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

[Couldbe]

I'm not aware of any consensus with regard to this case.

If police had a strong case to back the suggested charges, then I would expect statements from them like "We have strong suspicions about what happened", as opposed to "We don't know what happened".

I've said from the moment the proposed charges were "leaked" that, IMO, the DPP would not treat them seriously.

Do you think JBowie, that Strikeforce Rosann don't want to 'show their cards' to the Defence and when Detective Lonergan was questioned today by the Defence Lawyer, that he chose to say "We don't know what happened" rather than "We have strong suspicions about what happened" ... because the Defence Lawyer would then have tried to find out what the 'evidence' was in the Brief to the DPP?

 

[Megnut]

Do you think JBowie, that Strikeforce Rosann don't want to 'show their cards' to the Defence and when Detective Lonergan was questioned today by the Defence Lawyer, that he chose to say "We don't know what happened" rather than "We have strong suspicions about what happened" ... because the Defence Lawyer would then have tried to find out what the 'evidence' was in the Brief to the DPP?

Under oath, he can't "know"..... but they can have strong suspicions with compelling evidence, which they could support at trial.

JMO

 

[Couldbe]

Under oath, he can't "know"..... but they can have strong suspicions with compelling evidence, which threy could sypport at trial.

JMO

Megnut, what is your view of this earlier occurrence:

“Lonergan denied in court that he and his colleague Det Sgt Scott Jamieson deliberately lied to the woman to upset her during the interview when they told her police knew where the boy’s body was.”
William Tyrrell’s former foster mother knows where he is, NSW detective tells court

 

[JBowie]

Do you think JBowie, that Strikeforce Rosann don't want to 'show their cards' to the Defence and when Detective Lonergan was questioned today by the Defence Lawyer, that he chose to say "We don't know what happened" rather than "We have strong suspicions about what happened" ... because the Defence Lawyer would then have tried to find out what the 'evidence' was in the Brief to the DPP?

No, I'm inclined to believe that police are being quite truthful when they say that don't know what happened and, given that, goodness only knows what they have assembled as 'evidence' in the brief.

 

[Megnut]

Megnut, what is your view of this earlier occurrence:

“Lonergan denied in court that he and his colleague Det Sgt Scott Jamieson deliberately lied to the woman to upset her during the interview when they told her police knew where the boy’s body was.”
William Tyrrell’s former foster mother knows where he is, NSW detective tells court

I think that one man is not a case.

IMO he didn't lie.

An interview is not a trial.

I think LE believes exactly that. The Wm fell and she covered it up. And they have a circumstantial case to back it up, but are likely waiting for the male caregiver to break allegiance.

Additionally, while the foster daughter was in their care, I wonder if they were able to prevent interviews. Perhaps that's changed now. What the child can remember about timelines and that missing half hour could be quite compelling.

I've often wondered if "Mommy Monster" was invented that day. To bridge a time gap between a final roar from Wm and an involuntary shriek from the female caregiver.

So, no lie. LE believes that's what happened. But without the evidence and experts that only a careful trial can lay out, under oath, one man can't vow to it.

JMO

 

[Raina_the_observer]

Given the above, how is the DPP meant to take this brief seriously?

Seems like they are admitting the brief doesn't contain enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did dispose of the body. Pretty shocking really.

 

[Couldbe]

No, I'm inclined to believe that police are being quite truthful when they say that don't know what happened and, given that, goodness only knows what they have assembled as 'evidence' in the brief.

Seems like they are admitting the brief doesn't contain enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did dispose of the body. Pretty shocking really.

JMO - Is it semantics that Detective is saying that they don't 'know' what happened (They weren't there and they don't have a witness), but they have used particular circumstantial evidence to construct a theory of what happened, and they are not going to provide what that evidence is in answer to the Defence Lawyer ... it is still with the DPP to consider?

 

[SouthAussie]

Seems like they are admitting the brief doesn't contain enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did dispose of the body. Pretty shocking really.

I think we all knew that, otherwise they would have made an arrest for William's disappearance themselves.

They have tested a theory that has been floating around for many years, and has been looked at by at least one prior investigator. And the result was that they didn't find William or evidence to make an arrest.

imo

 

[k-mac]

JMO - Is it semantics that Detective is saying that they don't 'know' what happened (They weren't there and they don't have a witness), but they have used particular circumstantial evidence to construct a theory of what happened, and they are not going to provide what that evidence is in answer to the Defence Lawyer ... it is still with the DPP to consider?

The timing of the daughter being removed and the announcement that FM was suspect #1 can not be overlooked.

I believe she is key to the police theory.
The memory of a 4 year old child is gunna need evidential support to hold in court.

That is where and why I think we are in a holding pattern.

moo

 

[sleepinoz]

JMO - Is it semantics that Detective is saying that they don't 'know' what happened (They weren't there and they don't have a witness), but they have used particular circumstantial evidence to construct a theory of what happened, and they are not going to provide what that evidence is in answer to the Defence Lawyer ... it is still with the DPP to consider?

According to this I don't think they have any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise:

Detective Sergeant Lonergan confirmed police had asked the DPP to consider laying charges against the foster mother of interfering with a corpse and perverting the course of justice.

The court heard those potential charges were based on "one of the possibilities" that William's foster mother disposed of his body after he died in an accident.

Police 'don't know' what happened to William Tyrrell but foster father has been cleared, court told

The foster father is facing charges of giving false or misleading evidence to the NSW Crime Commission, as the court heard new details of the investigation into William's disappearance.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Awakening]

IMO, the former fosters are not nice people, abusive to at least one child in their care, lie and are motivated by their image. JMO. Never met them, don’t know who they are.

But there is no evidence that is in the public domain that indicates to me they were responsible for his disappearance. There’s conjecture, opinions, possibilities but nothing solid. Circumstantial or otherwise.

I guess it’s possible there’s other circumstantial evidence they know that we don’t but if there is, it’s not enough to charge them.

They had a theory, could even be a good theory, could even be the theory that’s closest to the truth, but they have not be able to prove it. And judging by these latest comments they won’t be proving it anytime soon.

 

[iiiii's]

IMO, the former fosters are not nice people, abusive to at least one child in their care, lie and are motivated by their image. JMO. Never met them, don’t know who they are.

But there is no evidence that is in the public domain that indicates to me they were responsible for his disappearance. There’s conjecture, opinions, possibilities but nothing solid. Circumstantial or otherwise.

I guess it’s possible there’s other circumstantial evidence they know that we don’t but if there is, it’s not enough to charge them.

They had a theory, could even be a good theory, could even be the theory that’s closest to the truth, but they have not be able to prove it. And judging by these latest comments they won’t be proving it anytime soon.

I think there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in the public domain, more than any other POI we have been made aware of, to focus on the FFC as being responsible for WT's disappearance. Although an earlier investigator acknowledged that other members of his team had questions around theories to do with the FFC, it does not appear that any of those theories were tested and they should have been in the 1st couple of years of the investigation. I've read the theories that GJ posed to the MFC. Did he pose those questions to the FFC and challenge her account? If not, why not? MOO

 

[Awakening]

I think there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in the public domain, more than any other POI we have been made aware of, to focus on the FFC as being responsible for WT's disappearance. Although an earlier investigator acknowledged that other members of his team had questions around theories to do with the FFC, it does not appear that any of those theories were tested and they should have been in the 1st couple of years of the investigation. I've read the theories that GJ posed to the MFC. Did he pose those questions to the FFC and challenge her account? If not, why not? MOO

What is the circumstantial evidence tho? I’m not trying to be rude but I think I could find circumstantial things for most scenarios.

I’m not even suggesting they are innocent or guilty, just that there’s no case against them at this point in time. Nothing that can be bought to court, let alone proven in court.

 

[bearbear]

could the fact fms been heard abusing a child, lied about abusing a child, withheld the fact she drove her mothers car looking for william, was unhappy with williams behaviour and not bonding, william was super boistrous that morning, crashing his bike and bit her, she has a mean temper and needs to break a childs will, changed her story numerous times, she was possibly the last person to see william alive etc etc, be enough for circumstantial evidence proving she has the capabilities of hurting/losing him?
these are facts

 

[k-mac]

could the fact fms been heard abusing a child, lied about abusing a child, withheld the fact she drove her mothers car looking for william, was unhappy with williams behaviour and not bonding, william was super boistrous that morning, crashing his bike and bit her, she has a mean temper and needs to break a childs will, changed her story numerous times, she was possibly the last person to see william alive etc etc, be enough for circumstantial evidence proving she has the capabilities of hurting/losing him?
these are facts

yes
Very frustrating for SFR if this is what they are working with alone.
Suspicious and alarming.
But not enough.

I believe as I said up thread Williams sister has brought forward a different account of that morning.
Just fits.
Which again feeds into similar predicament to all the above you mention BB.

Money for good legal reps appears to scare NSW DPP.

Its only opinion in the DPP whether the recommendation comes.
Look at Chris Dawson TWICE the DPP knocked it all back.
Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty.

Public pressure and an incredible investigative journo got him where he belongs.

 

[JLZ]

could the fact fms been heard abusing a child, lied about abusing a child, withheld the fact she drove her mothers car looking for william, was unhappy with williams behaviour and not bonding, william was super boistrous that morning, crashing his bike and bit her, she has a mean temper and needs to break a childs will, changed her story numerous times, she was possibly the last person to see william alive etc etc, be enough for circumstantial evidence proving she has the capabilities of hurting/losing him?
these are facts

I think you see it yourself: capability is one thing, but where is the evidence for what actually did happen to William?

 

[sleepinoz]

 

[bearbear]

i hope they have some compelling circumstantial evidence
To bring in a verdict of guilty based entirely or substantially upon circumstantialevidence, it is necessary that guilt should not only be a rational inference but alsothat it should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from thecircumstances.If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, it is your duty tofind the defendant not guilty. This follows from the requirement that guilt must beestablished beyond reasonable doubt.

https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/86048/sd-bb-48-circumstantial-evidence.pdf

 

[k-mac]

View attachment 458790

Didn't make a lot of sense them even taking it to court if they weren't going to get a conviction for her why would they be able to convict him for the same thing.

 

[iiiii's]

What is the circumstantial evidence tho? I’m not trying to be rude but I think I could find circumstantial things for most scenarios.

I’m not even suggesting they are innocent or guilty, just that there’s no case against them at this point in time. Nothing that can be bought to court, let alone proven in court.

She was responsible for his safety and welfare at the time he went missing. She disappeared for 20-25 minutes when WT disappeared and no one saw her. Her mother and the other child did not know WT was missing until approx. 10.40am. Her walkthrough contradicts her daughter's timeline and also her son-in-laws. There maybe other reasons for this but it cannot be ignored until more information is found. At some stage she took a trip down the road in her mother's car, which may have been in this timeframe as it has not been referred to in other's statements that they saw her take her car, so most likely before she had seen people outside of the house. No one has corroborated the cars she has found suspicious, no traces have been found of WT, of the people on the street that day no one has identified other strangers or any public POI's, she has maintained for years that WT went missing in a tight 5 minute period and yet when we check how many people were home and coming in and out of the small estate, no one saw anything. There were about 20 people in all. If her statement is correct then an opportunistic abductor took him. Many people have used the term Occam's razor over the years in regards to other POI's and I definitely think it should be applied in this instance. Then there is all the surrounding information of the morning prior to the disappearance that bb has outlined and on top of that, the actual circumstances of the foster family's lives, (short medium and long term) to be considered when assessing WT's disappearance. MOO