Some of the main lines of the article that stand out to me, bbm
William Tyrrell's foster mother fought to keep secret the truth about the missing toddler, arguing that revealing he was a foster child would intensify publicity and force her family into hiding. To my mind, if FACS had allowed WT's status to have been revealed at the time of the disappearance, when both children were in daycare, no other details would have been released and all the drawn out long explanations. It seems mainly to have served FACS. MOO
The PR campaign, which raised more than $1 million in public donations, had as its main objectives 'to manage public consciousness surrounding the disappearance' and 'empower William's Parents as the foremost voice for William'.
This referred to the foster mother and foster father rather than William's parents, at a time when the toddler's out-of-home care when he disappeared was one of the legal community's worst kept secrets. I think this speaks for itself.
She said it was the 'mainstream media' which had called them William's 'parents' and they had 'followed police advice' about how to handle publicity. I find this statement a bit disingenuous as the MSM took their cue from FACS and the foster couple seemed to be on board with not only FACS and the police but also how they were represented in the PR campaign as WT's parents. They were the "voice" of that campaign. Considering they were the agents of FACS, they didn't have to do that but seemed to take on the responsibility of being the voice for William while also trying to conceal the fact that they were agents for FACS, and it seems FACS supported this action. MOO
In a stunning victory for Ms Smith 2016, Justice Paul Brereton ruled William could be revealed as a foster child, but his judgment could not be revealed as FACS immediately appealed.
The department lost again in August 2017, when the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal upheld Justice Brereton's decision and only then did the truth finally come out.
His Honour said it was inexplicable why William's carers (the foster parents) had been represented as William's parents. To my mind, all of this was important because during the process of this case, it emerged that other agendas were going on behind the scenes and taking priority over the fact that a child had gone missing in out of home care who was under the guardianship of a govt. department. It was more important to protect the government department and its agents than a missing child and those tactics may have impeded the investigation, as the agents were the last people to have seen WT alive.
'I am responsible for determining the appropriate media strategy (which) takes into account the views of ... the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS),' Mr Jubelin said in a court affidavit also obtained by Daily Mail Australia.
He said information should be revealed 'in a managed way' and revealing that the missing toddler had been removed from his biological parents and placed with the foster couple 'would be damaging to the investigation'.
Mr Jubelin stated publicly after Ms Smith's court win, that the foster revelation had not damaged his investigation. ??!!
The publicity campaign he launched with FACs and the foster parents, using PR firm Insight Communications, had helped double Strike Force Rosann's funds from state coffers and establish a $1 million reward by the State Government. So this clears up one question I have had for a while, which is, who actually is behind the hiring of the PR firm. Although we have heard over the years in interviews that they are working on this case pro bono and that friends of the FP's, referred them to this company, it did not answer some glaring questions for me such as, How was it that foster parents, one of which was present at the time of the disappearance was given permission by the Department of Family and Community Services to run this campaign and represent themselves as his parents. It would have had to have all been okayed by the department. Also there is glaring dishonesty going on from this department by way of omission by allowing these agents to be interviewed and not acknowledge FACS hand in the campaign. The FP's don't acknowledge it, the PR company doesn't acknowledge it, the police don't acknowledge it, the media barely acknowledge it. And yet at that stage of the investigation, FACS were hiding behind the FP's and the FP's were protected by FACS.
So it seems the campaign was also used to secure more funding from the state to have available for the type of investigation that GJ wanted to run and in other parts of the article it refers to GJ thinking that the public disclosure of WT's status would reduce the public's interest in contributing to that money. MOO