Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #71

[FromGermany1]

The stealth that the "abducter" must have acted with in broad daylight mid morning:

1) to enter the property without being seen - no problem, person was already on the property
2) to grab William without being seen - no problem, William knew the person
3) to bundle William into a car without being seen or anyone hearing a scream - no scream, W plays a bit hide an seek in the car
4) to leave Benaroon drive and not be seen or heard when exiting vehicle with William - no problem, if the car was a known car
5) to not be captured on any CCTV - captured, but not being noticed as something unusual or explained (untrue) to investigators
6) to possibly assault, murder and dispose of William without being seen or his remains being found - didn't happen at the time
7) to not discuss this with anyone - no problem, was in the person's own interest

My comments to your very good points above ^^. I imagine something like a "relay race" with little W: he was passed from one person to another a few times and maybe he thought of it like an adventure even. Start at Benaroon Drive, then the big woman with blonde bun passing Chapman's house (W wasn't crying), then RP/FA 300 km North .......

 

[deugirtni]

.... I just hope we are not still here debating in 20 years time... sometimes it just seems like such a slow investigation....
IMO

I've thought off and on many times.. maybe it's my imagination, because I haven't studied other cases to see for sure.. but it seems to me that in missing child cases, there seems to pretty much always be someone who saw SOMETHING, even if it may have seemed insignificant at the time. There is a case here that is terrible.. a girl disappeared after school about 50-some years ago, never to be seen again. ... and that case is still mostly unsolved (police seem to believe they know who took her and killed her, and he is dead, and was never charged).. I so hope that this case is not 20 years or 50 years. In the case above, police discovered one of the girl's shoes on a roadway, and someone saw her talking after school to a man in a car, and the car was described. Even in that highly unusual C case recently, didn't someone see something, a vehicle I think? Just in my head, I feel like there's always something (or the child ends up being found quicker than not, alive or dead).. but in this case there is absolutely nothing. imo.

 

[SLouTh]

I don't think we're sure whether or not LE checked GPS and cell tower data of vehicles during the hours prior to 9:30,

I have a feeling that these types of checks have been done in the latter stages of the investigation .... and it is this type of data that Police can use to "prove" something.....
JMO

 

[FromGermany1]

So she would kill William so she could keep caring for his sister?

I don't think, a murder happened at that time and by the hands of FFC.

 

[SLouTh]

I've thought off and on many times.. maybe it's my imagination, because I haven't studied other cases to see for sure.. but it seems to me that in missing child cases, there seems to pretty much always be someone who saw SOMETHING, even if it may have seemed insignificant at the time. There is a case here that is terrible.. a girl disappeared after school about 50-some years ago, never to be seen again. ... and that case is still mostly unsolved (police seem to believe they know who took her and killed her, and he is dead, and was never charged).. I so hope that this case is not 20 years or 50 years. In the case above, police discovered one of the girl's shoes on a roadway, and someone saw her talking after school to a man in a car, and the car was described. Even in that highly unusual C case recently, didn't someone see something, a vehicle I think? Just in my head, I feel like there's always something (or the child ends up being found quicker than not, alive or dead).. but in this case there is absolutely nothing. imo.

I would agree .... that someone saw SOMETHING as you say, but more puzzling, is why are they too afraid to say they saw something??? Or is it more a case of someone not realizing what they actually saw was infact relevant to the case, due to all of the suppression orders???
IMO

 

[deugirtni]

I have a feeling that these types of checks have been done in the latter stages of the investigation .... and it is this type of data that Police can use to "prove" something.....
JMO

I think so too.

 

[deugirtni]

I would agree .... that someone saw SOMETHING as you say, but more puzzling, is why are they too afraid to say they saw something??? Or is it more a case of someone not realizing what they actually saw was infact relevant to the case, due to all of the suppression orders???
IMO

Sorry, I meant... with a stranger abduction, it seems to me that someone always sees something, or something is found, there is SOME kind of evidence to corroborate a theory of stranger abduction, or even if a child wanders off.. if it was the family, not so much, because so much can happen behind closed doors, and into garages and/or carports, or yards, etc. imo. And yes, with all of the secrecy surrounding these people, there may be numerous people who may know some tiny tidbit of a puzzle piece, and not know it, possible just enough to perhaps set police on a certain track, or possibly enough to blow the case wide open, who knows? imo.

 

[FromGermany1]

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/william-tyrrells-foster-mother-to-fight-false-or-misleading-charge/news-story/b45311aa9d49dffe32d5f2e680b87618

The foster mother of William Tyrrell is pleading not guilty to a charge of knowingly giving false or misleading evidence during a hearing about the boy’s disappearance, her lawyer says.
Police allege the foster mother, who cannot be identified because of strict court suppression orders, lied or misled NSW Crime Commission officials during the hearing.
-.-.-
About 500 pages of evidence would form part of the case and some audio recordings from the NSW Crime Commission would be played during the hearing, the court was told before November 3 and 4 were chosen as dates the hearing would take place.

 

[SouthAussie]

Imho, one can't really compare the carers with everyone/anyone else, because they had the care and control of William, from the time of arrival at 9pm the evening before, until the 000 call was made at almost 11am. Anything could've happened inside that house during any of those hours really, and nobody would've been the wiser. It would've been rather simple to carry something/someone out of that house via the door leading directly to the carport, and if dark, who would've seen that?

What happened to the photos? Whether they were taken at 7:39am or 9:37am, are you now saying they were likely taken on a completely different day in the past?

Because neither of those times allows for the theories that are being explored?

There is no indication or question that the photos were taken on a different day, is there? Not that I have seen, anyway.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

I have a feeling that these types of checks have been done in the latter stages of the investigation .... and it is this type of data that Police can use to "prove" something.....
JMO

There is a 2-year retention period for the phone data to be saved by the telco - as of April 2015.

The tower dumps would likely have been ordered prior to April 2017, I would think. And I think they would likely have been ordered at that time to review the data for the morning - not to save it for Laidlaw and his 5 detectives to review 5 years further down the track.

The previous detectives have been able bodied, experienced detectives who would have carried out procedures quite well, I think. As well as any other experienced detective would have done.

Just because they didn't arrest the FP doesn't mean they were incompetent.
For all we know, the original scaled down POI list could have come from phone activity that shows they were in town that morning. And they were suspicious for various reasons.

Laidlaw is obviously struggling to bring a case against the FP also. Otherwise he would have arrested them long ago. He has had control of the case for 3 years now.

imo

 

[drsleuth]

There is a 2-year retention period for the phone data to be saved by the telco - as of April 2015.

The tower dumps would likely have been ordered prior to April 2017, I would think. And I think they would likely have been ordered at that time to review the data for the morning - not to save it for Laidlaw and his 5 detectives to review 5 years further down the track.

The previous detectives have been able bodied, experienced detectives who would have carried out procedures quite well, I think. As well as any other experienced detective would have done.

Just because they didn't arrest the FP doesn't mean they were incompetent.
For all we know, the original scaled down POI list could have come from phone activity that shows they were in town that morning. And they were suspicious for various reasons.

Laidlaw is obviously struggling to bring a case against the FP also. Otherwise he would have arrested them long ago. He has had control of the case for 3 years now.

imo

Not to mention, some of those same hard working detectives are still on SFR .

 

[deugirtni]

What happened to the photos? Whether they were taken at 7:39am or 9:37am, are you now saying they were likely taken on a completely different day in the past?

Because neither of those times allows for the theories that are being explored?

There is no indication or question that the photos were taken on a different day, is there? Not that I have seen, anyway.

imo

If there is a time discrepancy in the photos for an unaccountable reason, the photos could be from anything, any time, imho. And I don't believe we have an answer to the time discrepancy as of yet, for reasons mentioned earlier upthread.

I admit I have difficulty with those photos, I feel too much weight was put on them in the beginning and I believe they weren't forensically examined immediately by an expert IT person to ensure they weren't photoshopped, or a photo taken of a photoshopped photo, or tampered with in some way, for time, date, whatever - because it seems such a coincidence to me that they would have photos taken of nothing special at all, imo, with a camera purchased very recently in another country that had an incorrect and never adjusted time setting, within an hour of the boy's permanent disappearance, when FD just happened to be out of town even though he was at the grandmother's for a weekend visit to assist her with her home sale and was only gone for an hour and a half or less. I perhaps wouldn't feel it was such a coincidence if photos had been taken of W sitting with their nana who was elderly, or climbing one of her trees she would soon no longer have, or riding bikes on her driveway since W was still learning how to ride, or pictured someplace nice with FGM and her home that she was soon selling, for example.

I could swear that earlier, FGM was reported to have stated that FM had taken photos with her phone, as opposed to a camera, imo.

If the fosters have lied to the CC about the WT case, it makes it difficult to believe anything they've said, for me at least.

 

[SLouTh]

There is a 2-year retention period for the phone data to be saved by the telco - as of April 2015.

The tower dumps would likely have been ordered prior to April 2017, I would think. And I think they would likely have been ordered at that time to review the data for the morning - not to save it for Laidlaw and his 5 detectives to review 5 years further down the track.

The previous detectives have been able bodied, experienced detectives who would have carried out procedures quite well, I think. As well as any other experienced detective would have done.
Just because they didn't arrest the FP doesn't mean they were incompetent.

Laidlaw is obviously struggling to bring a case against the FP also. Otherwise he would have arrested them long ago. He has had control of the case for 3 years now.

imo

My comment was based on an article in The Australian, and from the 7 Doco that was pulled....

The author publicly questions why the Police didn't do so many things in the initial investigation ... including downloading data from the mobile phone towers?

I couldn't find the article to link to at the time of posting my comment... It leads me to believe that this was done later in the investigation .... but that is JMO

I wasn't declaring to be pro - Laidlaw or suggesting anything disparaging about the prior teams ...

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/william-tyrrell-behind-the-silence-lies-so-much-pain-and-so-many-questions/news-story/3001b90fce451c00e6114a76389f53c8

It is the same article that questions what if Police are wrong about FM as POI? Another set of lives are ruined in this investigation...

 

[SLouTh]

Not to mention, some of those same hard working detectives are still on SFR .

I honestly do not know how we got from Mobile Towers to this??? The mobile tower info is tangible evidence for the Police to assist in "proving" their case..... which imo is a "positive" which has been somehow turned into a negative ....

I agree Doc there are many hard working detectives on SFR, who haven't given up on William and nor should we!!

All IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

My comment was based on an article in The Australian, and from the 7 Doco that was pulled....

The author publicly questions why the Police didn't do so many things in the initial investigation ... including downloading data from the mobile phone towers?

But you will note that the things she speaks of (all in the same paragraph) are the things that should have been done right away. Not things that weren't done once the investigation first changed hands. Jubes has already stated that there were things that should have been done in the first 5 months, that apparently were not done. And CO appears to agree.


(paraphrased) Why didn’t they.....
Put up police tape?
Check all cars, look under every tarp, look into every roof cavity?
Collect all the rubbish in the street and DNA test it?
Download data from the phone towers?
And why did they let so many people come and go without checking their bona fides?


Hence, I think the tower data would have had to have been downloaded within the mandatory 2 year retention period (starting April 2015). And possibly fairly early in the piece, as telcos could get rid of that info even faster prior to that ... to free up space and require less memory.

 

[LolaAngelina]

Omg thank you for this. I’m so happy you shared this. Because this here makes things crystal clear for me. No uncertainty from me anymore. <modsnip> Imo It’s more than a coincidence what’s been happening lately. The lies and deception have to do with court being adjourned so swiftly. Imo. And the current charges point to the time stamped pictures evidently. It all makes sense now..imo moo

If there is a time discrepancy in the photos for an unaccountable reason, the photos could be from anything, any time, imho. And I don't believe we have an answer to the time discrepancy as of yet, for reasons mentioned earlier upthread.

I admit I have difficulty with those photos, I feel too much weight was put on them in the beginning and I believe they weren't forensically examined immediately by an expert IT person to ensure they weren't photoshopped, or a photo taken of a photoshopped photo, or tampered with in some way, for time, date, whatever - because it seems such a coincidence to me that they would have photos taken of nothing special at all, imo, with a camera purchased very recently in another country that had an incorrect and never adjusted time setting, within an hour of the boy's permanent disappearance, when FD just happened to be out of town even though he was at the grandmother's for a weekend visit to assist her with her home sale and was only gone for an hour and a half or less. I perhaps wouldn't feel it was such a coincidence if photos had been taken of W sitting with their nana who was elderly, or climbing one of her trees she would soon no longer have, or riding bikes on her driveway since W was still learning how to ride, or pictured someplace nice with FGM and her home that she was soon selling, for example.

I could swear that earlier, FGM was reported to have stated that FM had taken photos with her phone, as opposed to a camera, imo.

If the fosters have lied to the CC about the WT case, it makes it difficult to believe anything they've said, for me at least.

The coroner is not questioning what day the photos were taken. It is simply the time stamp that requires clarification. If there was any doubt the photo was photoshopped or taken a different day the coroner would be questioning it. If it’s accepted by the coroner and strike force rosann, l think we need to accept that as fact.

 

[drsleuth]

I honestly do not know how we got from Mobile Towers to this??? The mobile tower info is tangible evidence for the Police to assist in "proving" their case..... which imo is a "positive" which has been somehow turned into a negative ....

I agree Doc there are many hard working detectives on SFR, who haven't given up on William and nor should we!!

All IMO

All good SLouTh

 

[deugirtni]

Not to mention, some of those same hard working detectives are still on SFR .

With respect, who is to say that of those same hard working detectives who were, and still are on the case, agreed with how things were being done previously? It was said (I believe at GJ's trial) there were some who believed the fosters should have been investigated more fully, imo. I believe there were some who may have disagreed with GJ's methods of investigating certain POIs, and/or who was being investigated and who was not being investigated (ie I believe someone believed the postie should be investigated more fully, while some believed PS wasn't involved?). I recall reading that GJ and Lambert 'came to blows' regarding GJ's treatment of PS and/or which POIs would be presented to the coroner. There were some who believed GJ should question the fosters more fully, and I believe that is when GJ claims he interviewed them and 'went hard on them' (I think those were the words used?), but that wasn't until much time had passed. Those hard working detectives still had to report to their supervisor in the case, and presumably had to perform whatever operations were approved by their supervisor, and maybe not so much what their own thoughts would have been? imo.

 

[k-mac]

It could be many many things. The photo discrepancies may just have been the catalyst to prompt LE (or the coroner perhaps, who in turn may have made demands on LE?) seriously revisiting things in regard to the carers?

Off the top of my head:
-could LE have gone back to the cell tower data records and/or GPS data (phone/vehicle?) to look into *earlier* than the 9:37am time? Is it possible they took the photo at face value initially and therefore didn't bother to look into the hours prior to that time? It had been reported by LE that FD had been found to have been where he'd said he had been, but... what about BEFORE that? I have always wondered if they even bothered checking that.
-another possibility is something to do with the couple's cellphones - and what they had stated didn't match the phone data?
-possibly the FPs may have stated that W had never been inside FGM's vehicle, but perhaps something was found to prove otherwise?
-is it possible FM called FD regarding the absence of William prior to him arriving back at Benaroon, but both of them had stated FD didn't know until he arrived?
-could FM have been recorded on someone's CCTV somewhere, sometime after the fact, showing she had taken her mother's vehicle out somewhere other than where she had stated? The public didn't even know what type or color vehicle these people drove prior to the inquest, four and a half years later, and maybe even later to identify the FGM's vehicle? (And the public still to this day (for the most part) don't know the names and/or appearances of the FPs.) What if someone in the area had saved CCTV from that time, but didn't know the importance of something seen on their recording until something came to light years later - at which time they handed it over to LE? So much was kept so secret for so long in this case.

The list could go on indefinitely, and it doesn't have to be something we (the public) necessarily are privy to, as far as what untruths were told to the Crime Commission? There have been soooooooooooooo many discrepancies every step of the way with this case, they could've tried to pin them down more during a hearing with the CC, and then found something was otherwise.

Just my opinion, but the untruth would have to have been substantial for LE to actually press charges on that, it wouldn't just be a lapse in memory, or one saying one minor detail while the other FP stated a different minor detail - it would have to have been a deliberate, bold-faced... untruth.

I am suspicious after LE (BETTER LATE THAN NEVER) tracked down and forensically assessed grandmas car that Williams dna is in it.
Somewhere inappropriate like the boot.
I theorise that perhaps it has been catagorically denied that WIlliam had ever been in that vehicle.

Things have been humming along at Rosann since about then.

moo

 

[seekingjustice**]

It could be many many things. The photo discrepancies may just have been the catalyst to prompt LE (or the coroner perhaps, who in turn may have made demands on LE?) seriously revisiting things in regard to the carers?

Off the top of my head:
-could LE have gone back to the cell tower data records and/or GPS data (phone/vehicle?) to look into *earlier* than the 9:37am time? Is it possible they took the photo at face value initially and therefore didn't bother to look into the hours prior to that time? It had been reported by LE that FD had been found to have been where he'd said he had been, but... what about BEFORE that? I have always wondered if they even bothered checking that.
-another possibility is something to do with the couple's cellphones - and what they had stated didn't match the phone data?
-possibly the FPs may have stated that W had never been inside FGM's vehicle, but perhaps something was found to prove otherwise?
-is it possible FM called FD regarding the absence of William prior to him arriving back at Benaroon, but both of them had stated FD didn't know until he arrived?
-could FM have been recorded on someone's CCTV somewhere, sometime after the fact, showing she had taken her mother's vehicle out somewhere other than where she had stated? The public didn't even know what type or color vehicle these people drove prior to the inquest, four and a half years later, and maybe even later to identify the FGM's vehicle? (And the public still to this day (for the most part) don't know the names and/or appearances of the FPs.) What if someone in the area had saved CCTV from that time, but didn't know the importance of something seen on their recording until something came to light years later - at which time they handed it over to LE? So much was kept so secret for so long in this case.

The list could go on indefinitely, and it doesn't have to be something we (the public) necessarily are privy to, as far as what untruths were told to the Crime Commission? There have been soooooooooooooo many discrepancies every step of the way with this case, they could've tried to pin them down more during a hearing with the CC, and then found something was otherwise.

Just my opinion, but the untruth would have to have been substantial for LE to actually press charges on that, it wouldn't just be a lapse in memory, or one saying one minor detail while the other FP stated a different minor detail - it would have to have been a deliberate, bold-faced... untruth.

I completely relate to everything you said. I've also wondered whether they have discovered a phone call was made from FM to FD prior to FD arriving home. I remember the FGM said in her walk through statement, something along the lines of "I don't know how the FD already knew when he arrived home" (paraphrase).

Another thought of mine has been perhaps the FM took the 'drive' to meet up somewhere with the FD. Could she have had William in the car, fatally injured, and passed him over to FD to hide somewhere.