Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #73

[SouthAussie]

<RSBM>

.... considering that this was stated as being the first visit by the Fosters since FFC's Father's funeral approx 8 months before ....

In January 2015, the DT (Lia Harris) said that isn't so.

"It was not the first time the family had visited Kendall, but their visits had become more frequent in recent months after William’s grandfather died earlier in the year."

I am not sure who their source is for that info, but it is stated right after the comments from JW. From the content, it looks like Lia Harris could have been doing the rounds of the neighbours and getting their comments.

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

(I don't think this article is paywalled, from what I can tell)

 

[Chrissy74]

JMO - In reference to the photos: Never before seen final photos of William Tyrrell released

.....FFGM can be seen sitting there reading her newspaper; considering that this was stated as being the first visit by the Fosters since FFC's Father's funeral approx 8 months before, and also considering the MFC hadn't at that time, returned with her fresh newspaper, I wonder why she would at that time, have wanted to read a previously held paper...instead of just enjoying the activities on the deck with the FFC?

Both the Ffc and fgm thought almost immediately after searching the street and not finding W that he was abducted. Several references are made by both females validating their “gut feeling” that W was taken.
After searching the property and immediate area and after alerting several neighbours and still W is nowhere to be found. Knowing W is not a wanderer and out of character for him to run into unknown territory. Knowing W was missing for minimum of 25min before calling triple zero and alerting police. Knowing at least in their hearts and minds that in those minutes W was missing that it was highly likely he was snatched by someone rather than lost in the bush. Why didn’t the Ffc 000 call reflect what she knew almost immediately was the likely scenario W had gone missing? She mentions W being missing for a certain period of time and that they had been looking everywhere to find him to no avail and mentions the fgm house is on a large block of land close to the state forest but at no point does she mention in that 000 call with any sort of urgency her belief that W was most likely abducted. When asked by the 000 caller if there were any suspicious cars her response is No and even though the Ffc immediate thought was W was taken and even if not remembering in that moment the cars she apparently saw parked on the street that morning, when asked the question by the operator to perhaps ascertain the nature of Ws disappearance, at No point does she express her belief that someone must have taken him as that was the one and only logical explanation for W going missing.
The information provided in that 00 call made by the Ffc gave a strong impression that W was lost or wandered off or stuck somewhere and that information dictated right from the beginning the path police chose in searching for WT and looking for a little boy lost.

At no point is their mention of searching inside the house in those first few minutes only that the Ffc had walked around the side of the house where W was playing and then down the end of the street.
At no point does the fgm mention hearing her daughter calling out for W in her search but only deathly silence
At no point does the fgm mention searching or looking anywhere whatsoever in or around her home for W, calling out for W , only that she walked down to the road looking for her daughter. What about W? Wasn’t he the one missing.
At no point does the fgm mention after realising her grandson was missing after seeing her daughter walk up the street saying she needed to call police , her calling out for W or even looking for W on her way back to the veranda where he was last seen playing.
Fgm does however recall having a conversation with the neighbour but doesn’t mention the nature of that conversation nor does she mention any discussion with that neighbour about W being missing but fgm does remember and does recall her thinking in parts about her washing machine and the repair that was needed and does recall and does mention the timber on the veranda needing to be fixed and an appointment with a repair man to fix it needing to be rescheduled but doesn’t remember the whereabouts of Ws sister after walking back up the front of her property to the back veranda and it clicking in her mind that W was taken and that she knew that W would not be found anywhere in or around her home.

 

[Curiouskatz11]

Both the Ffc and fgm thought almost immediately after searching the street and not finding W that he was abducted. Several references are made by both females validating their “gut feeling” that W was taken.
After searching the property and immediate area and after alerting several neighbours and still W is nowhere to be found. Knowing W is not a wanderer and out of character for him to run into unknown territory. Knowing W was missing for minimum of 25min before calling triple zero and alerting police. Knowing at least in their hearts and minds that in those minutes W was missing that it was highly likely he was snatched by someone rather than lost in the bush. Why didn’t the Ffc 000 call reflect what she knew almost immediately was the likely scenario W had gone missing? She mentions W being missing for a certain period of time and that they had been looking everywhere to find him to no avail and mentions the fgm house is on a large block of land close to the state forest but at no point does she mention in that 000 call with any sort of urgency her belief that W was most likely abducted. When asked by the 000 caller if there were any suspicious cars her response is No and even though the Ffc immediate thought was W was taken and even if not remembering in that moment the cars she apparently saw parked on the street that morning, when asked the question by the operator to perhaps ascertain the nature of Ws disappearance, at No point does she express her belief that someone must have taken him as that was the one and only logical explanation for W going missing.
The information provided in that 00 call made by the Ffc gave a strong impression that W was lost or wandered off or stuck somewhere and that information dictated right from the beginning the path police chose in searching for WT and looking for a little boy lost.

At no point is their mention of searching inside the house in those first few minutes
At no point does the fgm mention searching or looking anywhere whatsoever in or around her home for W, calling out for W but does recall having a conversation with the neighbour but doesn’t mention what that conversation is about nor does it mention any discussion with that neighbour about W being missing but fgm does remember and does recall her thinking in parts about her washing machine and the repair that was needed and does recall and does mention the timber on the veranda needing to be fixed and an appointment with a repair man to fix it needing to be rescheduled but doesn’t remember the whereabouts of Ws sister after walking back up the front of her property to the back veranda and it clicking in her mind that W was taken and that she knew that W would not be found anywhere in or around her home.

great summary, thanks Chrissy. My thoughts exactly. Everything about that morning is so opaque, enveloped by obfuscation. I’m quietly confident the police know much more.

 

[Couldbe]

In January 2015, the DT (Lia Harris) said that isn't so.

"It was not the first time the family had visited Kendall, but their visits had become more frequent in recent months after William’s grandfather died earlier in the year."

I am not sure who their source is for that info, but it is stated right after the comments from JW. From the content, it looks like Lia Harris could have been doing the rounds of the neighbours and getting their comments.

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

(I don't think this article is paywalled, from what I can tell)

IN THEIR WORDS: William Tyrrell's parents talk of the day their boy went missing and the 'living nightmare' they endure
“In a 22-minute interview released by NSW Police today, William’s parents – who cannot be named for legal reasons – revealed their torment after their ‘vibrant’ child vanished while playing at his grandmother’s house in Kendall, on the state’s mid-north coast, in September last year.”

BBM:
“M: I took the photo, I took three photos, I do photo books, of what we do as a family every year. So every time we go somewhere I have my camera and I just take pictures of what they’re doing, and I thought Mum’s getting old, be really good for William and his sister to have memories of being at Mum’s. And my Dad passed away in February that year so that was really the first time we’d been back since Dad passed away, and we were going to go visit Dad’s grave, they were drawing some pictures to put on his grave, they were sending messages to Opa and things like that. I just thought, I want to just take some pictures of that.”

 

[Chrissy74]

IN THEIR WORDS: William Tyrrell's parents talk of the day their boy went missing and the 'living nightmare' they endure
“In a 22-minute interview released by NSW Police today, William’s parents – who cannot be named for legal reasons – revealed their torment after their ‘vibrant’ child vanished while playing at his grandmother’s house in Kendall, on the state’s mid-north coast, in September last year.”

BBM:
“M: I took the photo, I took three photos, I do photo books, of what we do as a family every year. So every time we go somewhere I have my camera and I just take pictures of what they’re doing, and I thought Mum’s getting old, be really good for William and his sister to have memories of being at Mum’s. And my Dad passed away in February that year so that was really the first time we’d been back since Dad passed away, and we were going to go visit Dad’s grave, they were drawing some pictures to put on his grave, they were sending messages to Opa and things like that. I just thought, I want to just take some pictures of that.”

Locals recalled seeing William and his family at a neighbourhood Christmas event the previous December.
No mention of neighbours seeing W anytime after that December Christmas party which was 2 months before the Ffc father was put in the ground.
Perhaps their idea of frequent is once every seven months or so as opposed to maybe once a year

 

[InFocus]

Illeism: is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of the first person.
Certainly, a favourite pastime on here over the years.


So FFGM stated she got up at 7;30am, she's quite adamant that MFC had left the house by 8 am (according to the walk-through video). The video walk through is only 6 days after September 12th.

They sat down for breakfast around 8-8;30am, FFGM said she didn't see MFC, that he'd already left. She says the 3 of us... then corrects herself and says 4. (As per the walk-through video) No stage does she mention 5 (that MFC is still present at the house).

The MFC states that he left the house around 8:50 am (give or take 10 mins)

So which is it? Is the 8 am leaving the house or the 8:50 am correct? It can't be both.

After only 6 days following September 12th each other's timelines are not the same? It's not like months have passed.
This leads to the deck photos... The deck photo-created metadata of 7:37 am and 7:39 am has never been publicly confirmed by the coroner or the task force as not being correct. Despite what some have you believe.

Time has always been central to this case. We can't turn back time, but for William's sake, I wish we could.

 

[Warshawski]

IN THEIR WORDS: William Tyrrell's parents talk of the day their boy went missing and the 'living nightmare' they endure
“In a 22-minute interview released by NSW Police today, William’s parents – who cannot be named for legal reasons – revealed their torment after their ‘vibrant’ child vanished while playing at his grandmother’s house in Kendall, on the state’s mid-north coast, in September last year.”

BBM:
“M: I took the photo, I took three photos, I do photo books, of what we do as a family every year. So every time we go somewhere I have my camera and I just take pictures of what they’re doing, and I thought Mum’s getting old, be really good for William and his sister to have memories of being at Mum’s. And my Dad passed away in February that year so that was really the first time we’d been back since Dad passed away, and we were going to go visit Dad’s grave, they were drawing some pictures to put on his grave, they were sending messages to Opa and things like that. I just thought, I want to just take some pictures of that.”

She took 3 photos ? Who took the others

 

[Chrissy74]

She took 3 photos ? Who took the others

Was also rather shocked to see how easy it was (no barriers or fencing) to walk from the side of the house where W was supposedly playing to either the lower driveway and to the dirt track leading directly to the road. What the hell!! I honestly had no idea just how accessible the road was from where W was playing. There was literally nothing there to stop W or any child from running onto the road.
To allow a 3yo child play in an area with easy access to a road, a 3yo child who is out of your line of sight so you can’t see them and possibly can’t hear them and in this situation it took the adults responsible for looking after W at least 5min to realise the silence and possible dangers.
The second both adults saw W go round the side of the house and out of sight is the second W should have been called back and told to play where mummy and nanny could see him. The fact that it’s told in a way that makes it seem like W is playing on 2/3mtrs away and even though he couldn’t be seen he was surely safe, is totally misleading. He may have been only 2/3mtrs away but also had unrestricted access to multiple danger zones. How could neither adult of thought when W went around the side of the house “oh crap W could run onto the road better call him back over here”. How? I don’t get it!!!!!!!
It’s just like letting a 3yo child play in a front yard that has no fence no barriers while the adult goes inside the house to do something for 5min. You can hear them but you can’t see them. You can’t see the child, you definitely can’t see if a car if coming up the street, you can’t see if the child has wandered away from the front yard and onto the road or in front of a moving vehicle or into a neighbours house. It’s exactly the same thing.
The Ffc and fgm watched W go around to the side of the house knowing how easy it would be for W to run out onto the road and basically said nothing and thought nothing of it.
Both adults were sitting there on a deck chair each, they were out there so that the children could play in the yard and they could supervise them. If one adult was perhaps distracted for a minute or two no big deal because there was another adult there to keep watch. 2 adults failed at keeping W safe that morning . W had 2 sets of eyes there that morning and neither set were doing what they should have been

 

[Couldbe]

Illeism: is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of the first person.
Certainly, a favourite pastime on here over the years.


So FFGM stated she got up at 7;30am, she's quite adamant that MFC had left the house by 8 am (according to the walk-through video). The video walk through is only 6 days after September 12th.

They sat down for breakfast around 8-8;30am, FFGM said she didn't see MFC, that he'd already left. She says the 3 of us... then corrects herself and says 4. (As per the walk-through video) No stage does she mention 5 (that MFC is still present at the house).

The MFC states that he left the house around 8:50 am (give or take 10 mins)

So which is it? Is the 8 am leaving the house or the 8:50 am correct? It can't be both.

After only 6 days following September 12th each other's timelines are not the same? It's not like months have passed.
This leads to the deck photos... The deck photo-created metadata of 7:37 am and 7:39 am has never been publicly confirmed by the coroner or the task force as not being correct. Despite what some have you believe.

Time has always been central to this case. We can't turn back time, but for William's sake, I wish we could.

JMO – The abduction / ‘he was taken’ theory which the Fosters formed very early in William’s disappearance, has subsequently been investigated by LE, and since Detective Chief Inspector Laidlaw has taken over the case, nothing further with regard to a possible abductor appears to have been released through the Media.

FFC, FFGM and MFC seem to have been able to provide clear descriptions of particular aspects of events, but when more pertinent descriptions would have been really useful, they then seem to have to reply along the lines of: ‘I’m sorry I really don’t know; it gets to be a blurr’.

When we look at the various discrepancies in the timelines quoted by the Fosters, we can also consider how gradually, we are learning about a picture of alleged lies and deceit through the charges being brought by LE against the FFC and MFC. MOO

 

[Chrissy74]

JMO – The abduction / ‘he was taken’ theory which the Fosters formed very early in William’s disappearance, has subsequently been investigated by LE, and since Detective Chief Inspector Laidlaw has taken over the case, nothing further with regard to a possible abductor appears to have been released through the Media.

FFC, FFGM and MFC seem to have been able to provide clear descriptions of particular aspects of events, but when more pertinent descriptions would have been really useful, they then seem to have to reply along the lines of: ‘I’m sorry I really don’t know; it gets to be a blurr’.

When we look at the various discrepancies in the timelines quoted by the Fosters, we can also consider how gradually, we are learning about a picture of alleged lies and deceit through the charges being brought by LE against the FFC and MFC. MOO

Yes and suppression orders were perfect at doing just that, suppressing the truth, suppressing the identities, suppressing evidence.

 

[Kemug]

Auction fraud is common? Well, not in my circles. And if they are guilty of that, to me that indicates that whatever else the foster parents may or may not be, they are not "upright" citizens.

 

[Kemug]

I suppose if the foster parents are ever charged with disappearing William, then we will at last find out their names. Are other suspects in other cases usually treated with such extreme consideration?

 

[Chrissy74]

Auction fraud is common? Well, not in my circles. And if they are guilty of that, to me that indicates that whatever else the foster parents may or may not be, they are not "upright" citizens.

Just because a type of illegal practice is common doesn’t make it any less illegal

 

[SouthAussie]

I suppose if the foster parents are ever charged with disappearing William, then we will at last find out their names. Are other suspects in other cases usually treated with such extreme consideration?

I think that as long as there is a risk to their safety, their names will continue to be under suppression.
There is plenty of proof of the harassment they have received. There has even been people charged over it.

And, yes, many people's names are suppressed indefinitely. In particular, Australia is very good at protecting the names of pedophiles. imo


"Magistrate Robyn Denes on Friday upheld non-publication orders over the evidence and the detail of the allegations in the case involving the couple.
She said the non-publication orders were necessary for the couple’s safety."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/william-tyrrells-foster-parents-enter-court-pleas-to-assault-charges/news-story/cb5e725bb8f00067a81d2788ac594bf6

 

[Chrissy74]

I think that as long as there is a risk to their safety, their names will continue to be under suppression.
There is plenty of proof of the harassment they have received. There has even been people charged over it.

And, yes, many people's names are suppressed indefinitely. In particular, Australia is very good at protecting the names of pedophiles. imo


"Magistrate Robyn Denes on Friday upheld non-publication orders over the evidence and the detail of the allegations in the case involving the couple.
She said the non-publication orders were necessary for the couple’s safety."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/william-tyrrells-foster-parents-enter-court-pleas-to-assault-charges/news-story/cb5e725bb8f00067a81d2788ac594bf6

suppressing identities and

I think that as long as there is a risk to their safety, their names will continue to be under suppression.
There is plenty of proof of the harassment they have received. There has even been people charged over it.

And, yes, many people's names are suppressed indefinitely. In particular, Australia is very good at protecting the names of pedophiles. imo


"Magistrate Robyn Denes on Friday upheld non-publication orders over the evidence and the detail of the allegations in the case involving the couple.
She said the non-publication orders were necessary for the couple’s safety."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/william-tyrrells-foster-parents-enter-court-pleas-to-assault-charges/news-story/cb5e725bb8f00067a81d2788ac594bf6

Weren’t the suppression orders put in place to protect Ws sister and her safety?
Did the suppression order serve the purpose it was designed to do and keep Ws sister safe and protected?
And South Aussie exactly what does mentioning the laws of protecting pedophiles names have to do with this case? Is there a reason for the comparison?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Yes and suppression orders were perfect at doing just that, suppressing the truth, suppressing the identities, suppressing evidence.

Are the courts responsible, especially suppressing the truth and the evidence? They’re fairly serious claims you’re making, is the court system corrupt?

Weren’t the suppression orders put in place to protect Ws sister and her safety?
Did the suppression order serve the purpose it was designed to do and keep Ws sister safe and protected?
And South Aussie exactly what does mentioning the laws of protecting pedophiles names have to do with this case? Is there a reason for the comparison?

The information about suppression orders and the reasons are at the link, there are the answers to the questions that repeatedly keep cropping up.
It’s quite a common practice and it’s easy to knock a system which could protect anyone of us when and if needed.
The FPs aren’t special, but their ex-wards are, at least, think about them.
JMO

Non-publication and suppression orders

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

 

[SouthAussie]

And South Aussie exactly what does mentioning the laws of protecting pedophiles names have to do with this case? Is there a reason for the comparison?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was answering Kemug's question about other cases "... then we will at last find out their names. Are other suspects in other cases usually treated with such extreme consideration?"

Although - related to this case - I feel pretty sure that there are some/many residents of Kendall who would like to know the names of the rest of the 20 pedos living in their area who remain unnamed to the public. I think the only ones that they are now aware of are DN, TJ, PB and FA.

imo

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Illeism: is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of the first person.
Certainly, a favourite pastime on here over the years.


So FFGM stated she got up at 7;30am, she's quite adamant that MFC had left the house by 8 am (according to the walk-through video). The video walk through is only 6 days after September 12th.

They sat down for breakfast around 8-8;30am, FFGM said she didn't see MFC, that he'd already left. She says the 3 of us... then corrects herself and says 4. (As per the walk-through video) No stage does she mention 5 (that MFC is still present at the house).

The MFC states that he left the house around 8:50 am (give or take 10 mins)

So which is it? Is the 8 am leaving the house or the 8:50 am correct? It can't be both.

After only 6 days following September 12th each other's timelines are not the same? It's not like months have passed.
This leads to the deck photos... The deck photo-created metadata of 7:37 am and 7:39 am has never been publicly confirmed by the coroner or the task force as not being correct. Despite what some have you believe.

Time has always been central to this case. We can't turn back time, but for William's sake, I wish we could.

Where’s your proof the time isn’t 9.39am? The SFR‘s last search and the ‘critical time frame‘ was the 96 minutes before the police arrived on the scene, the 9.39am was accepted by investigators after forensics had examined the camera because why bother with the 96 minutes?

If this video is crucial to solving William’s disappearance, ultimately, to bring the FPs to justice, why was it handed over to the DM, and then, uploaded, unedited, on the internet, to be scrutinised to the nth degree by the public?
This vital missing piece of the puzzle, the muddled headed 80 year old woman’s attempt at assisting the police, the SFR team just let it go? It’s not as if she can be interviewed again.
She was so sure and not sure about everything, it was 6 days after, it might as well have been years, she struggled with her memory, even denying a call which for a fact, took place.
The police would have interviewed her away from the cameras, we don’t have access to those conversations, but this video is the key?

It’s interesting how allowances are made for men in their 60s and 70s in this case and others, but a grieving, recently widowed woman of 80, whose mental state we have no knowledge about, is mercilessly picked apart. What is she guilty of?

JMO

 

[deugirtni]

Illeism: is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of the first person.
Certainly, a favourite pastime on here over the years.


So FFGM stated she got up at 7;30am, she's quite adamant that MFC had left the house by 8 am (according to the walk-through video). The video walk through is only 6 days after September 12th.

They sat down for breakfast around 8-8;30am, FFGM said she didn't see MFC, that he'd already left. She says the 3 of us... then corrects herself and says 4. (As per the walk-through video) No stage does she mention 5 (that MFC is still present at the house).

The MFC states that he left the house around 8:50 am (give or take 10 mins)

So which is it? Is the 8 am leaving the house or the 8:50 am correct? It can't be both.

After only 6 days following September 12th each other's timelines are not the same? It's not like months have passed.
This leads to the deck photos... The deck photo-created metadata of 7:37 am and 7:39 am has never been publicly confirmed by the coroner or the task force as not being correct. Despite what some have you believe.

Time has always been central to this case. We can't turn back time, but for William's sake, I wish we could.

In fact, FGM says she didn't even see FD at all before he left that morning. So if she got up at 7:30am, where was he then, and when did he leave exactly, that she didn't even see him, and where did he go so early? And he didn't arrive back until 10:35am.. which gives at least 3 hours of time gone from the house using that timeframe, and is that time accounted for? Did FD leave just the once, or was it twice? (Or more?) Why does Overington report that it was confirmed through phone tracking that he left the house at 9:30am?

“About 9.30am, William’s foster father left the house. We know this is true because his phone has been tracked. He made a Skype call from an area with better internet connection, then picked up a paper and dropped by the chemist to fill a script.” https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/the-day-little-william-vanished-into-thin-air/news-story/eeb3d80423ff8c15b6b9c7d4725c39c6

And Overington also wrote in her book on page 12:

"William's foster dad packed up his laptop and his mobile. The evidence - CCTV on the road out of town - suggests that he left the house at around 8.40 a.m. William's foster nana was up by then, shuffling around in her slippers, and the children were having their breakfast."

Meanwhile, FD at the inquest, according to reports:

"The man said he had driven to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to return to the house about 10.30am."

William Tyrrell's foster father 'hysterical' when child went missing, inquest hears

Foster father looked under houses, external fences, pits, drains and sheds, ‘everything, everywhere he might have gone’, he says

www.theguardian.com

 

[SouthAussie]

In fact, FGM says she didn't even see FD at all before he left that morning. So if she got up at 7:30am, where was he then, and when did he leave exactly, that she didn't even see him, and where did he go so early? And he didn't arrive back until 10:35am.. which gives at least 3 hours of time gone from the house using that timeframe, and is that time accounted for? Did FD leave just the once, or was it twice? (Or more?) Why does Overington report that it was confirmed through phone tracking that he left the house at 9:30am?

“About 9.30am, William’s foster father left the house. We know this is true because his phone has been tracked. He made a Skype call from an area with better internet connection, then picked up a paper and dropped by the chemist to fill a script.” https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...r/news-story/eeb3d80423ff8c15b6b9c7d4725c39c6

And Overington also wrote in her book on page 12:

"William's foster dad packed up his laptop and his mobile. The evidence - CCTV on the road out of town - suggests that he left the house at around 8.40 a.m. William's foster nana was up by then, shuffling around in her slippers, and the children were having their breakfast."

Meanwhile, FD at the inquest, according to reports:

"The man said he had driven to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a strong internet connection for a conference call and planned to return to the house about 10.30am."

William Tyrrell's foster father 'hysterical' when child went missing, inquest hears

Foster father looked under houses, external fences, pits, drains and sheds, ‘everything, everywhere he might have gone’, he says

www.theguardian.com

I am not sure that it even matters, as FD has not been named or inferred as a POI.

Which leads me to believe that he has been eliminated as a POI by 3 different lead investigators over the course of 7+ years.

The police were very careful to say that they were investigating a sole POI in the last search.

imo