Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #31

[sosocurious]

My understanding was that FaCs policy was to always look at kinship care 1st for placement for indigenous children, not all children. MOO

No all children.
If restoration is not possible then living with relatives, kin or another suitable person is considered the preferred option – this is called ‘guardianship’. For Aboriginal children and young people, guardians who are not relatives or kin should be Aboriginal people in order to be considered ‘suitable persons’.

https://www.caring.childstory.nsw.g.../a-safe-home-for-life/planning-for-permanency

 

[sleepinoz]

I feel something in the air......

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/bce866bd1bd09f319f5e6bfc71905df6

Why has the bio family received sooo much attention of late?

Is NC just good for a "slow news day", or is there something going on behind the scenes?

ALL MOO.

I know we've heard this story before, but some doesn't make sense.

The child the subject of these proceedings – whom I shall call Julian – was one of four siblings. Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm

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

parents Karlie Tyrrell and Brendan Collins took William at the age of around eight months old and hid him

William Tyrrell was hidden for three months by his biological parents

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/bce866bd1bd09f319f5e6bfc71905df6

I believe he was hidden, and if he was 8 months - was he with the FF when he was taken?

Did the court get it wrong? Doubt it.

Another embellished story from NC? Probable.

:thinking:

 

[Lou Lou]

My understanding was that FaCs policy was to always look at kinship care 1st for placement for indigenous children, not all children. MOO

No. That would be absolute reverse racism. They try the family with all kids before a foster placement.

They look at Kinship in ALL cases, but with our indigenous kids, they then try and find someone from the mob, then another indigenous carer in or near the community, then look at foster care in general.
Our indigenous kids cannott be adopted now, due to the effects of the stolen generation. But thats the only diff.

 

[drsleuth]

I know we've heard this story before, but some doesn't make sense.



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





http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/bce866bd1bd09f319f5e6bfc71905df6

I believe he was hidden, and if he was 8 months - was he with the FF when he was taken?

Did the court get it wrong? Doubt it.

Another embellished story from NC? Probable.

:thinking:

:goodpost:

I'm sure the court documents would be correct
.

 

[sosocurious]

Very true. I'm sure that with NC knowing that William was being " hidden" , she would never of been given kinship care ( as it should be ) ..............

There must have been a good reason she was not considered before she assisted in hiding William...imo

 

[sosocurious]

I know we've heard this story before, but some doesn't make sense.



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





http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/bce866bd1bd09f319f5e6bfc71905df6

I believe he was hidden, and if he was 8 months - was he with the FF when he was taken?

Did the court get it wrong? Doubt it.

Another embellished story from NC? Probable.

:thinking:

Arrrgh yes sleep.

P: Parents are extra cautious in Sydney, but you’d probably let your guard down and be a bit disarmed in a quiet neck of the woods like that.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...full-transcript-from-william-tyrrells-parents
In a 22-minute interview released by NSW Police today,

 

[Wexford]

There must have been a good reason she was not considered before she assisted in hiding William...imo

The company she keeps?
Her history with her own children and step children?
I'm going with the thought that she never applied for it in the first place. I think she is quite simply wanting the limelight and enjoying the drama.

 

[Wexford]

So when he was out repairing white goods anywhere. Who was at the pawn shop covering all those important duties?

A family member with some spare time???

 

[sosocurious]

The company she keeps?
Her history with her own children and step children?
I'm going with the thought that she never applied for it in the first place. I think she is quite simply wanting the limelight and enjoying the drama.

On contract ..... ya reckon?
Or just spreading herself around?:blah::blah::blah:

 

[Wexford]

Yes, I agree. "Following" ... not "in January" or anything like that.


Following William’s disappearance, Mr Spedding gave a 10-page statement to police, as well as a DNA swab, to assist with the investigation.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...l/news-story/6d94cf0b183fb09f927bc96e3d67ce58

Is a DNA swab standard? What were they going to compare it to? I don't know, maybe this is standard practice but it seems odd to take one with nothing to compare it to.

 

[sleepinoz]

Is a DNA swab standard? What were they going to compare it to? I don't know, maybe this is standard practice but it seems odd to take one with nothing to compare it to.

I agree it does seem odd. Maybe to eliminate any DNA found in the house? His would probably be there as he was there a few days before.

 

[SouthAussie]

Is a DNA swab standard? What were they going to compare it to? I don't know, maybe this is standard practice but it seems odd to take one with nothing to compare it to.

I'm thinking they had a reason for wanting it, too. A specific reason. Because if he refused to give it voluntarily, they would have needed a warrant, and a warrant requires reasonable cause.

His lawyer said he gave his DNA readily. But we don't know if that was because a warrant had been served, hence he gave it 'readily'.

 

[they'll get you]

I for sure would have noticed him at the assembly. If he didn't attend very often especially. We always noticed the other people because it was nice to see them show up and acknowledge good things for their kids. It is important for the kids.

.

The teachers would definitely have noticed them if they were known.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, whether he gave the DNA voluntarily (informed consent) or upon being served a warrant .....


...... the police officer has to be satisfied that the person is a suspect and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the forensic procedure could produce evidence relating to this offence.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/how-does-the-national-dna-database-work/

 

[SouthAussie]

The teachers would definitely have noticed them if they were known.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree. They really, really care about what parents come to see their children. Some children need extra praise or attention if nobody shows up for them, or seems to care they got an award.

 

[Wexford]

I'm thinking they had a reason for wanting it, too. A specific reason. Because if he refused to give it voluntarily, they would have needed a warrant, and a warrant requires reasonable cause.

His lawyer said he gave his DNA readily. But we don't know if that was because a warrant had been served, hence he gave it 'readily'.

Was this when Fehon was in charge or when Jubelin took over? Im guessing the latter. I'm starting to have a lot of concerns as to how this investigation was run in the very early stages. Why does Fehon completely deny abduction yet that is the first thing FM and Partridge felt? What reason is there to keep an abduction quiet?

 

[they'll get you]

When did police ask questions of the school and parents? was it in January? (school holidays) 4 months later?

It was only a fortnightly assembly not a special occasion from my reckoning. I have a vague idea of who are the regulars at assemblies but beyond that nothing.

If they were sporty kids then they would be a part of a team and parents are usually involved in that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sleepinoz]

Was this when Fehon was in charge or when Jubelin took over? Im guessing the latter. I'm starting to have a lot of concerns as to how this investigation was run in the very early stages. Why does Fehon completely deny abduction yet that is the first thing FM and Partridge felt? What reason is there to keep an abduction quiet?

Jubelin didn't take over until late Jan/ early Feb - it would have been Hans Rupp who was in charge prior to Jubelin. Too early for Fehon to get to that stage IMO

Detective Inspector Jubelin, who has locked up some of the worst criminals in the state and was portrayed in an Underbelly series for his conviction of Anthony ‘‘Rooster’’ Perish, will now be the officer in charge following the retirement of Detective Inspector Hans Rupp.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2850333/top-investigator-appointed-in-search-for-william-tyrrell/

 

[purpleandgreen]

Look my memory's not what it should be and I have no links, so it will have to be IMO, but I seem to remember from the very early days that it was said that William had been taken before. Maybe this was when it was?

I also remember us discussing that perhaps that was why the FM responded with something like , 'Someone's taken him'. Again, no links, so IMO

I know we've heard this story before, but some doesn't make sense.

The child the subject of these proceedings – whom I shall call Julian – was one of four siblings. Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm

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

parents Karlie Tyrrell and Brendan Collins took William at the age of around eight months old and hid him

William Tyrrell was hidden for three months by his biological parents

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/bce866bd1bd09f319f5e6bfc71905df6

I believe he was hidden, and if he was 8 months - was he with the FF when he was taken?

Did the court get it wrong? Doubt it.

Another embellished story from NC? Probable.

:thinking:

:goodpost:

I'm sure the court documents would be correct



.

Yay!!! I did a multi-quote!

 

[sleepinoz]

Look my memory's not what it should be and I have no links, so it will have to be IMO, but I seem to remember from the very early days that it was said that William had been taken before. Maybe this was when it was?

I also remember us discussing that perhaps that was why the FM responded with something like , 'Someone's taken him'. Again, no links, so IMO

Your memory isn't that bad. It was discussed, somehow I was under the impression that he was taken 'while' he was in foster care. (Those links are now impossible to find) :tantrum: