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

[SouthAussie]

Thanks SA…. Yes I remember the survey… and I think it was a good strategy…

My point, was that perhaps the Police need to scrutinise, in detail, the movements of everyone in the area, and who, and what they saw, from the time from when the Foster Family arrived at FGM‘s the evening before, right up until when Rowley arrived at 11:06am after the 000 call ….

And for Police, and the Coroner, look in much more detail at all of the events that may have occurred in that time … rather than just a one hour window before the alarm was raised that William was missing ….(more than just from 09:30 - 10:30am, as in the survey)

This of course is just my opinion … and it certainly can’t hurt to go back and look at these details… as nothing after the 10:30am time frame has appeared to yield any results …

IMO

Yes, I got your point. Which is why I remembered the questionnaire.

I wonder how much it has been looked at in recent years. Not as a single police focus just on the FP but all the way round. Everyone.

When I was reading previous convos about the questionnaire, I noticed that we did find out that it wasn't just dropped in letterboxes or slipped under front doors. Police officers personally took the questionnaires around to households and got the answers.

Did they then go and corroborate every single persons answers? What a ginormous task. Was the task done thoroughly? By all participants? Or did they just accept the answers on face value of their "feelings" about them at the time? Did they expand on the questions where appropriate, ask more about the info that was being offered?
Perhaps some police officers were better at carrying out the task than others (as in all occupations).

The exercise might bear repeating, if NSWPOL want to commit the resources to it. It might be where something has been missed.

imo

 

[bearbear]

BBM
You have raised a good point here….

I think the Police have succeeded in proving that “squeaky clean, good Christian family” image of the Fosters, that was initially portrayed in the media, and suggested by Fehon, was a fallacy …

And as you have suggested, it is now obvious that the Foster Carers are prepared to go to any length or expense to defend their lies and reputations … (I did think it was interesting that FF did not release a public statement, regarding the not guilty finding, like that of FM, but JMO)

However, during the process of doing this, the Police have ended up looking a little foolish, IMO, and have cost the public purse a lot more money for a nil result … and in doing so, have publicly acknowledged that they still have no idea what happened to William that day!

This, certainly, IMO, suggests that the Police strategy was yet again to put pressure on the Foster Carers to “break“ them and yield a confession. (like previous POI’s)
This too has failed miserably … IMO

I understand Police were trying to suggest a “propensity for harm“, in the pursuit of their actions … however, until they have sufficient evidence to prove the FM (still named as main POI, in the case) is responsible for what happened to William, then it is a rather a large leap….from lying and alleged assault, to manslaughter or whatever the nefarious case may be ….unless they can prove it … beyond reasonable doubt!


Roll on, the re-opening of the inquest!!!

Anyone willing to suggest what direction the inquest may take in March?? (Apart from the obvious reports from Police about investigations that have taken place in the interim…..) Or what way you would like to see it proceed??

All MOO

imo i would like them to both be found guilty of harm etc to william and both to go to prison, but in reality i think theyll both walk free and no justice served for little william or his family

 

[iiiii's]

Can I just clarify, was the MFC found not guilty or were the charges dismissed?

 

[SLouTh]

Can I just clarify, was the MFC found not guilty or were the charges dismissed?

All of the media headlines say he was found “not guilty” including the ABC ….

William Tyrrell's foster father has been found not guilty of lying to the NSW Crime Commission about his wife assaulting another child in their care.

William Tyrrell's foster father found not guilty of lying to NSW Crime Commission

A judge rules the allegations the man, who can't be named, lied to the secretive commission were based on questions that were "too ambiguous".

www.abc.net.au

 

[SLouTh]

Did they then go and corroborate every single persons answers? What a ginormous task. Was the task done thoroughly? By all participants? Or did they just accept the answers on face value of their "feelings" about them at the time? Did they expand on the questions where appropriate, ask more about the info that was being offered?
Perhaps some police officers were better at carrying out the task than others (as in all occupations).

The exercise might bear repeating, if NSWPOL want to commit the resources to it. It might be where something has been missed.

BBM
Yes agree SA ….and exactly my point … (sorry I should have made it more clear I was just “jumping off your post”…. )

All of what you have suggested here is what I was trying to convey in my post …… we are on the same page here…

It would also be interesting to re look at all the questions in that survey, and what the focus of the questions we’re as well???

Sometimes it is just a simple error in how the questions are asked, in yielding the required result … (difficult to explain…. A bit like you can answer a question honestly under oath, but if they had asked a slightly different question then a different answer may result… IYKWIM??? )

A similar type reference is that example in the SMH, that was quoted here this week…. Michael Barnes asks Sophie Callan to ask the FM “if she did it????” Where as the questions that were put to FM were worded slightly different by Sophie Callan…… (ONLY using this as an EXAMPLE of questioning style .., especially as it is recent….)

English read out a transcript of the exchange at the crime commission, where counsel assisting Sophie Callan, SC, put a series of specific suggestions to the foster mother after Barnes prompted: “Ask her if she did it.”

Callan suggested William “went around on the verandah and toppled over” and asked: “Did you find his body in the ferns and the foliage under the verandah that day?”

“No,” the woman responded.

‘Ask her if she did it’: William Tyrrell foster mother quizzed over balcony theory

At a secretive examination, it was suggested that William toppled off a verandah before his foster mother disposed of his body. She insisted: “I didn’t.”

www.smh.com.au

HYPOTHETICAL Question Scenario re the above …
Instead of asking if William was found in the ferns and foliage ???
Just ask: “Did you find find William deceased that day?” Etc…


Hypothetically this question could yield a different result… But by adding the “theory component” of the “foliage“ it narrows the result in an answer … I guess best explained as the difference between an open ended question and a closed question ….

So my very long winded point, (apologies) is, did they ask the right questions on the survey??? And yes agree… did they follow up every answer.???
And most definitely as you have suggested SA, is it worth repeating? Are they are willing to re do it? And would they supply the resources to re do it ….???

ALL IMO …

 

[Couldbe]

JMO - When William's sister (Who was about one year older than him) was being asked questions soon after his disappearance, I wonder if it was explained to her that the questions she was being asked were in the context of William being suspected of 'just disappearing'.

Is it possible that she was answering those questions in relation to any of their earlier visits to the FGM; and in that case, her answers weren't focussed enough on that fateful morning .... to be helpful at that time.

His sister would likely have been a credible (but young) witness to what had occurred that morning and if she had been asked questions that focussed on what she knew of FM's activities, that might have proved helpful.
I am unaware of the details of any recorded interview with her.

Edited to add about any recorded interview between the Detectives and the little girl.

 

[JLZ]

The only other possible explanation I can think of is that when the NSWCC were asking about “harm”, possibly to William, (initially it was about William ), and then another child… was that the FF was thinking of a type harm that was more sinister or nefarious? And possibly he didn’t consider the alleged assaults that occurred, to defined as “harm” ????

A long shot I know, and just my opinion….

[Magistrate John Arms] told the court in three of the counts the questions asked of the man were too "ambiguous", while on the other two counts, Judge Arms was not convinced the man intended to lie.
. . .
[Defence lawyer Phillip English] also argued the questions were too ambiguous and it was "perfectly plausible" that he "may not have recalled" being told about the kicking incident.

William Tyrrell's foster father found not guilty of lying to NSW Crime Commission

A judge rules the allegations the man, who can't be named, lied to the secretive commission were based on questions that were "too ambiguous".

www.abc.net.au

So on two of the counts, the questions were not ambiguous. And by my reading of the above, MFC was specifically asked about kicking.

 

[SLouTh]

So on two of the counts, the questions were not ambiguous. And by my reading of the above, MFC was specifically asked about kicking.

It would appear that is correct ….

From Nine News …

Snip

Some of the charges related to ambiguous questions and answers, while other responses lacked the definitiveness to constitute a lie, the magistrate said.
The foster father answered "no" when asked if his wife had ever "harmed" the child.
It was not clear what "harmed" meant and there was no evidence before the court of "specific harm being caused", Arms said.

Asked if she had kicked the child, the foster father said he could not recall, and answered "no" when asked if he could recall the child telling him she had.

It was clear on the "stressful day" the kick occurred that he was made aware, as captured in the covert recording, Arms said.

However, more than three weeks later, after the additional stress of being summoned to attend the commission and without having his memory refreshed with the recording, there remained a reasonable possibility he mistakenly gave false evidence, the magistrate added.

Snip

William Tyrrell's foster father cleared of lying to secret crime body

www.9news.com.au

 

[SLouTh]

I would like to know a few more details and the context of this part of the recording ….

(FM) was then asked: 'Did you decide to take care of the situation that was beyond remedy?' and 'did you decide to take care of the situation and hide his body rather than let your (FM’s) mother take .. responsibility'.

William Tyrrell's foster dad not guilty of lying

William Tyrrell's foster father has been found not guilty on five charges of lying to the secretive NSW Crime Commission.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Especially as FGM has also been named a POI ….


In November it was reported William’s foster mother and now-deceased foster grandmother were being treated as persons of interest in his disappearance.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/delay-as-william-tyrrell-foster-parents-face-assault-trial/news-story/0c5a191c57ed5bdc465bfe11e193d3b2

JMO

 

[FromGermany1]

It would appear that is correct ….

From Nine News …

Snip

Some of the charges related to ambiguous questions and answers, while other responses lacked the definitiveness to constitute a lie, the magistrate said.
The foster father answered "no" when asked if his wife had ever "harmed" the child.
It was not clear what "harmed" meant and there was no evidence before the court of "specific harm being caused", Arms said.

Asked if she had kicked the child, the foster father said he could not recall, and answered "no" when asked if he could recall the child telling him she had.

It was clear on the "stressful day" the kick occurred that he was made aware, as captured in the covert recording, Arms said.

However, more than three weeks later, after the additional stress of being summoned to attend the commission and without having his memory refreshed with the recording, there remained a reasonable possibility he mistakenly gave false evidence, the magistrate added.

Snip

William Tyrrell's foster father cleared of lying to secret crime body

www.9news.com.au

Of course there are many (odd, IMO) excuses for MFC. I would like to see, how many excuses they would have found for the bio father, if he had been in the same situation.

 

[Couldbe]

I would like to know a few more details and the context of this part of the recording ….

(FM) was then asked: 'Did you decide to take care of the situation that was beyond remedy?' and 'did you decide to take care of the situation and hide his body rather than let your (FM’s) mother take .. responsibility'.

William Tyrrell's foster dad not guilty of lying

William Tyrrell's foster father has been found not guilty on five charges of lying to the secretive NSW Crime Commission.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Especially as FGM has also been named a POI ….


In November it was reported William’s foster mother and now-deceased foster grandmother were being treated as persons of interest in his disappearance.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/delay-as-william-tyrrell-foster-parents-face-assault-trial/news-story/0c5a191c57ed5bdc465bfe11e193d3b2

JMO

JMO - Because there may have been some differences that Rosann had observed between what the FGM had said and what the FM had said in regard to the events and timelines for what had occurred that fateful morning, they were trying to find out why.

Or, maybe their questions were related to giving FM the opportunity to receive some type of indemnity.

 

[JLZ]

JMO - When William's sister (Who was about one year older than him) was being asked questions soon after his disappearance, I wonder if it was explained to her that the questions she was being asked were in the context of William being suspected of 'just disappearing'.

Is it possible that she was answering those questions in relation to any of their earlier visits to the FGM; and in that case, her answers weren't focussed enough on that fateful morning .... to be helpful at that time.

His sister would likely have been a credible (but young) witness to what had occurred that morning and if she had been asked questions that focussed on what she knew of FM's activities, that might have proved helpful.
I am unaware of the details of any recorded interview with her.

Edited to add about any recorded interview between the Detectives and the little girl.

I encourage you to listen to this audio where William's sister's interview is read out starting from 12:35. One thing in the interview that I hadn't understood from the adults' accounts is that the sister took part in the early searching. William Tyrrell update - William Tyrrell - Nowhere Child

 

[Couldbe]

I encourage you to listen to this audio where William's sister's interview is read out starting from 12:35. One thing in the interview that I hadn't understood from the adults' accounts is that the sister took part in the early searching. William Tyrrell update - William Tyrrell - Nowhere Child

Oh thankyou JLZ ... I will do that.

 

[Couldbe]

Oh thankyou JLZ ... I will do that.

JMO - At about 15:51 when his sister was asked "What happened when he went around there": "Mum and Nanna were there?" she answers "I don't know".

It can be interpreted that, at that point, she has no recollection of FM and FGM being there on the small deck when William went around there, and is only able to relate that: "We were looking for him".

There is no indication that they went looking for him immediately, so with those interpreted and perceived discrepancies, in my opinion, the timeline for what his sister remembers from that morning hasn't been established.

Edited for clarity.

 

[k-mac]

JMO - At about 15:51 when his sister was asked "What happened when he went around there": "Mum and Nanna were there?" she answers "I don't know".

It can be interpreted that, at that point, she has no recollection of FM and FGM being there when William went around there, and is only able to relate that: "We were looking for him".

There is no indication that they went looking for him immediately, so with those interpreted and perceived discrepancies, in my opinion, the timeline for what his sister remembers from that morning hasn't been established.

'I don't know.....'
can be a sign of coercive control.

All child victims scared of their carer know the "I don't know' is a safe place.
I know this personally.

Although it does not mean the sister was under coercive control..... it is a possibility under the circumstances if indeed the FM was on a cover up and damage control expedition that morning.

Just more uneasy ....hinky metre.... red flags.

The list is long.

moo

 

[JLZ]

JMO - At about 15:51 when his sister was asked "What happened when he went around there": "Mum and Nanna were there?" she answers "I don't know".

It can be interpreted that, at that point, she has no recollection of FM and FGM being there on the small deck when William went around there, and is only able to relate that: "We were looking for him".

There is no indication that they went looking for him immediately, so with those interpreted and perceived discrepancies, in my opinion, the timeline for what his sister remembers from that morning hasn't been established.

Edited for clarity.

Yes, I agree. It's puzzling. And is she repeating herself with slightly different versions or is she talking about different occasions when William ran around the corner?
1. William was playing like a tiger "on the balcony" (narrator corrects to "low deck"), mummy and nana were on the chairs, then William went to find Daddy's car.
2. William was playing like a tiger, don't know why he went around there, don't know if mummy and nana were there.
Deborah: When you couldn't find him, what happened next?
L: We were looking for him--we couldn't . . .

I note there's no mention of dice.

 

[Megnut]

Yes, I agree. It's puzzling. And is she repeating herself with slightly different versions or is she talking about different occasions when William ran around the corner?
1. William was playing like a tiger "on the balcony" (narrator corrects to "low deck"), mummy and nana were on the chairs, then William went to find Daddy's car.
2. William was playing like a tiger, don't know why he went around there, don't know if mummy and nana were there.
Deborah: When you couldn't find him, what happened next?
L: We were looking for him--we couldn't . . .

I note there's no mention of dice.

And didn't Daddy Tiger morph into Mommy Monster?

 

[Couldbe]

Yes, I agree. It's puzzling. And is she repeating herself with slightly different versions or is she talking about different occasions when William ran around the corner?
1. William was playing like a tiger "on the balcony" (narrator corrects to "low deck"), mummy and nana were on the chairs, then William went to find Daddy's car.
2. William was playing like a tiger, don't know why he went around there, don't know if mummy and nana were there.
Deborah: When you couldn't find him, what happened next?
L: We were looking for him--we couldn't . . .

I note there's no mention of dice.

And no mention of FM taking photos of them; Was Deborah using those photos to guide her in asking the questons / was she showing the photos to the little girl in order to guide her as well?

In my opinion, so much surrounds the circumstances of how that interview was being conducted ... that needed to be recorded as part of the whole interview event. Maybe it was and we just don't know about those details.

 

[JLZ]

And no mention of FM taking photos of them; Was Deborah using those photos to guide her in asking the questons / was she showing the photos to the little girl in order to guide her as well?

In my opinion, so much surrounds the circumstances of how that interview was being conducted ... that needed to be recorded as part of the whole interview event. Maybe it was and we just don't know about those details.

Deborah Nelson: "Do you remember yesterday, I spoke to you about William?"

Wouldn't that have been confusing right at the start? According to this podcast, 'yesterday', it was Wendy Hudson who spoke to L, and only afterwards it was decided to bring in Deborah to do another interview with L the next day. Telling her it's the same person would have the effect of gaslighting L, making her doubt her memories, I imagine.

 

[Couldbe]

Deborah Nelson: "Do you remember yesterday, I spoke to you about William?"

Wouldn't that have been confusing right at the start? According to this podcast, 'yesterday', it was Wendy Hudson who spoke to L, and only afterwards it was decided to bring in Deborah to do another interview with L the next day. Telling her it's the same person would have the effect of gaslighting L, making her doubt her memories, I imagine.

JMO - I don't believe that Gary Jubelin thought that the FM was involved in William's disappearance when this was reported, but might help to explain the manner and angle ... in which William's sister was interviewed.:

“Jubelin said he doesn't think the full ramifications of William's disappearance were appreciated initially and opportunities were lost in the first few months. He said "very little leeway" was made later in the investigation, and often their inquiries moved them one step forward, two steps back.”
Inside the task force investigating the disappearance of William Tyrrell