Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #37

[butterstick]

Just as a matter of interest, on the other hand, why do you think that they don’t know, even though they might still be making their evidence watertight, just as in Karen’s case?

They could well be trying to make their evidence watertight. I certainly hope so.

The word 'evident' was used, so it's a fair question to ask what that evidence is.

 

[Bohemian]

What's the evidence?

FYI The edited post you replied to was not one of mine. It was snipped from one of SA’s.

 

[papertrail]

Those are some pretty big statements.

Do you know that the bio parents are not receiving the same police info as the foster parents?

There is absolutely no evidence that the bio parents have been bullied. In fact, they themselves have apparently abducted William in the past ... and still been allowed to visit with William after that.

How dare you intimate bios had previously abducted WT! what they did do was secrete him. WT was in their custody at that time. There WAS NO ABDUCTION.

 

[butterstick]

FYI The edited post you replied to was not one of mine. It was snipped from one of SA’s.

Ah apologies, have fixed it now.

 

[frogwell]

How dare you intimate bios had previously abducted WT! what they did do was secrete him. WT was in their custody at that time. There WAS NO ABDUCTION.

Secrete seems like a more accurate term for what happened, or did not co-operate with their child being removed seems like an accurate statement as well. IMO

 

[papertrail]

The Tyrrell case will go to an inquest if it can’t be solved from a criminal perspective. But Det Ch Insp Jubelin said there are still strong lines of inquiry and people of interest that have the focus of the Strike Force.

Fingers crossed an arrest will happen soon. No need for an inquest.

An arrest may not stop an inquest.

 

[papertrail]

Secrete seems like a more accurate term for what happened, or did not co-operate with their child being removed seems like an accurate statement as well.

Yep. And accusing the bios of having previously abducted William is pure and utter defamation. A step way below the line of decency.

 

[papertrail]

That's certainly worth investigating, but shining a spotlight on an overworked (and maybe dysfunctional) FACS is not the immediate issue at hand for some people.

I'd rather the batteries in that spotlight be used to scour the ground for footprints leaving and entering a particular house in Benaroon Drive.

The issues that occurred with FACS and their Agency prior to William and his sister's journey into foster care is all important.

The Coroner in the Slager case has indicated that importance too.

The way the bios were treated by FACS and/ or their Agency may have started both of the bios' dispairing spiral into matters which are widely publicized.

The whole very sad and tragic story needs to be investigated in minutae.

To ignore what occurred during the WHOLE process over the years may not take into account actions that keep the welfare of children at the forefront.

I personally doubt there would have been an abduction of William if he was not in foster care. And in saying this I in no way am apportioning one iota of blame on bio or foster family.

 

[butterstick]

I personally doubt there would have been an abduction of William if he was not in foster care. And in saying this I in no way am apportioning one iota of blame on bio or foster family.

Yeah I can totally see your angle. And maybe it would be beneficial to see any wider behaviours with how foster children are handled, not just the case of one family.

I just think WTs case as a foster child could be investigated separately from a specific missing persons case. (although there could be relevant overlap, for all I know)

 

[SouthAussie]

How dare you intimate bios had previously abducted WT! what they did do was secrete him. WT was in their custody at that time. There WAS NO ABDUCTION.

Well, I am glad that you seem so sure about that. The details seem very murky to me.

According to many articles, William was removed from his parents at age 7 months old.

According to Natalie Collins, he was taken by his biological parents at 8 months old and hidden for 3 months.

If these things are accurate, he would actually have been in the legal custody of FACS at the time, along with his sister.


The boy was removed from the care of his biological parents as a seven-month-old following domestic violence and drug use concerns.
'Let him come home': William Tyrrell's mother makes emotional plea to alleged abductor

...... parents Karlie Tyrrell and Brendan Collins took William at the age of around eight months old and hid him in a granny flat, according to his grandmother Natalie Collins.
William Tyrrell’s birth parents hid him two years before he vanished

..... William Tyrrell was hidden for three months by his biological parents.
William Tyrrell’s birth parents hid him two years before he vanished

 

[Eloise]

I always thought it was around ~10 months old, which would fit with him being hidden for around 3 months at around the age of 7, maybe 8 months old. IIRC when this all first happened and FD's facebook was still open, I'm quite sure he had said it was 10 months.

they didn't abduct him. they wouldn't have ever gotten even supervised visits if that had happened. being incommunicado from community services visits and phone calls while the child is *legally in your custody* is a heck of a different situation to abduction when you don't have custody.

 

[SouthAussie]

What's the evidence?

The word 'evident' was used, so it's a fair question to ask what that evidence is.

Take your pick on the meaning of the word:
evidently-
without question; clearly; undoubtedly
to all appearances; apparently
obviously; clearly
apparently (but not necessarily); seemingly
Evidently definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


Police are honing in on five “high priority person of interest” suspects linked to the disappearance of toddler William Tyrrell ...........
Police focus on 5 suspects for William Tyrrell inquest

 

[SouthAussie]

I always thought it was around ~10 months old, which would fit with him being hidden for around 3 months at around the age of 7, maybe 8 months old. IIRC when this all first happened and FD's facebook was still open, I'm quite sure he had said it was 10 months.

they didn't abduct him. they wouldn't have ever gotten even supervised visits if that had happened. being incommunicado from community services visits and phone calls while the child is *legally in your custody* is a heck of a different situation to abduction when you don't have custody.

Have you ever seen an MSM article where it states 10 months old? I don't think I have. And if they fled when William was 'removed' at 7 months old, and then hid him for three months, whose actual legal custody was William in?
The 'removal' suggests that the paperwork was done, the physical act just hadn't taken place ... perhaps it was due to take place the day after they fled.

I think it is too murky for anyone to know for sure, except the authorities.

Abduction may have been an incorrect word to use ... maybe 'on the run' would have been better. Seeing that they apparently fled their home(s) and possibly the local area. Likely did not see their daughter for those 3 months either.

Either way, it seems to have been an avoidance of the consequence that they knew was happening due to domestic violence and drug use.

 

[Bohemian]

<rsbm>

I personally doubt there would have been an abduction of William if he was not in foster care. And in saying this I in no way am apportioning one iota of blame on bio or foster family.

BBM.

Again, I’m curious. In what way do you think William being in foster care singled him out for abduction; especially given DCI Jubelin is not of that opinion:

‘Police dispelled any insinuation the foster care status was linked to William's disappearance.

"We are well aware of William's circumstances," Homicide Squad Detective Chief Inspector Gary Jubelin said.

"It doesn't impact on the investigation, if anything it is a distraction at this stage.

"William was being raised in a loving family environment and it did not play any part in his disappearance."’​

William was in foster care

 

[Bohemian]

Well, I am glad that you seem so sure about that. The details seem very murky to me.

According to many articles, William was removed from his parents at age 7 months old.

According to Natalie Collins, he was taken by his biological parents at 8 months old and hidden for 3 months.

If these things are accurate, he would actually have been in the legal custody of FACS at the time, along with his sister.


The boy was removed from the care of his biological parents as a seven-month-old following domestic violence and drug use concerns.
'Let him come home': William Tyrrell's mother makes emotional plea to alleged abductor

...... parents Karlie Tyrrell and Brendan Collins took William at the age of around eight months old and hid him in a granny flat, according to his grandmother Natalie Collins.
William Tyrrell’s birth parents hid him two years before he vanished

..... William Tyrrell was hidden for three months by his biological parents.
William Tyrrell’s birth parents hid him two years before he vanished

I remember in the caselaw from the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal that William’s age was given as 7 months old when he was removed from the care of his BP.

(Unfortunately I can’t find the link to that document at the moment. I will post it when I do, if it is still relevant to the discussion at hand.)

 

[SouthAussie]

I remember in the caselaw from the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal that William’s age was given as 7 months old when he was removed from the care of his BP.

(Unfortunately I can’t find the link to that document at the moment. I will post it when I do, if it is still relevant to the discussion at hand.)

Thanks. I just found my link to the caselaw. The relevant sentence says ...

"HIS HONOUR: 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 (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers."

So, if William was taken and hidden by his parents at 8 months old, it would have been no different from a non-custodial parent taking a child from a custodial parent. Typically classed as an abduction. Perhaps my wording was not so incorrect after all.

It would also account for the supervised visitation that was then allowed.

(I haven't linked the caselaw as a mod once asked us not to link it.)

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM.

Again, I’m curious. In what way do you think William being in foster care singled him out for abduction; especially given DCI Jubelin is not of that opinion:

‘Police dispelled any insinuation the foster care status was linked to William's disappearance.

I would think that Jubes stated that very clearly because he did not want any insinuations that the bio parents had stolen William again. He wanted to ensure that the public knew that the bio parents had been cleared.

​

 

[Bohemian]

Thanks. I just found my link to the caselaw. The relevant sentence says ...

"HIS HONOUR: 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 (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers."

So, if William was taken and hidden by his parents at 8 months old, it would have been no different from a non-custodial parent taking a child from a custodial parent. Typically classed as an abduction. Perhaps my wording was not so incorrect after all.

It would also account for the supervised visitation that was then allowed.

(I haven't linked the caselaw as a mod once asked us not to link it.)

My pleasure and thank you for quoting from the caselaw.

 

[Bohemian]

I would think that Jubes stated that very clearly because he did not want any insinuations that the bio parents had stolen William again. He wanted to ensure that the public knew that the bio parents had been cleared.

​

Yes, and that the fact that William was in foster care at the time of his suspicious disappearance was a peripheral distraction to the investigation.

In fact, straight from DCI Jubelin’s mouth at the last presser:

‘(22:11) Reporter:

'The so-called revelations about William's background. Obviously they're not unknown to the investigation team. How would you describe them? Are they a distraction?'

(22:22) DCI Gary Jubelin:

'Look, they're peripheral distractions. We focus on what's important. We knew the background to William so it's just a peripheral distraction. But, one thing I could say, knowing the biological family and the foster family that, you know, if you could respect their privacy it would be appreciated. As I've said, I've eliminated them from the investigation and it is just a distraction.'’

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[papertrail]

I would think that Jubes stated that very clearly because he did not want any insinuations that the bio parents had stolen William again. He wanted to ensure that the public knew that the bio parents had been cleared.

William was never STOLEN in the first place (as inferred by you) by his biological parents either.