Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #26

[Jennifer17]

I think you've twisted what I said and placed it in an entirely different context. William was very lucky to be placed with his FF, as opposed to being placed with a foster family who is unloving, un-nurturing and uncaring, such as Tialeigh was. IMO

But he has fared no better than Tialeigh.Did not even reach her age. Why would you call a missing, presumed dead, little boy, lucky? He was not lucky in any way.

 

[they'll get you]

But he has fared no better than Tialeigh.Did not even reach her age. Why would you call a missing, presumed dead, little boy, lucky? He was not lucky in any way.

Tia was murderered by her carer FFS!
Big difference.

Now where's that block button.

 

[Hbayne]

But he has fared no better than Tialeigh.Did not even reach her age. Why would you call a missing, presumed dead, little boy, lucky? He was not lucky in any way.

I think you are misconstruing the comment here totally. WAS a lucky loved little boy by his ff is what purple and green is saying.

 

[Hbayne]

Looks like I'm the baddy here today for some reason. I give up.

Your a goodie , totally agree and understand what you are saying.

 

[Hbayne]

Tia was murderered by her carer FFS!
Big difference.

Now where's that block button.

Exactly, Polar opposites of foster parents in these two cases.

 

[Karinna]

RSBM
The private and public interest in freedom of expression

The obvious and important competing interests are (1) the private interest of Ms Smith in being able to do what she is otherwise entitled to do in a free society, namely to speak of, discuss and disclose truthful non-defamatory matters known to her, in respect of which she is bound by no obligation of confidentiality, and (2) the public interest in freedom of expression and discussion, in particular in connection with the out-of-home-care system. Ms Smith’s interest in this respect is also echoed, at least to some extent, by Julian’s mother: although at the interlocutory hearing the court was given by the plaintiff to understand that Julian's mother agreed that Julian's in-care status should not be disclosed, the mother’s evidence at the final hearing (such as it was – it was adduced as hearsay of a conversation between a FACS officer and her) was to the effect that it has always been her view that it should be known that Julian was in care. Although she had concerns for the safety of herself, Julian, Sarah, their two siblings in her care, and the foster carers, if that information became public, she said that she believed that the information “needs to come out”.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

So according to this article the mother thinks there should be disclosure on the information she feels the public should know.

 

[Karinna]

But he has fared no better than Tialeigh.Did not even reach her age. Why would you call a missing, presumed dead, little boy, lucky? He was not lucky in any way.

Nobody knows what has happened to William, so i don't think we can compare to Tialeigh's horrific murder IMO.
And that is a big part of the problem, that there is no evidence that we know of whether WT is alive or deceased,

 

[Jennifer17]

Nobody knows what has happened to William, so i don't think we can compare to Tialeigh's horrific murder IMO.
And that is a big part of the problem, that there is no evidence that we know of whether WT is alive or deceased,

We can have a good guess about whether William is alive or not.

 

[Karinna]

We can have a good guess about whether William is alive or not.

But unless a missing child is actually found deceased there is always a very slim chance they could still be out there alive somewhere. It is very rare but has happened before. I hate to think of any precious child out there dead somewhere, so i'm not giving up hope completely that WT could still be out there and hidden by someone. But that's just me.

 

[they'll get you]

I think the bio family have a story to tell as well though, and it appeared that initially they had been gagged. The FP's did the 60 minutes show , only their faces were blacked out, so they have spoken publicly.

I think I recall an interview very early on in the piece with KT in a blackened room....I might be wrong. But what would they have to say?
I believe they had visits but I doubt 'they' had much to do with his uprbring and day to day life.
There was a reason 'they' didn't have him any longer but what good would that do to talk publicly about that sadness.

Unless they know who took him but that's another story.

It'd be interesting how much money has been offered already by 60minutes and ACA.

 

[Hbayne]

Maybe William was a target to someone like BS because in ignorance he assumed all blame of abduction would be placed on bio family and that he could fly under the radar ??? IMO

 

[they'll get you]

We can have a good guess about whether William is alive or not.

Yeah, it's a 50/50 guess.

Genius.

 

[Bohemian]

Yeah, it's a 50/50 guess.

Genius.

Yes tgy? You rang? :fence:

 

[Bohemian]

Looks like I'm the baddy here today for some reason. I give up.

Oh babe :loveyou:

 

[Bohemian]

I think the bio family have a story to tell as well though, and it appeared that initially they had been gagged. The FP's did the 60 minutes show , only their faces were blacked out, so they have spoken publicly.

RSBM
The private and public interest in freedom of expression

The obvious and important competing interests are (1) the private interest of Ms Smith in being able to do what she is otherwise entitled to do in a free society, namely to speak of, discuss and disclose truthful non-defamatory matters known to her, in respect of which she is bound by no obligation of confidentiality, and (2) the public interest in freedom of expression and discussion, in particular in connection with the out-of-home-care system. Ms Smith’s interest in this respect is also echoed, at least to some extent, by Julian’s mother: although at the interlocutory hearing the court was given by the plaintiff to understand that Julian's mother agreed that Julian's in-care status should not be disclosed, the mother’s evidence at the final hearing (such as it was – it was adduced as hearsay of a conversation between a FACS officer and her) was to the effect that it has always been her view that it should be known that Julian was in care. Although she had concerns for the safety of herself, Julian, Sarah, their two siblings in her care, and the foster carers, if that information became public, she said that she believed that the information “needs to come out”.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

So according to this article the mother thinks there should be disclosure on the information she feels the public should know.

I wonder if that means we will hear from 'Julian's mother' publicly in the near future? It's been a week since the 'information came out' that William and his sister were in foster care at the time of his disappearance.

 

[SouthAussie]

But he has fared no better than Tialeigh.Did not even reach her age. Why would you call a missing, presumed dead, little boy, lucky? He was not lucky in any way.

William was very lucky to have 3 blessed, happy years with his foster family. If he had remained in his biological family, he could have been dead as a baby.

He wasn't removed for no reason at all. He was at risk at 7 months old ... possibly even as a newborn, with the parents being given 6 months to try to straighten up (as per my previous post about FACS guidelines). He may have even been born with an addiction (via the umbilical cord) for all we know.

 

[frogwell]

For all intents and purposes you may be right about the FF, and you may be wrong, appearances and photos aren't everything. He may have been harmed if he stayed with the bios, he has been harmed when in the FF's care. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

For all intents and purposes you may be right about the FF, and you may be wrong, appearances and photos aren't everything. He may have been harmed if he stayed with the bios, he has been harmed when in the FF's care. MOO

Not by the foster family though. They have been cleared.

Imagine the associated pedos he may have been exposed to in the bio family, the spitting in the face, the criminal activities, the things we do know about.

 

[Bohemian]

On your second paragraph--I was more referring to Jubelin's argument in the case before Brereton J which I thought had found some support here generally, not necessarily from you.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9
paragraph 53.

What made you think that, JLZ? I remember posting that I agreed with DCI Jubelin's statement published in MSM that the release of William's foster care status is little more than a distraction at this stage of the investigation into his disappearance — mainly because his foster status is a dry fact with very little context (relevance?) to the general (dare I say, largely uninformed?) public. I don't remember much consensus amongst WSers to my post though.

What I understand from DCI Jubelin's statement to the court was that he wanted to control the public release of information, including William's foster status, for operational reasons.

 

[frogwell]

I got news for you, every child is exposed to associated pedos in their family or friends whether you believe that or not, every family has a member with a substance abuse problem whether you believe it or not. MOO