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

[Bohemian]

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

Friends of the family? Maybe. Extended (distant) family? Maybe. Let me assure you no member of my immediate family, ie; those that are trusted carers of the children in our family, is a 'pedo', nor do they have 'a substance abuse problem'.

 

[SouthAussie]

Friends of the family? Maybe. Extended (distant) family? Maybe. Let me assure you no member of my immediate family, ie; those that are trusted carers of the children in our family, is a 'pedo', nor do they have 'a substance abuse problem'.

I can only hope that once this crime is solved, that the correct person(s) is blamed for the crime ... the abductor/perhaps murderer.

And that people will remember that if William's bio family (any of them) had been able to care for William in a good, stable, and nurturing way, he would never have been removed from them in the first place.

.

 

[frogwell]

I can only hope that once this crime is solved, that the correct person(s) is blamed for the crime ... the abductor/perhaps murderer.

And that people will remember that if William's bio family (any of them) had been able to care for William in a good, stable, and nurturing way, he would never had been removed from them in the first place.

I am sorry but I do not share your faith in the system from too many experiences I have seen and heard share. We do not know that no one in his bio family could provide that kind of care. There are too many experiences of people who can provide it and are knocked back by FACS. Bottom line, FacS is about money and they like to place babies away from bios asap because people want to adopt and raise babies and then FACS no longer has to pay for staff to run their case. MOO

 

[Karinna]

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.

BBM, I wasn't aware that KT had done an interview previously. Maybe William's family wanted to just put it out there in the public that he was a fostered child, i don't really know why? But we don't know all the reasons of everything that happened in WT's short life before he went missing? Don't know what visitation rights & arrangements KT had to see her children either?

 

[SouthAussie]

I am sorry but I do not share your faith in the system from too many experiences I have seen and heard share. We do not know that no one in his bio family could provide that kind of care. There are too many experiences of people who can provide it and are knocked back by FACS. Bottom line, FacS is about money and they like to place babies away from bios asap because people want to adopt and raise babies and then FACS no longer has to pay for staff to run their case. MOO

That's okay. We all have different opinions.

I am just remembering soso's previous link that stated FACS try to place removed children with a family member as the first option. If that is unviable, they will seek other care.

They have an extreme shortage of foster carers and like to keep a removed child within their family, where possible, rather than place them elsewhere.

 

[Karinna]

I am sorry but I do not share your faith in the system from too many experiences I have seen and heard share. We do not know that no one in his bio family could provide that kind of care. There are too many experiences of people who can provide it and are knocked back by FACS. Bottom line, FacS is about money and they like to place babies away from bios asap because people want to adopt and raise babies and then FACS no longer has to pay for staff to run their case. MOO

You are right, not all children that go into state care deserve to be there. I have heard of some awful stories about children removed from their family home for no good reason, and then the bio/s having to fight like heck through the court system to get their children back. It's horrendous when that happens.

 

[Bohemian]

I can only hope that once this crime is solved, that the correct person(s) is blamed for the crime ... the abductor/perhaps murderer.

And that people will remember that if William's bio family (any of them) had been able to care for William in a good, stable, and nurturing way, he would never had been removed from them in the first place.

BBM. Yes, that would be a refreshing change.

As for how William and his sister came to be in foster care, I am loathe to make a personal judgement, based on what little I know. I have read that there is a risk of children being removed from their biological mothers by FaCS due to DV. Granted this article refers to Indigenous women:

http://www.impactforwomen.org.au/ne...orary-sophies-choice-for-our-indigenous-women

Likewise, I have come to the conclusion that I can't in all honesty judge William's foster family harshly. From the photos and video I've seen, for all accounts and purposes, William appeared to me to be clean, well-groomed and well-dressed, as well as healthy, happy and physically active.

Truly, whoever abducted William has much to answer for the varying degrees of trauma they have inflicted upon him, his siblings, his biological and foster parents, his families, his loved ones and, yes, the public. As I said before, in my opinion, they are diabolical.

 

[Karinna]

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

I wouldn't say "every", but a "lot" do for sure, & definitely substance abuse nowadays IMO.
I do believe children have much more exposure to paedos nowadays and not necessarily at home but in schools etc. too.

 

[Bohemian]

I wouldn't say "every", but a "lot" do for sure, & definitely substance abuse nowadays IMO.
I do believe children have much more exposure to paedos nowadays and not necessarily at home but in schools etc. too.

I could agree with that general statement. From what I understand, a great many more are at risk of contact with a 'pedo' via the internet, particularly SM apps.

 

[frogwell]

http://www.alecomm.com/child-protec...-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-australia-1996-2016
One in three girls will be sexually abused before the age of sixteen

 

[iailwa]

BBM, The police can't do much until they have the evidence to arrest & charge the perpetrator/s. It is still an ongoing investigation i would imagine because to date William has not yet been located. Sometimes some of these cases can be a while to come to any kind of completion, and that is a tragedy for the victims and their families. And then some sadly are never solved and go to cold case status.

Yes, the police can't arrest suspects until they have evidence, granted, but they can't expect to gather evidence if they sit silent on their leads. Truly, if the police released more info, there would be more leads - period. I know they are doing their best, but in this case it's becoming too silent. They need to pull the public into their investigation because obviously they are not getting anywhere. IMO they are being way too secretive. More information can help discount a POI or alternatively include one. It's rediculous really & beginning to look like they have nothing - and in such cases - the public needs more info. Sad to say... but true. It's not good enough that William has 'not been located' - what's not good enough is that they are not releasing ANY info that could help the public to actually provide more info re the perpetrator ... imo

 

[sosocurious]

That's okay. We all have different opinions.

I am just remembering soso's previous link that stated FACS try to place removed children with a family member as the first option. If that is unviable, they will seek other care.

They have an extreme shortage of foster carers and like to keep a removed child within their family, where possible, rather than place them elsewhere.

Different link I think.

2011 info - reprinted 2014.

Placement types
Relative and kinship care
Children are placed in the home of relatives or kin who are their authorised carers. Most children and young people in out-of-home care are placed in this type of care.

Foster care
Children are placed in a family setting with non-related authorised carers. The carer’s own children may be living there too.

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/321330/fostercare_guide.pdf

 

[Bohemian]

http://www.alecomm.com/child-protec...-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-australia-1996-2016
One in three girls will be sexually abused before the age of sixteen

I don't doubt those statistics but I assume, without having access to the Bravehearts' study (the weblink is broken), not all instances of child sexual abuse are attributable to paedophiles (people diagnosed with paedophilic disorder) as specified in the DSM-V (see a recent post by another WSer). I would suspect that a number of girls classed as children (and rightly so) under the age of 16 are sexually abused by intimate partners or members of their peer groups, ie; 'child-on-child' sexual assault which I believe is becoming more prevalent.

 

[iailwa]

I would certainly hope the culprit/s is not here, yikes! I just see mostly the same posters that have followed the case from the get go, plus a few newbies. I always check to see any new developments in WT's case, and even though i don't always comment still pray he will be found one day.
So btw Welcome to all new posters that are here.

Yes I hope the culprit is not here, but it wouldn't be the first time. A few years back a person was actually arrested for incriminating posts on webslueths - they posted too much info that only the perp would know. Websleuths can & will attract perpetrators, it's just human nature (inserting themselves, reading of their deeds, sicko really!)

 

[Bohemian]

Yes, the police can't arrest suspects until they have evidence, granted, but they can't expect to gather evidence if they sit silent on their leads. Truly, if the police released more info, there would be more leads - period. I know they are doing their best, but in this case it's becoming too silent. They need to pull the public into their investigation because obviously they are not getting anywhere. IMO they are being way too secretive. More information can help discount a POI or alternatively include one. It's rediculous really & beginning to look like they have nothing - and in such cases - the public needs more info. Sad to say... but true. It's not good enough that William has 'not been located' - what's not good enough is that they are not releasing ANY info that could help the public to actually provide more info re the perpetrator ... imo

I just wanted to refer you to a recent post I made, iailwa:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...l-NSW-12-Sept-2014-26&p=13592512#post13592512

Granted it has been almost a year since DCI Jubelin made those statements to MSM but when you compare three years to the seven years it took to gather enough evidence to arrest Daniel Morcombe's murderer and the five decades to do the same to Cheryl Grimmer's, it may put the time taken to investigate William's disappearance into context. Each crime is different, each investigation is different and of varying degrees of complexity so really there is no definitive amount of time in which a crime should be solved. I know it's frustrating and it seems as if nothing is happening, or happening 'fast enough', but we need to put our faith in the members of Strike Force Rosann. If they needed information from the public to move forward with their investigation into William's disappearance, I trust that they would waste no time in asking for it.

 

[Hbayne]

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

I got news for you, that's load of crap and a huge generalisation

 

[Karinna]

I could agree with that general statement. From what I understand, a great many more are at risk of contact with a 'pedo' via the internet, particularly SM apps.

Yes definitely SM is very problematic too, especially for kids that are a bit older and use that.

 

[Karinna]

Yes I hope the culprit is not here, but it wouldn't be the first time. A few years back a person was actually arrested for incriminating posts on webslueths - they posted too much info that only the perp would know. Websleuths can & will attract perpetrators, it's just human nature (inserting themselves, reading of their deeds, sicko really!)

Yes i'm sure it happens, and have read about that in some of the American cases that have been discussed here on WS's.

 

[Bohemian]

Yes definitely SM is very problematic too, especially for kids that are a bit older and use that.

I think we'd be surprised at the tender ages of children who use SM apps, not to mention 'games' where this type of contact occurs. I vaguely remember reading an MSM article recently about a (US?) website where games aimed at a child audience were available for free download and were being used as a front by paedophiles to contact children online. I don't have a link readily available (I didn't bookmark it) but I'm fairly sure it was from a reputable source.

 

[JLZ]

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.

I'm probably expressing myself clumsily, but I didn't mean to imply consensus by "generally", I was using it in contrast to the idea that I was talking to/about P&G there specifically. I'm not going back to the last thread to do a statistical analysis of who said what. I think I read it fairly skimmingly because while an occasional reminder to focus can be useful, an all-in argument about what we should be talking about . . . doesn't appeal to me. And now I'm perpetuating it and too tired to be diplomatic.

Maybe I'll come back to what you're saying about the court case later, like Saturday. Now I just can't. I hope P&G is OK, I didn't mean to upset her.