Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #68

[SouthAussie]

BBM Respectfully, Awakening, William was not "her son". She was his temporary guardian but he was not her possession ie "hers". And regardless of how distressed one is, the law is the law and harassment and intimidation of anyone is definitely not ok. A reasonable person in such circumstances would seek help and not make another person feel unsafe because of their inability to tolerate their own internal distress.

I don't think anyone said that stalking and intimidation are okay?

I thought the point of the post was that, guilty or innocent, the police might have been the subject of the alleged stalking and intimidation. That FM's mental health might be suffering for several (stated) reasons.
.

 

[drsleuth]

I don't think anyone said that stalking and intimidation are okay?

I thought the point of the post was that, guilty or innocent, the police might have been the subject of the alleged stalking and intimidation. That FM's mental health might be suffering for several (stated) reasons.
.

Not to mention the 7 1/2 years of constant stalking & intimidation they have had to endure too..........

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

I very much doubt it.

We’ll see soon. The lines they’re allowed to say is “this is unrelated to William”, which is technically correct but the jigsaw puzzle of information seems to be coming together to form a bigger picture.

Surely snippets of news such as this brings hope to all members of this forum that a result is closer?

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

Not to mention the 7 1/2 years of constant stalking & intimidation they have had to endure too..........

Imagine they’re in fact found guilty, and the bio family of William have had 7 1/2 years without him and the lot has been a fabricated lie.
I shudder to think

 

[Awakening]

BBM Respectfully, Awakening, William was not "her son". She was his temporary guardian but he was not her possession ie "hers". And regardless of how distressed one is, the law is the law and harassment and intimidation of anyone is definitely not ok. A reasonable person in such circumstances would seek help and not make another person feel unsafe because of their inability to tolerate their own internal distress.

Sorry didn't mean to offend with my wording.

I was speculating on how both possible scenarios (guilt or innocence) might motivate a person to stalk someone/s.

I didn't mean to imply that stalking was acceptable behaviour. And I referenced WT as "her son" from the assumption that that's how she would feel about WT if she is innocent.

But I did so under the influence of pain meds so still not sure if I'm making the point I'm trying to make

 

[drsleuth]

Imagine they’re in fact found guilty, and the bio family of William have had 7 1/2 years without him and the lot has been a fabricated lie.
I shudder to think

And if they are not guilty than it's ok?

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

And if they are not guilty than it's ok?

If they’re found not guilty well they keep looking for who’s responsible.

Are you in hope that current investigations will solve the case? Because if not, it’s back to the drawing board.

 

[SleepyJoe]

And if they are not guilty than it's ok?

What's not ok DrSleuth, is that William is missing, and that the adults who were last to see him escaped scrutiny for years and years due to a carefully crafted media presence. Clearly, even if they are innocent of being involved in his disappearance, they have engaged in questionable conduct of late, conduct questionable enough that the surviving adults to last see William now have a number of criminal charges against each of them. They are being scrutinised by the police and rightly so. NSW Police have worked systematically through many, many POIs. Having ruled most out, they have to narrow their focus down to those left. Anyone who wants the truth to come out has to accept that this scrutiny is necessary. If the FFC and the MFC are innocent of being involved in William's disappearance, then they have truth on their side and would welcome scrutiny. It may be tough on them at the moment, but it is all necessary in the pursuit for justice. And ultimately, isn't this what all of this is about, including this whole thread - pursuit of justice for William? And we cannot be afraid of what truth that pursuit may reveal. All everyone wants is whoever was responsible for William's disappearance to be held accountable. If the FFC and MFC have nothing to hide, they will welcome whatever scrutiny they find themselves under.

 

[sleepinoz]

We’ll see soon. The lines they’re allowed to say is “this is unrelated to William”, which is technically correct but the jigsaw puzzle of information seems to be coming together to form a bigger picture.

Surely snippets of news such as this brings hope to all members of this forum that a result is closer?

BBM - No it doesn't seem to be any closer than it was 7 years ago. It just seems like they are going around in circles, picking POI's out of a hat IMO.

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

What's not ok DrSleuth, is that William is missing, and that the adults who were last to see him escaped scrutiny for years and years due to a carefully crafted media presence. Clearly, even if they are innocent of being involved in his disappearance, they have engaged in questionable conduct of late, conduct questionable enough that the surviving adults to last see William now have a number of criminal charges against each of them. They are being scrutinised by the police and rightly so. NSW Police have worked systematically through many, many POIs. Having ruled most out, they have to narrow their focus down to those left. Anyone who wants the truth to come out has to accept that this scrutiny is necessary. If the FFC and the MFC are innocent of being involved in William's disappearance, then they have truth on their side and would welcome scrutiny. It may be tough on them at the moment, but it is all necessary in the pursuit for justice. And ultimately, isn't this what all of this is about, including this whole thread - pursuit of justice for William? And we cannot be afraid of what truth that pursuit may reveal. All everyone wants is whoever was responsible for William's disappearance to be held accountable. If the FFC and MFC have nothing to hide, they will welcome whatever scrutiny they find themselves under.

If I could like this post 100 times I would.
Everything you said was spot on

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

BBM - No it doesn't seem to be any closer than it was 7 years ago. It just seems like they are going around in circles, picking POI's out of a hat IMO.

<modsnip>
Totally disagree with your statement that they are “picking POI’s out of a hat”

Imo could be seen as pretty disrespectful towards current LE. The charge list the POI’s may not be directly related to the disappearance of WT but is definitely defining of their character and could link up to the case in time IMO

 

[iiiii's]

Looks very similar to the BS playbook to me. Police decide to put the spotlight on someone, the threat is they may lose their family, livelihood, reputation, charge them with whatever they can, until they crack. FFC fronted the court on GJ's behalf and basically character assassinated Scott Cook and made out that the WT's case was being used as a political soccer ball. I can imagine that as court gets closer around the assault charges, that she probably has a child's best concerns at heart and rightly or wrongly, desperately even, have reached out to her, knowing that if the child says certain things, whether they are a lie or the truth, their lives together may well be over. It might or might not be the case, but I can imagine someone who thinks that what they have to offer , is the best outcome for this child's life, they might try to influence them. Could that be seen as intimidation of mental harm? If contact between them was barred, is that stalking? It's not right, It's not lawful but I think it is understandably human. IMO

 

[Warshawski]

And if they are not guilty than it's ok?

Hi Doc, I can’t think of anything about this dreadful & terribly sad situation that is OK. And it’s certainly not OK to have a little boy missing, in totally unexplained circumstances, and now for over 7 years!

I welcome everything that the investigators can bring to the fore, and therefore prove or disprove, as another step closer to finding out what happened to this little boy.
And IMO, all those associated with him would be thinking similarly & trying desperately to come up with that missing piece in the puzzle. ... to provide his families with the answers they need & deserve, and to have those responsible pay their dues.

 

[SouthAussie]

Looks very similar to the BS playbook to me. Police decide to put the spotlight on someone, the threat is they may lose their family, livelihood, reputation, charge them with whatever they can, until they crack.

I am currently reading a book about the Claremont serial killings.

The initial police mode of operation (for about 8 years) was to do exactly that. Put the spotlight on a few specific people, watch them, follow them, keep bringing them in for questioning, search their homes from top to bottom, bully them, in a very public way. They did this for years.
Basically turning Claremont (and WA) against these 'murderous' people. Destroying their lives, their reputations.

Turns out, the actual abductor-killer wasn't even on the police radar. (And they had thousands and thousands of tips from the public.)

Then, after many years, an independent overseas board of experts was flown in to review the case. They made specific recommendations that - when followed - then led to the discovery, capture, and sentencing of Bradley Edwards.

Source: Stalking Claremont by Bret Christian

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

I am currently reading a book about the Claremont serial killings.

The initial police mode of operation (for about 8 years) was to do exactly that. Put the spotlight on a few specific people, watch them, follow them, keep bringing them in for questioning, search their homes from top to bottom, bully them, in a very public way. They did this for years.
Basically turning Claremont (and WA) against these 'murderous' people. Destroying their lives, their reputations.

Turns out, the actual abductor-killer wasn't even on the police radar.
Not until, after many years, an independent overseas board of experts was brought in to review the case. They made specific recommendations that - when followed - then led to the discovery, capture, and sentencing of Bradley Edwards.

Source: Stalking Claremont by Bret Christian

Did the POI’s in said book get charged with multiple counts of assault against a child, have an AVO against them, lie to investigators, and get charged with stalking?

 

[SouthAussie]

Did the POI’s in said book get charged with multiple counts of assault against a child, have an AVO against them, lie to investigators, and get charged with stalking?

They were accused of all kinds of things.

Eg: One of the POIs was accused of abducting the girls - because he was a taxi driver - and bringing them to another POI (the freakin' mayor!) so he could murder them.

Much of the public hated the POIs. The mayor got voted out (ironically, he was also head of the Civil Liberties movement there).

This is an example of what police have done (in the past) when spinning their wheels, trying to make someone confess.
Because they didn't have any evidence of who was abducting and killing the girls.

 

[bfew]

Much of the public hated the POIs. The mayor got voted out (ironically, he was also head of the Civil Liberties movement there.)

This is an example of what police have done (in the past) when spinning their wheels, trying to make someone confess.

Here's a good article relevant to the above in both covering NSW, and the Claremont murders/serial killings case in relation to the 1985-1997 Mayor of Claremont.

I'm lost for words with what they did to Weygers (my local Mayor).

Should Police Publicly Name Persons Who Are Suspected of Criminal Offences?
'The 2016 NSW Police Force Media Policy sets out what information can be publicly released during an investigation. This includes descriptions of suspects if it doesn’t hinder investigations. It also stipulates that information implying someone not charged is guilty should never be released.

However, the policy specifically mentions persons of interest only in terms of releasing their photos. And this is in relation to cases where a person not known to police is captured in an image, like CCTV footage, in the vicinity of a crime taking place, and officers are seeking to find them.

According to Rowlings, in cases like Weygers, police are naming them to put pressure on the individuals, as they want to see if it leads to a response, such as “fight or flight”.

“And they frequently do it on the slightest of reasons, not even on reasonable suspicion,” he added, “though the practice is still not justified even if that level was established, because it is just suspicion, and no more.”'

 

[asyousay]

Poor William as more dirt comes out on the FP . I am glad the sister got removed from their care.

Moo

 

[SouthAussie]

Article says;

"The charges of stalk, intimidate intend fear of physical or mental harm are domestic related, according to court documents."

So perhaps they were stalking each other?

I think it is interesting that there are two counts of alleged assault against the FM, and one count of alleged assault against the FD.
And there are two counts of alleged stalking and intimidation against the FM, and (if true) one count of alleged stalking and intimidation against the FD.

Are these somehow linked? As in, they arose from the same event(s)?

In NSW, can alleged assault be expanded to be alleged assault, and alleged stalking and intimidation at the same time?

It seems it can.


Our client was charged with common assault (domestic violence related) pursuant to section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 and stalk/intimidate (domestic violence related) pursuant to section 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
Assault & intimidation charges | AVO (case study) | NGM Lawyers

 

[inkpink]

I think it is interesting that there are two counts of alleged assault against the FM, and one count of alleged assault against the FD.
And there are two counts of alleged stalking and intimidation against the FM, and (if true) one count of alleged stalking and intimidation against the FD.

Are these somehow linked? As in, they arose from the same event(s)?

In NSW, can alleged assault be expanded to be alleged assault, and alleged stalking and intimidation at the same time?

It seems it can.


Our client was charged with common assault (domestic violence related) pursuant to section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 and stalk/intimidate (domestic violence related) pursuant to section 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
Assault & intimidation charges | AVO (case study) | NGM Lawyers

It seems the stalking charge <Admin Note: charge in the above referenced case, not William's case> was brought about because he spotted the wife at the motel and went over to speak to her at which time the alledged assault happened.

I could be wrong but I think the alledged assault of LT happened in their home, so I don't think a stalking charge could be applied.

Although, I guess if it was all to do with the same incident then maybe after LT was assaulted, she left the home and then the fosters tracked her down (stalking) and tried to make her come home (intimidation)?

I don't buy anything that I have written but who knows...

I'll entertain any idea rather than form a concrete opinion, that way I can look at things without bias.