Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) #77

[Chrissy74]

I see

It would appear to me, that SFR (and Lonergan) tested a ”theory” about what might have happened to William that day, and have failed to yield an affirmative result …. At this point in time …

At the end of nine years, Police are admitting, they, (like the rest of us) have no proof of what happened to William the day he went missing …

Sure, they can speculate and develop theories… but at the end of the day they still have no proof…. especially beyond a reasonable doubt … IMO

MO

There’s a difference between testing a theory and lying under oath that the theory is truth.
If it was just a theory and police really didn’t know what happened to W why didn’t that information come to light at the Ffc hearing for lying to CC. They knew what evidence they did and didn’t have at that time of her hearing so why withhold that information in court for Ffc but disclose that information in court for mfc hearing. Are these police tactics or media reporting?

 

[k-mac]

....... Earlier this year, InFocus made this post in regard to the time of William’s disappearance, and I think they are valid points:

https://www.webe.sleuths.com/forums/threads/australia-william-tyrrell-disappeared-while-playing-in-yard-kendall-nsw-74.648635/post-18204180

“Actually, you would want MFC, FFC, and FGM to have "corroborating" evidence - a collection of facts and information that backs up someone's story. You want the exact time frames of all 3 otherwise red flags are raised.

The FGM is adamant she never saw MFC that morning in the walk-through video. FFC and MFC suggest he left around 9-ish Yet we have various times given when he left, especially if you're to believe CO's version in her book.

If they couldn't corroborate that basic (seeing each other) piece of info, then "Houston, we have a problem!" The walk-through video was done within a week of September 12th, so it's not like you couldn't remember exactly who was present and when. It's not hard to recall if you saw/didn't see someone and the other 2 parties place all 3 people still at the house. If one party is suggesting something different then that raises the possibility someone is not telling the truth.

There are time discrepancies with MFC, FFC, and FGM for good reason IMO.

Why is it that the time of William's disappearance has been allowed to be moved from 10:30 am to 10:10-10:15 am over the years? Not even Mr. Jubelin has raised an eyelid over this. Instead, he put 100% focus on Spedding and Savage and we now know how that all went down.

When does FMC take that drive to Batar Creek Rd? Is the timeline shifted back to fit the drive into the 10:15 am-10:30 am window? If so, then all the stories about him going missing at 10:30 have suddenly become unbelievable. Even in the police public interview in 2015, the FFC mumbled under her breath "no that is not right", responding to MFC saying 10:15 am is the last time he was seen.

If 10:30 am is the time he disappeared how on earth does FFC make the drive to Batar Creek Rd and be back to greet the MFC in the driveway? We know for a fact she takes the drive to Batar Creek Rd, that's indisputable.

You can't have it both ways when it comes to times and discrepancies. Time will bring someone's version undone with all the flip-flopping. I'm sure Mr. Laidlaw is aware of this.”

MFC super convenient trip out for a meeting and a chemist run and paper collection .....
redflag #1 to begin with.

Nothing has changed for me.

 

[SouthAussie]

This would be the same detective who under oath told the court he wasn’t lying when he told the Ffc he knows what happened to W that morning, “we know how we know why we know where”. Yet now we have reports contradicting the officer’s statement. Was Detective L lying about knowing what happened to W as reports would now have us believe and If so what’s to say he isn’t lying about clearing the mfc from any involvement in Ws disappearance if he has previously lied under oath?

I think your post is confusing what was said in court under oath, and what was said not-in-court and not under oath.

Under Oath last Monday:
“We constantly discuss it,” Lonergan said. “It's one of those topics – that we simply don't know what happened to him that day.”. (as per my previous lnk)

Two years earlier - Not Under Oath in Oct 2021:
"“We know why, we know how, we know where he is,” Sergeant Scott Jamieson told the woman, who can only be identified by the pseudonym (snip), in October 2021. “We aren't guessing, we aren't bluffing. “We are saying we know what happened and why it happened and where [his body] is.”

Link

 

[SLouTh]

IThere’s a difference between testing a theory and lying under oath that the theory is truth.
If it was just a theory and police really didn’t know what happened to W why didn’t that information come to light at the Ffc hearing for lying to CC. They knew what evidence they did and didn’t have at that time of her hearing so why withhold that information in court for Ffc but disclose that information in court for mfc hearing. Are these police tactics or media reporting?

BBM
Magistrate Moody did allude to “Police Tactics” back in November 2022… and was rather scathing of Police at the time…

In an article by The Australian titled: “Police blasted over Tyrrell foster mother charge”

Moody criticised the tactics police used to issue their summons to [FM] last year, telling the court the accused was “living a nightmare life” when she was compelled to give evidence before the commission.

Paywalled for some

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/police-blasted-over-tyrrell-foster-mother-charge/news-story/a8d4b855c8e1ede30974ae950f1904f1

 

[Couldbe]

I see


There’s a difference between testing a theory and lying under oath that the theory is truth.
If it was just a theory and police really didn’t know what happened to W why didn’t that information come to light at the Ffc hearing for lying to CC. They knew what evidence they did and didn’t have at that time of her hearing so why withhold that information in court for Ffc but disclose that information in court for mfc hearing. Are these police tactics or media reporting?

BBM
Magistrate Moody did allude to “Police Tactics” back in November 2022… and was rather scathing of Police at the time…

In an article by The Australian titled: “Police blasted over Tyrrell foster mother charge”

Moody criticised the tactics police used to issue their summons to [FM] last year, telling the court the accused was “living a nightmare life” when she was compelled to give evidence before the commission.

Paywalled for some

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/police-blasted-over-tyrrell-foster-mother-charge/news-story/a8d4b855c8e1ede30974ae950f1904f1

JMO - Tactics have been employed on the part of the Detectives and also on the part of the Defence Lawyer Phillip English (Was he taking the opportunity to question Detective Lonergan in an effort to get him to 'spill the beans' on the evidence contained in the Brief to the DPP?
..... (If so, it didn't work because:
“Under cross-examination on Monday by Mr English, Detective Lonergan said that the strike force investigating William's disappearance had considered it was a case of manslaughter, or a case of an accident with William, followed by the disposal of his body.
Det. Lonergan said that if there had been an accident and then 'also failing to provide first aid', that could also be considered as a case of possible manslaughter.

Pressed by Mr English about police theories regarding the fate of William Tyrrell over the years, Det. Lonergan said 'we simply don't know what happened'.”

Details emerge of William Tyrrell's foster mum's questioning
“Despite Monday's hearing involving charges against the foster father, much of the evidence heard in court related to William's foster mother.

During a cross-examination of a police officer on Monday, the foster father's lawyer Phillip English detailed to the court how it had been suggested to the foster mother at a Crime Commission hearing that she 'may have dumped William's body near a riding school'.”

 

[SouthAussie]

I think Barrister Phillip English achieved what he wanted to achieve in court and earned his kazillion dollars.

The FD was found not guilty.
And in response to the barrister's questions, the police (Lonergan) testified that FD was not a POI in William's disappearance, and that the police don't know what happened to William.

I don't think that Phillip English could want for more than that.

imo

 

[Detective Willy]

One of the many things that stand out to me about the timeline on the morning of Williams disappearance, is that FFC did not once try to call MFC once she allegedly realised William was missing.

People have said there was a text saying he would be home in 5 minutes etc but it still does not gel with me.

Especially when FFC arrived home she asked him “Is William with you?”.

If she thought there was even a 1% chance William was with him she would have called him IMMEDIATELY and kept calling him until she eliminated this possibility IMO.

The entire timeline that morning does not mathematically make sense along with all of the discrepancies between the 3 adults statements, many changed at later dates too.

It does not pass the sniff test IMO.

 

[Awakening]

One of the many things that stand out to me about the timeline on the morning of Williams disappearance, is that FFC did not once try to call MFC once she allegedly realised William was missing.

People have said there was a text saying he would be home in 5 minutes etc but it still does not gel with me.

Especially when FFC arrived home she asked him “Is William with you?”.

If she thought there was even a 1% chance William was with him she would have called him IMMEDIATELY and kept calling him until she eliminated this possibility IMO.

The entire timeline that morning does not mathematically make sense along with all of the discrepancies between the 3 adults statements, many changed at later dates too.

It does not pass the sniff test IMO.

See for me, that doesn’t raise a red flag.

It fits into the normal range of human behaviour and different personalities and different relationship dynamics.

I reckon that I would call my husband after about 5 minutes.

But there are other people who wouldn’t.

There are a multitude of reasons why she didn’t. Off the top of my head: didn’t want to disturb him if he was in a meeting, didn’t want to worry him whilst he was driving in case it caused him to have an accident, fear that he would be angry with her and hoping she’d find W before he got home.

 

[Couldbe]

See for me, that doesn’t raise a red flag.

It fits into the normal range of human behaviour and different personalities and different relationship dynamics.

I reckon that I would call my husband after about 5 minutes.

But there are other people who wouldn’t.

There are a multitude of reasons why she didn’t. Off the top of my head: didn’t want to disturb him if he was in a meeting, didn’t want to worry him whilst he was driving in case it caused him to have an accident, fear that he would be angry with her and hoping she’d find W before he got home.

Do you think though Awakening ... that it could very well be considered a 'red flag', and a thorough investigation, e.g.: into whether MFC and FM could have had burner phones (To be used outside of their Work phones, in order to avoid unwanted clutter on those phones) ... was necessary when they were both initially considered as POIs?

 

[JLZ]

See for me, that doesn’t raise a red flag.

It fits into the normal range of human behaviour and different personalities and different relationship dynamics.

I reckon that I would call my husband after about 5 minutes.

But there are other people who wouldn’t.

There are a multitude of reasons why she didn’t. Off the top of my head: didn’t want to disturb him if he was in a meeting, didn’t want to worry him whilst he was driving in case it caused him to have an accident, fear that he would be angry with her and hoping she’d find W before he got home.

I wonder if her not calling him was part of the reason she said William had been there five minutes ago . . . when, by my calculations anyway, she must have known she'd been searching rather longer.

 

[k-mac]

See for me, that doesn’t raise a red flag.

It fits into the normal range of human behaviour and different personalities and different relationship dynamics.

I reckon that I would call my husband after about 5 minutes.

But there are other people who wouldn’t.

There are a multitude of reasons why she didn’t. Off the top of my head: didn’t want to disturb him if he was in a meeting, didn’t want to worry him whilst he was driving in case it caused him to have an accident, fear that he would be angry with her and hoping she’d find W before he got home.

Yes Awaking those things are reasonable considerations.

Do you think though Awakening ... that it could very well be considered a 'red flag', and a thorough investigation, e.g.: into whether MFC and FM could have had burner phones (To be used outside of their Work phones, in order to avoid unwanted clutter on those phones) ... was necessary when they were both initially considered as POIs?

Dunno about burner phones couldbe? Think its a bit hard in Australia to have a burner? everything needs to be attached to an account as far as I know. Would the fosters have any need for burners?

Back to Awakings post....Equally...other end of the spectrum....
No need to contact with him if he already in the loop of a catastrophe.

Stays a red flag for me.

 

[Detective Willy]

See for me, that doesn’t raise a red flag.

It fits into the normal range of human behaviour and different personalities and different relationship dynamics.

I reckon that I would call my husband after about 5 minutes.

But there are other people who wouldn’t.

There are a multitude of reasons why she didn’t. Off the top of my head: didn’t want to disturb him if he was in a meeting, didn’t want to worry him whilst he was driving in case it caused him to have an accident, fear that he would be angry with her and hoping she’d find W before he got home.

I have to disagree strongly.

To me, a missing 3 year child in a remote area is kind of a "big deal" and not a time that people behave casually.

Many people send a text to their partner and say "I will be 5 minutes" and it could be 30 minutes or more.

The second (if) William went missing the husbands meeting would take a very big back seat to a missing child, feared to have been abducted.

How do you explain her getting the text, then going for a drive looking for William that she failed to tell anyone about for a few days, then running around the house and the streets looking for him and still getting back and parking Grandmas car in the garage, all before FFC gets home?

All of this" in 5 minutes"? She surely must have known William was gone for a minimum 20-30 minutes before MFC got home if indeed her story was true.

Their explanation and timeline makes zero sense if you closely look at it. IMO SFR flagged this too.

 

[Awakening]

I do have red flags, that’s just not one of them, but could well be.

For me personally, the biggest red flags is the delay in telling police about the drive and the underestimating the time he’d been missing.

I’m sure there’s others but that’s off the top of my head.

 

[SLouTh]

How do you explain her getting the text, then going for a drive looking for William that she failed to tell anyone about for a few days, then running around the house and the streets looking for him and still getting back and parking Grandmas car in the garage, all before FFC gets home?

From my understanding of the timeline….. and my personal opinion only, I think the “drive“ occurred before the FM received the ”home in 5“ text … (after FM returned to to FGM house, from the drive, she raced inside to get her mobile … )

I also believe, after studying the many versions of the accounts of that morning, by FM, FF, and FGM, that the first person advised that William was missing, was the FF when he arrived home …

I also find it surprising that FM did not call the FF about William being missing, before he arrived back at FGM house …

To me, these are “red flags“ that needed to be fully investigated …

IMO

 

[Couldbe]

JMO - In adding to the suggestions/reasons why she would surely have deemed it important to contact the FF as early as possible is because:

William Tyrrell’s foster mother has told a coroner she immediately thought “someone has taken him” when the New South Wales town of Kendall fell quiet and the three-year-old boy vanished without a trace.
“I couldn’t hear a thing. It was silent, there was no wind, there were no birds,” the woman said in Sydney on Tuesday at an inquest into William’s disappearance and suspected death in September 2014.
William Tyrrell inquest: foster mother immediately thought 'somebody has taken him'

JMO - Despite what the FM told the Coroner, did she decide to construct this abduction story of events ... a couple of days following William's disappearance?
Without any evidence of an abduction, that abduction theory persisted to be accepted for many years after William's disappearance.

 

[FromGermany1]

From my understanding of the timeline….. and my personal opinion only, I think the “drive“ occurred before the FM received the ”home in 5“ text … (after FM returned to to FGM house, from the drive, she raced inside to get her mobile … )

I also believe, after studying the many versions of the accounts of that morning, by FM, FF, and FGM, that the first person advised that William was missing, was the FF when he arrived home …

I also find it surprising that FM did not call the FF about William being missing, before he arrived back at FGM house …

To me, these are “red flags“ that needed to be fully investigated …

IMO

bbm

Who would leave their cell phone at home, when searching for a missing child? There would certainly have been enough time to grab the cell phone before the mysterious tour.

 

[SLouTh]

bbm

Who would leave their cell phone at home, when searching for a missing child? There would certainly have been enough time to grab the cell phone before the mysterious tour.

Someone who didn’t want their trip tracked by mobile data???
Just one example …

 

[SouthAussie]

Sometimes I think we forget things ... like the mobile signal was bad and erratic in that area back in 2014. There are pages of discussion and sleuthing about it back in the threads, and links to articles that we found about it.

They were using the handheld home phone to call contractors, and to call 000. They weren't just picking up their mobiles as they would in the city.

It is part of the reason why the police were having a tough time - they couldn't rely on tower dumps to give them any kind of accuracy about who was in the area at the time. Not like in other cases where tower dumps and phone tracking can be a big help.

imo

 

[Couldbe]

Sometimes I think we forget things ... like the mobile signal was bad and erratic in that area back in 2014. There are pages of discussion and sleuthing about it back in the threads, and links to articles that we found about it.

They were using the handheld home phone to call contractors, and to call 000. They weren't just picking up their mobiles as they would in the city.

It is part of the reason why the police were having a tough time - they couldn't rely on tower dumps to give them any kind of accuracy about who was in the area at the time. Not like in other cases where tower dumps and phone tracking can be a big help.

imo

JMO - We know texts can be received (FF 'home in 5' text to FM).
I am not sure what the FF was doing with his phone in this photo:
William Tyrrell's foster father (above on the day the toddler went missing in 2014) was quizzed about a mystery phone which police said had been registered in his name and disconnected days before the disappearance

William Tyrrell foster father quizzed over mystery phone

William Tyrrell's foster father was interrogated about a mystery phone registered in his name which was disconnected just three days before his foster son vanished.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[SouthAussie]

JMO - We know texts can be received (FF 'home in 5' text to FM).
I am not sure what the FF was doing with his phone in this photo:
William Tyrrell's foster father (above on the day the toddler went missing in 2014) was quizzed about a mystery phone which police said had been registered in his name and disconnected days before the disappearance
View attachment 460783

William Tyrrell foster father quizzed over mystery phone

William Tyrrell's foster father was interrogated about a mystery phone registered in his name which was disconnected just three days before his foster son vanished.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The service was unreliable, couldbe. Locals complained about it. Sometimes calls and texts would go through, sometimes they wouldn't.
It is not just a matter of them being in a black spot. It wasn't a complete black spot. It had unreliable mobile services in 2014.

imo