Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * Coroners Inquiry Current

[Kurve]

Continued from PART 1

Criminal charges:

• Apprehended Violence Orders on both (AVOs)
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster mother *Not Guilty
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster father *Not Guilty
• 2 x charges of assault against a child on former foster mother *Guilty
• 1 x charge of assault against a child on former foster father *Not Guilty
• Stalking &/or Intimidation on both *Guilty
• Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty

TIMELINE

Where's William Tyrrell? - The Ch 10 podcast (under Coroner's subpoena)

Operation Arkstone

Please type names out in full for those who are not covered by suppression orders.

For those covered by suppression orders, please use the following to indicate:

FM - Foster Mother
FF - Foster Father
FGM - Foster Grandmother
FD - Foster Daughter
FPs - Foster Parents

Up to you if you wish to refer to them as former fosters but please write it in full, strictly using the above. No deviations.

Other initials posters will use informally but should not are:

BCR - Batar Creek Road
FA - Frank Abbott
MW - Michelle White
SFR - Strike Force Rosann
AMS - Anne Maree Sharpley
CCR - Cobb and Co Road
GO - Geoff Owens
One even reduced bike riding to - BR
COG - Consciousness of guilt. Like WHO KNEW?

 

[Cataholic]

Not if we can easily understand who you're referring to.

Oh, ok.

I didn't mean to circumvent the rules. I haven't understood them properly.

I was careful to refrain from making any allegations and used initials rather than names, but in any event thought the names I alluded to, and the facts around them, were on public record and hence thought I hadn't done wrong.

I apologise.

 

[Earls Smother]

I am not too familiar with the case, but that is absolutely amazing.

I can only hope!!

Classic move!

The other case that was relevant during the change of leadership (GJ gone) and subsequent focus, was the Dawson case.

The NSW police were made to look poor by Hedley Thomas, and finally swung their focus closer to home and on to the husband. That should have happened about 36 years earlier and they would have been embarrassed by that.

That case was progressing at the time (and then succeeded) based on circumstantial evidence and no body. I reckon that may have played a role in the way they have gone about this one. It seems to me they have "had a crack" based on historical probability, rather than any compelling evidence.

 

[Cataholic]

It just lightens the cognitive load when you can actually just spell the names of people out in full.

Not those under suppression of course, but everyone else.

I’m reading your post and I keep stopping to translate what your intended initials are and it’s slowing me down!

I was trying to comply with the rules as I understood them at the time, but my understanding was incorrect.

I thought those particular initials were safe because I believed who they were, their position and titles within the workplace, and their fall-outs were common knowledge.

My bad.

 

[Kurve]

Oh, ok.

I didn't mean to circumvent the rules. I haven't understood them properly.

I was careful to refrain from making any allegations and used initials rather than names, but in any event thought the names I alluded to, and the facts around them, were on public record and hence thought I hadn't done wrong.

I apologise.

Relax

 

[js47]

IF she took a phone with her.
And IF they know which phone / SIM.
And IF the phone was switched on.
And IF both phones pinged mutiple towers (not just one, or triangulation is impossible)
and IF the cell data from that day is still available
And IF they are smart enough and motivated enough to do it.

Begs the question, why hasn't this already been done, because if it had, there would be no need to call Peter as a witness, they would only need to table the cell data and the conclusions drawn from it.

Evidently they were not smart enough

 

[Cataholic]

Evidently they were not smart enough

Is the mobile signal in that area strong and consistent, or are there dead / weak spots that could prevent triangulation?

 

[31550]

Is the mobile signal in that area strong and consistent, or are there dead / weak spots that could prevent triangulation?

I think the major problem in 2014 would be lack of towers. Phones might only be pinging one tower (at most), which would show they were in the general vicinity (~10km radius), but not precise location.

Even two towers would only place a device on a particular line, and one would need to see where that line crossed a road or ran through a property. And the margin for error is still significant.

 

[31550]

Disagree with this.

His timeline is not really in doubt, apart from a couple of minutes either way. He would have been at Michelle's loading the excavator from 10:15 to 10:45.

2 police officers (Beacroft and Laidlaw) have determined that WT very likely disappeared around 10:10, and it took some time for that to be noticed. We know the FM was back just before 10:35 to just beat the FF home.

The FM driving/searching/disposing/burying would have corresponded with the time that Peter B. was not in close vicinity to see her do anything.

If William disappeared at 10:10 and was gone for 5-10 minutes before FM realised, how would FM explain going for the drive as her very first action upon realising him missing?

If Peter was at Michelle's between 10:15 and 10:45, then FM could have made the trip along Batar Creek road without being seen by Peter only during this time period (actually between 10:15 and 10:35, because she was back at the house to intercept FF at 10:35). She certainly couldn't have left after 10:35 or Peter would have seen her on his way back.

So the question is WHY take the drive so early? When was the garden searched? When was the inside of the house searched. When was the fenceline and Benaroon Drive searched? Why drive 2km away, much further than a 3YO could possibly wander, as your very first response? Seems to indicate something other than 'wandered off', or 'taken'.

 

[Earls Smother]

If William disappeared at 10:10 and was gone for 5-10 minutes before FM realised, how would FM explain going for the drive as her very first action upon realising him missing?

If Peter was at Michelle's between 10:15 and 10:45, then FM could have made the trip along Batar Creek road without being seen by Peter only during this time period (actually between 10:15 and 10:35, because she was back at the house to intercept FF at 10:35). She certainly couldn't have left after 10:35 or Peter would have seen her on his way back.

So the question is WHY take the drive so early? When was the garden searched? When was the inside of the house searched. When was the fenceline and Benaroon Drive searched? Why drive 2km away, much further than a 3YO could possibly wander, as your very first response? Seems to indicate something other than 'wandered off', or 'taken'.

I tend to think she drove much closer to 10:30.

She must have done a quick internal and external search first IMO. As you say, makes no sense to jump in the car as a first option. I think the timeline provided many pages back, via someone who attended inquest days, is going to be roughly accurate.

The chronological order of things will remain forever in some doubt, but I think the run/walk to the bus stop happened before the drive.

 

[31550]

The chronological order of things will remain forever in some doubt, but I think the run/walk to the bus stop happened before the drive.

That would make more sense, but is in stark conflict with the testimony of Anne Maree Sharpley.
The bus stop is 200-300 metres away. It's going to take considerable time to run there and back, and longer if you actually stop to look for William on the way.

 

[LRitz]

A question.

Would it have been general knowledge that the tennis club had CCTV. PC Wendy certainly seemed to know early on. Would FGM know this. Would the FF have known his car would be seen on the way to Lakewood.
Any ideas?

 

[Awakening]

My thoughts are that the ‘drink driver’ may have been involved some how in the issues with Jubelin

Maybe it does, but for me it’s irrelevant to William.

Let’s say Jubelin did nothing illegal. He was still doggedly pursuing an innocent man to the exclusion of anyone else.

 

[Cataholic]

If William disappeared at 10:10 and was gone for 5-10 minutes before FM realised, how would FM explain going for the drive as her very first action upon realising him missing?

If Peter was at Michelle's between 10:15 and 10:45, then FM could have made the trip along Batar Creek road without being seen by Peter only during this time period (actually between 10:15 and 10:35, because she was back at the house to intercept FF at 10:35). She certainly couldn't have left after 10:35 or Peter would have seen her on his way back.

So the question is WHY take the drive so early? When was the garden searched? When was the inside of the house searched. When was the fenceline and Benaroon Drive searched? Why drive 2km away, much further than a 3YO could possibly wander, as your very first response? Seems to indicate something other than 'wandered off', or 'taken'.

I also find the timing and need for FF's phone calls to be curious.

 

[31550]

A question.

Would it have been general knowledge that the tennis club had CCTV. PC Wendy certainly seemed to know early on. Would FGM know this. Would the FF have known his car would be seen on the way to Lakewood.
Any ideas?

Besides being a cop Wendy was on the Committee of the tennis club (may have even been President or Secretary?) So she'd certainly be aware of the CCTV. By extension, probably most people associated with the tennis club would know of it. It was quite prominent from the street, not hidden, so anyone looking for a camera would have seen it.

Would the FF have known? Who knows? Despite his smartypants demeanour, he actually seems to know very little.

 

[Earls Smother]

That would make more sense, but is in stark conflict with the testimony of Anne Maree Sharpley.
The bus stop is 200-300 metres away. It's going to take considerable time to run there and back, and longer if you actually stop to look for William on the way.

This is the problem with individual neighbours not only trying to remember what happened, but trying to recall exactly when it happened. The 2 Crabbes can't even agree within half an hour of each other.

Without verification, the neighbours info needs to be accepted on the basis that, yes it happened, but there has to be significant doubt as to the accuracy of when it happened.

 

[31550]

This is the problem with individual neighbours not only trying to remember what happened, but trying to recall exactly when it happened. The 2 Crabbes can't even agree within half an hour of each other.

Without verification, the neighbours info needs to be accepted on the basis that, yes it happened, but there has to be significant doubt as to the accuracy of when it happened.

OK but Sharpley does recall the FM coming to see her, when she was out in the carport having a 'smoko', so she has a good idea of the time, and a clear recollection of what SHE did immediately afterwards, which does not allow for the FM racing back and getting her mother's car and driving off and back. Sharpley remained in Benaroon Drive, looked for William, and went to alert other neighbours - she would have seen FM in the car drive off or back.

 

[Lady O]

OK but Sharpley does recall the FM coming to see her, when she was out in the carport having a 'smoko', so she has a good idea of the time, and a clear recollection of what SHE did immediately afterwards, which does not allow for the FM racing back and getting her mother's car and driving off and back. Sharpley remained in Benaroon Drive, looked for William, and went to alert other neighbours - she would have seen FM in the car drive off or back.

During one of the earlier sessions of the Inquest, there was a comment made where two of the neighbours reacted to something that (I think) the FM said. Sharpley would have been one. Can anyone remember the question or testimony that caused them to react?

 

[Kurve]

During one of the earlier sessions of the Inquest, there was a comment made where two of the neighbours reacted to something that (I think) the FM said. Sharpley would have been one. Can anyone remember the question or testimony that caused them to react?

This account was in Searching for Spiderman if that helps

 

[Earls Smother]

OK but Sharpley does recall the FM coming to see her, when she was out in the carport having a 'smoko', so she has a good idea of the time, and a clear recollection of what SHE did immediately afterwards, which does not allow for the FM racing back and getting her mother's car and driving off and back. Sharpley remained in Benaroon Drive, looked for William, and went to alert other neighbours - she would have seen FM in the car drive off or back.

Ok, some snippets from the timeline provided by the inquest attendee (page #260 of this thread):

08:10 : AMS waves her kids of to school who are at the bus stop on crn Benaroon & Batar Ck Rd. She is standing at her carport.

08:40 : AMS reverses out to take her child to pre-school. Arrives at 9am. Saw no cars parked on the street.

10:30-10:56 : FFC ran to AMS’s house, asked if saw little boy in spiderman suit? , AMS said no, suggested bus stop on Crn Benaroon Drive & Batar Creek Rd, FFC ran to bus stop , heard the “scream” , ran back to # 48 Benaroon Drive, got in FGM car & drove looking for WT, drove down Batar Ck Rd, thought he could not have gotten that far, went back to FGM house, ran inside & got her mobile phone, saw message from MFC, she ran out to driveway , just as MFC drove in & asked him “ Have you got William?” “ No , why would I have William?” . I can’t find him the FFC said. MFC took off frantically looking for William.

10:40 : AMS outside in carport having a cigarette, FFC comes to her fence. AMS could hear male voice loudly calling for William in the background coming from behind FGM's house.

10:50 : AMS knocks on PS door, PS leaves to start searching.


That is everything pertaining to AMS. I think the middle paragraph had to have a starting time of 10:25 (not 10:30) for it to logically fit in. That is only a minor adjustment.

It appears there were 2 interactions with AMS, 1) prior to bus stop run (about 10:25), and 2) having a ciggie after the return of the FF at about 10:40.

 

[31550]

During one of the earlier sessions of the Inquest, there was a comment made where two of the neighbours reacted to something that (I think) the FM said. Sharpley would have been one. Can anyone remember the question or testimony that caused them to react?

They reacted to the account of the truck driver, according to Chumley, by shaking their heads.
Also FM recalled the color of the bus shelter incorrectly.
There was reaction from others including the coroner, and when she couldn't remember whether she turned right or left, it appears the coroner got fed up with her testimony.

 

[31550]

Ok, some snippets from the timeline provided by the inquest attendee (page #260 of this thread):

08:10 : AMS waves her kids of to school who are at the bus stop on crn Benaroon & Batar Ck Rd. She is standing at her carport.

08:40 : AMS reverses out to take her child to pre-school. Arrives at 9am. Saw no cars parked on the street.

10:30-10:56 : FFC ran to AMS’s house, asked if saw little boy in spiderman suit? , AMS said no, suggested bus stop on Crn Benaroon Drive & Batar Creek Rd, FFC ran to bus stop , heard the “scream” , ran back to # 48 Benaroon Drive, got in FGM car & drove looking for WT, drove down Batar Ck Rd, thought he could not have gotten that far, went back to FGM house, ran inside & got her mobile phone, saw message from MFC, she ran out to driveway , just as MFC drove in & asked him “ Have you got William?” “ No , why would I have William?” . I can’t find him the FFC said. MFC took off frantically looking for William.

10:40 : AMS outside in carport having a cigarette, FFC comes to her fence. AMS could hear male voice loudly calling for William in the background coming from behind FGM's house.

10:50 : AMS knocks on PS door, PS leaves to start searching.


That is everything pertaining to AMS. I think the middle paragraph had to have a starting time of 10:25 (not 10:30) for it to logically fit in. That is only a minor adjustment.

It appears there were 2 interactions with AMS, 1) prior to bus stop run (about 10:25), and 2) having a ciggie after the return of the FF at about 10:40.

With all respect, while that timeline has some very useful information, it is a repost from another forum, and the original timeline was constructed by the author well before the first inquest hearing. So it does not include information which has come to light since 2021. Also some of the times are not attributed to a direct source - they are simply assumed. It should not be treated as indisputable fact. A lot of it is true, but some pieces are assumptions and not substantiated.

Even reading the above snippets, there are contradictions: FF returned at 10:35.
Sharpley met FM at 10:40, so the 10:30-10:56 is wrong.

How can she have done both the walk down Benaroon Dve and the drive after 10:40, and been back to dial 000 at 10:56? Not enough time!

 

[Kurve]

With all respect, while that timeline has some very useful information, it is a repost from another forum, and the original timeline was constructed by the author well before the first inquest hearing. So it does not include information which has come to light since 2021. Also some of the times are not attributed to a direct source - they are simply assumed. It should not be treated as indisputable fact. A lot of it is true, but some pieces are assumptions and not substantiated.

This is true and for several reasons, the issue of whether that timeline should be removed entirely from this thread has been under consideration.

There's some real snags with it, if I'm sure we all can appreciate the work that went in to it.

 

[js47]

Is the mobile signal in that area strong and consistent, or are there dead / weak spots that could prevent triangulation?

Well, the FF complained about reception.
However! Peter mentioned he had a dash cam, how good were they 14 years ago? That he did not have it charged(am I right)? Did they have battery ones then?

 

[31550]

Well, the FF complained about reception.
However! Peter mentioned he had a dash cam, how good were they 14 years ago? That he did not have it charged(am I right)? Did they have battery ones then?

Peter's dashcam was not operational on 'that day'.
Yes they had them in 2014, but nowhere near as common as today. More prevalent among professional drivers.
PS: dashcams don't rely on phone reception. Most run off the car battery, only work when ignition is on.