood and Ms Bromley were all in the car when it arrived on Airport Drive near Bundaberg Airport on May 15.

“Our evidence will outline the fact that three people arrived near to the airport, and three people never exited that vehicle,” he said.
And now we are told:-



“New information, viewed on Wednesday, suggests the 17-year-old was murdered on Airport Drive in Kensington where she was last seen carrying luggage but never boarded her flight.”
I assume this means that the “three people never exited that vehicle” is no longer valid?








Click to expand...
I truely hope to never hear that statement again.
 
scepticalscotty said:
I think this is exactly what happened, in fact, I have thought it from the begining. You can turn directly off airport drive and drive unimpeded to many areas of scrubland. The area where the new hospital is to be built has many dirt roads which are used as illegal dumping grounds and where access to heavily wooded area is fairly direct. Whether she was driven to this area alive or post mortem is the question
Click to expand...
Bumping this
 
I'm really clueless about the motive. As the police said that they have theories about it and as the duo are charged with murder not manslaughter, I think we can be pretty confident there was a motive and an specific intent to kill.
Initially I was sucpicious about the mention of his pants on PB and generally having a violent middle-aged man living with a young pretty girl. However, the logistics currently proposed (killed during the process of going somewhere) does not support sexual motives (while had she been killed the previous night at the house, it would look a lot more likely).
So what could be the motive to kill your 17 year old roommate (before she goes to a trip)? Is it connected to the evicition aspect? What the heck did they gain?
 
KeenSleuth17 said:
No they can demonstrate that they are living independently and obtain their own Centrelink payments.



Correct, if any mandatory reporters knew about the scenario it should have been reported to Child Safety.

But as I have mentioned before, if a potential Notifier provided information such as “PB’s mum is aware, has been trying to get her home, has been trying to support her and minimise harm” etc then it would likely not screen in (meet the criteria of requiring an investigation).

Or if the Notifier also said “PB is independent of her family, living independently and does not wish to return home, is gillick competent and has no capacity issues to meet her own needs” it also probably wouldn’t screen in.

Sadly there are many adolescents in QLD and Australia who are choosing to live in these types of conditions and in very unsafe and unhealthy environments with unsafe people, for whatever reason. Who knows what PB’s motivation to live there short or long term was, it’s all speculation. But young people do vote with their feet and sadly at that age their autonomy is respected, with no other option.

All my opinion.
Click to expand...
Agree. But sadly PB's options appeared limited. No parent or authority can make a 16-17yo go home. At 16 I left home, had a full time job, paid my rent. All with my parents ok. But times have changed..
 
Marg944 said:
We were told 7th June:-


It will be alleged Pheobe, Mr Wood and Ms Bromley were all in the car when it arrived on Airport Drive near Bundaberg Airport on May 15.

“Our evidence will outline the fact that three people arrived near to the airport, and three people never exited that vehicle,” he said.


And now we are told:-



“New information, viewed on Wednesday, suggests the 17-year-old was murdered on Airport Drive in Kensington where she was last seen carrying luggage but never boarded her flight.”


I assume this means that the “three people never exited that vehicle” is no longer valid?








Click to expand...

IMO
It is the same repeated info
re her being seen with luggage.

There is nothing new here.

JMO
 
KeenSleuth17 said:
No they can demonstrate that they are living independently and obtain their own Centrelink payments.



Correct, if any mandatory reporters knew about the scenario it should have been reported to Child Safety.

But as I have mentioned before, if a potential Notifier provided information such as “PB’s mum is aware, has been trying to get her home, has been trying to support her and minimise harm” etc then it would likely not screen in (meet the criteria of requiring an investigation).

Or if the Notifier also said “PB is independent of her family, living independently and does not wish to return home, is gillick competent and has no capacity issues to meet her own needs” it also probably wouldn’t screen in.

Sadly there are many adolescents in QLD and Australia who are choosing to live in these types of conditions and in very unsafe and unhealthy environments with unsafe people, for whatever reason. Who knows what PB’s motivation to live there short or long term was, it’s all speculation. But young people do vote with their feet and sadly at that age their autonomy is respected, with no other option.

All my opinion.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I really appreciate your expertise, it’s such a complex and emotive area.

Is my understanding correct then that a Mandatory Reporter should report but then once reported, information would inform if it ‘screens out’ (no investigation) or ‘screens in’ (investigation) or does the Mandatory Reporter determine if it screens out or in and only reports if it screens in?

You have my utmost respect working in Child Protection!
 
BreakingNews said:
Agree. But sadly PB's options appeared limited. No parent or authority can make a 16-17yo go home. At 16 I left home, had a full time job, paid my rent. All with my parents ok. But times have changed..
Click to expand...

Hindsight is a luxury and the living situation may be ‘balanced’ by her age at the upper end of being classed a child, but the Feb 25 weapons charges with TB to me feels less open to interpretation and a red flag.
 
SLouTh said:
Paraphrased

New information from court documents reveal today that PB was murdered on Airport Drive in Kensington where she was last seen carrying luggage but never boarded her flight.


Paywalled
Click to expand...
The same paper who used a different car , stating it was TB car, seen driving down the back of Gin Gin show grounds.


Police - "We will allege that three people arrived near to the airport, and that three people never left that vehicle,"

Airport Drive , in relation to leaving Pheobe in the car at Airport Drive
JW - "'We wanted to give her five minutes - give her her own space to do what she needed to do,' he said.

'We walked to the end, it was maybe five minutes, maybe it was three minutes or maybe it was eight but that's about how long we were gone.'"

Wood said when he returned to the car, Pheobe and her bag were gone.
He assumed that she had walked the short remaining distance to the terminal. The couple then drove toward the airport to check, he said, but they didn’t see her along the way.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Pheobe Bishop's housemate James Wood breaks his silence

The flatmate of missing teenager Pheobe Bishop has revealed explosive new details about the her car ride to the airport on the day she disappeared.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk


I'm going to allege that JW and TB did go near to Airport Dve to be seen on CCTV to show they had indeed dropped PB at the airport.

And Im also going to allege that Newspaper used JW own statement to the police.
 
KeenSleuth17 said:
So rather than pick systems to pieces, I feel we should lay the blame at the feet of those accused.
Click to expand...
I also want to emphasize, that by very definition systems have flaws. Systems are optimized statistically. A good system is the one that gives you maximum benefit. No system gives you 100% success rate and no mistakes. Life is too complex for that. Spoiler alert: going case-by-case does not give you 100% success rate either. There will still be mistakes. They will just be different.

I am not saying that we should not better our systems, be it social care, health care or taxes. However, we also have to keep in mind, that what "works for most" never "works for everyone". And I can quarantee that it is really rare that any govement system is designed with the intent to cause harm.
For example, actually good computer algorithm statistically make less mistakes in diagnosing than individual doctors. However, they both make mistakes. We can minimize these mistakes with either method, but it is unrealistic to expect to eradicate all mistakes.

Additionally, the more complex a sytem is, the more costly and restricting it is. We could, theoretically, stop all veichle accidents by simply banning all motor veichles. Easy. One extra line in a law and all these lives saved. However, no-one would agree to that. Similarly, we could avoid pretty much any kid ever going missing by providing all people under the age of 18 with a mandatory gps tracker under the skin, a livestreaming body cam wearing obligation and personal 24/7 supervision from a goverment worker. However, few would agree to such invasion of privacy and no-one would be willing to pay the taxes to provide such services.

What happened to Pheobe was horrible and preventable. However, I don't think this "preventable" can be simplified to "more social services" blanket statement. I think her mum would have required more support, both as a kid herself and later as she was becoming a mother and later as she was parenting a teen, so that Pheobe would have never had to leave home and live with JW & TB. I think both JW and TB would have required more support in their lives as well. I think the family members, friends and colleagues should have all helped JW, TB and PB more at various points. I think there should be more love in the world.
However, it is, what it is. We failed them. We always fail someone. Now we have to find the best ways to learn from that as we move forward.
Call your grandmothers. Ask your kids how they're doing. Call the cops if your neighbours are fighting. Aim to better yourself and lift the people around you. Clean your own room first.
(the latter is ironic in this case, isn't it)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Australia Australia - Pheobe Bishop, 17, failed to board a scheduled flight from a Queensland Airport. Last seen Airport Drive, Bundaberg, 15 May 2025 #2
47 48 49
Replies
965
Views
65K
Knitty
Knitty
S
  • Locked
Australia Australia - Pheobe Bishop, 17, failed to board a scheduled flight from a Queensland Airport. Last seen Airport Drive, Bundaberg, 15 May 2025
47 48 49
Replies
975
Views
94K
Sillybilly
Sillybilly

Members online

... and 184 more.
Total: 721 (members: 185, guests: 536)

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
536
Total visitors
721
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,479
Messages
18,504,648
Members
240,802
Latest member
10 :)
Back
Top