Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #27

[Hbayne]

I agree with what you say about good foster carers which i would think most of those people are. But there are also the ones where children have come to grief, which is terrible. As poor Tiahleigh and others that have died while in care.
In WT & LT's situation i believe i had read where the BM had had contact with her bio children, but not sure where the information came from?

As posted in an article on previous page. Karlie did have supervised visits but they were infrequent

 

[Karinna]

As posted in an article on previous page. Karlie did have supervised visits but they were infrequent

What thread was that on if you could give that info. Don't want to search through 26 previous threads. TIA.

 

[Hbayne]

What thread was that on if you could give that info. Don't want to search through 26 previous threads. TIA.

Previous page to this post number 549- posted article by From Germany

 

[Karinna]

Previous page to this post number 549- posted article by From Germany

Yep, just seen that, my bad as i just quickly skimmed over the msm article.

 

[frogwell]

Hbayne Hbayne is online now
Registered User
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
970
Quote Originally Posted by frogwell View Post
Can any of us acces the court documents that this information came from? Where has some of this information come from and is it legal?
The information is from a post from bohemian. You'd have to ask the daily telegraph and the reporter .

I am aware of the article the information came from, not the court documents. In one part of the article it refers to information from a Children's Court ruling. That article was written purposefully for FACS or the Foster's benefit and is a disgrace. MOO

 

[Bohemian]

Can any of us acces the court documents that this information came from? Where has some of this information come from and is it legal?

The information is from a post from bohemian. You'd have to ask the daily telegraph and the reporter .

I am aware of the article the information came from, not the court documents. In one part of the article it refers to information from a Children's Court ruling. That article was written purposefully for FACS or the Foster's benefit and is a disgrace. MOO

Well it may be a disgrace. Sadly, a lot of disgraceful things have been written, photographed and shown on MSM about William's biological parents — as a result of the court proceedings wrt the petition calling for a Coroner's inquest and the subsequent publicity. Even worse on SM about his foster parents. All actions have consequences. Sometimes they're positive; sometimes negative. The wisest thing we can do is learn from them, froggy.

 

[Hbayne]

Hbayne Hbayne is online now
Registered User
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
970
Quote Originally Posted by frogwell View Post
Can any of us acces the court documents that this information came from? Where has some of this information come from and is it legal?
The information is from a post from bohemian. You'd have to ask the daily telegraph and the reporter .

I am aware of the article the information came from, not the court documents. In one part of the article it refers to information from a Children's Court ruling. That article was written purposefully for FACS or the Foster's benefit and is a disgrace. MOO

Holy hell, why is all my deatails coming up in this ? I didn't post the original post

 

[Bohemian]

Holy hell, why is all my deatails coming up in this ? I didn't post the original post

Because froggy posted a multiquote. I fixed it so users will be able to track back to the original post (via my post above by clicking on the little black box with the two white arrows in it next to the user's names).

 

[Hbayne]

Hbayne Hbayne is online now
Registered User
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
970
Quote Originally Posted by frogwell View Post
Can any of us acces the court documents that this information came from? Where has some of this information come from and is it legal?
The information is from a post from bohemian. You'd have to ask the daily telegraph and the reporter .

I am aware of the article the information came from, not the court documents. In one part of the article it refers to information from a Children's Court ruling. That article was written purposefully for FACS or the Foster's benefit and is a disgrace. MOO

Wtf . Why is all my info being posted here.i simply responded with " you would have to ask the reporter of the article "

 

[frogwell]

Wtf . Why is all my info being posted here.i simply responded with " you would have to ask the reporter of the article "

My apologies Hbayne, it is not intentional. I couldn't get the post, with the post it was refering to for context, so I just highlighted, cut and paste the post but it seems to have added more of your info.

 

[suspicious]

Yes, that's correct but she didn't go into care with William's foster parents until a week after he did. I have already posted that information.

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Julian? [emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[frogwell]

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Julian? [emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Julian is a pseudonym for William, that was chosen by the court and refers to him by that name in all court proceedings.

 

[Sillybilly]

Please stop the discussion about custody of WT’s sister and the foster or bio parents.

Websleuths TOS specifically states that discussion of minor children (other than the victim) is not allowed.

DCI Jubelin has indicated that neither the foster or bio parents are the subject of his investigation, and he has requested that their privacy be respected.

 

[deugirtni]

WILLIAM TYRRELL’S FOSTER HOME INTENDED TO BE PERMANENT
AMY HARRIS, The Sunday Telegraph
August 27, 2017 12:00am

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e

'WHEN an eight-month-old William Tyrrell arrived at the home of his new foster parents, it was an arrangement that was always intended to be permanent.

The baby boy had been removed from his biological parents — both of whom had encountered problems with police — and placed in the care of foster parents.

His biological father was a career criminal who had spent most of William’s short life incarcerated.

It is understood his biological father and mother, Karlie, whose name was released this week after a ruling in the NSW Supreme Court, have been linked to domestic violence-related incidents.

However, these occurred after William had been removed from their care and there is no suggestion either were ever violent towards him.

'It is understood William’s foster agreement with his new parents in Sydney’s northern suburbs was intended to be a permanent arrangement.

His biological mother was aware of the intention.

Before his disappearance in September 2014, William did have supervised visits with his mother, contrary to some media reports.

However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not "Tyrrell".'

'We will never stop looking for you': William Tyrrell's foster parents cling to hope he'll be found

Source: AAP - SBS Wires
12 SEP - 6:48 AM UPDATED 12 SEP - 10:25 AM

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...am-tyrrells-foster-parents-cling-hope-hell-be

'William's in-care status was only made public last month after the NSW Department of Family and Community Services lost a legal bid to stop an advocacy group using the information in pushes for a coronial inquest.

Senior police insist the investigation is "very much ongoing" and a $1 million reward for information leading to his return remains on offer.

Detective Chief Inspector Gary Jubelin, who leads the homicide investigation, will speak publicly about the case on Tuesday after last month reiterating his defence of the foster family, saying they'd provided "a loving home" for William.

The identity of William's biological parents, Karlie Tyrrell and Brendan Collins, was revealed only after the recent case - where the Court of Appeal upheld a Supreme Court ruling citing public interest and the need for scrutiny of the out-of-home care system in allowing more to be publicly known.

Those court documents paint a picture of the life of a boy who was given a fresh start after being removed from the care of his biological mother as a seven-month-old.

There were concerns about domestic violence and drug use in the home and William, the second-eldest of four children, was placed with a Sydney family.

He was reunited with his older sister a week later and the pair settled into their new family after the Children's Court found there was no "realistic" possibility of them returning to their birth mother.'

It disturbs me that the reporter Amy Harris, says a few times, 'it is understood', yet she does not specify how this is understood, or by whom, or where it came from. She quotes no one.

"it was an arrangement that was always intended to be permanent." - according to whom?

"His biological father was a career criminal" - what is the purpose of this reporter hashing up the past on the biological father, who had nothing to do with this disappearance of his son into thin air?

"It is understood his biological father and mother, Karlie, whose name was released this week after a ruling in the NSW Supreme Court, have been linked to domestic violence-related incidents.
However, these occurred after William had been removed from their care and there is no suggestion either were ever violent towards him." - no reference? no, 'according to... '?

"It is understood William’s foster agreement with his new parents in Sydney’s northern suburbs was intended to be a permanent arrangement." - according to whom? and how does she know?

"His biological mother was aware of the intention." - again, according to whom, and how does she know?

"Before his disappearance in September 2014, William did have supervised visits with his mother, contrary to some media reports." - personally I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the BM had no visits with her child, has anyone else? and how does the reporter know this, and how does she know they were supervised?

"However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not "Tyrrell".'" - again, who is this understood by, and from whom does this information come? And who said the FF's surname cannot be disclosed? I did not read anything like that in the court document? Did anyone else?

It's not a reporter's job to state peoples' takes on things, and/or opinions, as if they are facts, and I find it unusual to not provide references for the information she is stating as if it is fact.

Jmo, and gives me a very bad feeling as to why the need to write an article like this. Is she trying to convince people of something, and if so, what exactly?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

William arrived at his foster parents' first. His sister joined him there one week later. William's foster parents are not POI, nor are his biological parents, in relation to his disappearance.

I did understand the sequence differently. And re the POIs - you are right.

 

[Wexford]

It disturbs me that the reporter Amy Harris, says a few times, 'it is understood', yet she does not specify how this is understood, or by whom, or where it came from. She quotes no one.

"it was an arrangement that was always intended to be permanent." - according to whom?

"His biological father was a career criminal" - what is the purpose of this reporter hashing up the past on the biological father, who had nothing to do with this disappearance of his son into thin air?

"It is understood his biological father and mother, Karlie, whose name was released this week after a ruling in the NSW Supreme Court, have been linked to domestic violence-related incidents.
However, these occurred after William had been removed from their care and there is no suggestion either were ever violent towards him." - no reference? no, 'according to... '?

"It is understood William’s foster agreement with his new parents in Sydney’s northern suburbs was intended to be a permanent arrangement." - according to whom? and how does she know?

"His biological mother was aware of the intention." - again, according to whom, and how does she know?

"Before his disappearance in September 2014, William did have supervised visits with his mother, contrary to some media reports." - personally I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the BM had no visits with her child, has anyone else? and how does the reporter know this, and how does she know they were supervised?

"However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not "Tyrrell".'" - again, who is this understood by, and from whom does this information come? And who said the FF's surname cannot be disclosed? I did not read anything like that in the court document? Did anyone else?

It's not a reporter's job to state peoples' takes on things, and/or opinions, as if they are facts, and I find it unusual to not provide references for the information she is stating as if it is fact.

Jmo, and gives me a very bad feeling as to why the need to write an article like this. Is she trying to convince people of something, and if so, what exactly?

I see what you are saying. Perhaps it is simply the FF trying to get their side across. There has been a lot of press from the bio side (NC in particular) and I think a fair bit of 'poor Karlie' type stuff on FB. Perhaps this is a subtle way of getting the FF side across without actually quoting them?? That's how it reads to me. I imagine if I was in their position I would want to get my own side of story out there too.

 

[matey]

They seem rare from the reading I've done. DCI Jubelin said himself that the investigation into William's disappearance was 'unique'. In other comments he had me thinking it was also an atypical abduction (but he didn't rule out an accident and is keeping 'an open mind to all possibilities.') He also described it as a 'once in a generation/career type crime'.

The latest media presser was interesting, as was the corresponding NSW Police press release, a little less so his appearance on ACA (that was only due, at times, to the distraction of the visuals and the reporter's commentary).

If you look back in this thread a little way, richieswan posted links to his YouTube uploads of the media presser and ACA report. There's also a link in one of my posts to a transcription of the former, including journos questions and his replies.

I find it interesting here that Jubey hasn't ruled out an ACCIDENT and is keeping 'an open mind to all possibilities'.

I have sometimes wondered if there was some sort of accident connected to William's disappearance, in this very complex case.

 

[Bohemian]

I find it interesting here that Jubey hasn't ruled out an ACCIDENT and is keeping 'an open mind to all possibilities'.

I have sometimes wondered if there was some sort of accident connected to William's disappearance, in this very complex case.

You may well be proved correct. In this instance, context is everything, matey. An accident is just one of the number of possibilities DCI Jubelin didn’t rule in or out in response to this particular journo’s question:

’(11:53) R:

'Are the majority of those suspects sex offenders?'

(11:58) GJ:

'I think we need to keep an open mind in regards to this. There's an assumption right from the start, that a three year old child's been abducted that may, or may not, be the sexual predator. We're keeping an open mind to that. I can't break down specifically how many persons of interest are on the basis of suspicion attached to their sexual interests in children but I do want to stress this is a unique investigation. I'm very mindful that we've looked at all possibilities and I keep an open mind to it.

I hear stories from overseas of situations where children have disappeared for decades and the turned up in circumstances. I also hear stories of incidents have occurred that are by accident and been covered up and then revealed. So, we are keeping an open mind to it and our focus is not just on sex offenders or, let's break it down; paedophiles. We're not just looking at that aspect of it.

And we're also mindful that our research tells us that the child, at the age of three, doesn't necessarily fit into the parameters of childless couples where young babies have been abducted. It's that unique nature of this investigation that's making this particularly trying.'’

Source:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/en...e-of-William-Tyrrell-7-News-12-September-2017

 

[Bohemian]

It disturbs me that the reporter Amy Harris, says a few times, 'it is understood', yet she does not specify how this is understood, or by whom, or where it came from. She quotes no one.

"it was an arrangement that was always intended to be permanent." - according to whom?

"His biological father was a career criminal" - what is the purpose of this reporter hashing up the past on the biological father, who had nothing to do with this disappearance of his son into thin air?

"It is understood his biological father and mother, Karlie, whose name was released this week after a ruling in the NSW Supreme Court, have been linked to domestic violence-related incidents.
However, these occurred after William had been removed from their care and there is no suggestion either were ever violent towards him." - no reference? no, 'according to... '?

"It is understood William’s foster agreement with his new parents in Sydney’s northern suburbs was intended to be a permanent arrangement." - according to whom? and how does she know?

"His biological mother was aware of the intention." - again, according to whom, and how does she know?

"Before his disappearance in September 2014, William did have supervised visits with his mother, contrary to some media reports." - personally I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the BM had no visits with her child, has anyone else? and how does the reporter know this, and how does she know they were supervised?

"However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not "Tyrrell".'" - again, who is this understood by, and from whom does this information come? And who said the FF's surname cannot be disclosed? I did not read anything like that in the court document? Did anyone else?

It's not a reporter's job to state peoples' takes on things, and/or opinions, as if they are facts, and I find it unusual to not provide references for the information she is stating as if it is fact.

Jmo, and gives me a very bad feeling as to why the need to write an article like this. Is she trying to convince people of something, and if so, what exactly?

I see what you are saying. Perhaps it is simply the FF trying to get their side across. There has been a lot of press from the bio side (NC in particular) and I think a fair bit of 'poor Karlie' type stuff on FB. Perhaps this is a subtle way of getting the FF side across without actually quoting them?? That's how it reads to me. I imagine if I was in their position I would want to get my own side of story out there too.

I guess you’d have to email the journalist in question to get answers to your questions about the article. Otherwise, i agree with what Wexford (so eloquently) stated above, deu.

 

[frogwell]

I see what you are saying. Perhaps it is simply the FF trying to get their side across. There has been a lot of press from the bio side (NC in particular) and I think a fair bit of 'poor Karlie' type stuff on FB. Perhaps this is a subtle way of getting the FF side across without actually quoting them?? That's how it reads to me. I imagine if I was in their position I would want to get my own side of story out there too.

If this article was a case of the FF wanting their side of the story aired, they are at the very least sharing confidentia/ privatel information about WT and his sister, or they are being untruthful in their account of the circumstances for their own benefit. If it is from a case worker's notes, they are leaking to the detriment of WT and LT. If the accounts are from a "friend" of the FF's, who want to defend them, (which is understandable) they only have an account from their friends, so it's hearsay. This is a grubby article, by a grubby journalist/ food writer with no validity. MOO