Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 3 * Coroner's Hearings Concluded

[Kurve]

Continued from PART 2

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?

 

[LRitz]

• The FGM walkthrough is interesting. She says she was up at 7.30, that FF left around 8.00 but she didn't see him at all.
• 
  
• Definitely no incoming phone calls that morning..."No, no no no no no." And one more "no" for good measure.
• 
  
• She seems to plead ignorance from about the time FF gets home.
• 
  
• Can't be certain about which path she took to walk down the hill, even standing there reenacting her steps with the detective. Also unsure of whether LT was with her at any point, but is very certain that WT was taken.
• 
  
• Her phrases "Everything was still...deadly quiet" and "I knew straight away he'd been taken" are virtually identical to what FM said.
• 
  
• She's down near the road but has no idea how FF discovers WT is missing.
• 
  
• Who were the elderly couple in the car? What were they doing there?
• 
  
• Absolutely no recollection of anything she did upon returning to the house (wouldn't she search the house or something?) but manages to remember how she called GO to postpone the deck repairs until Tuesday, which in itself was strange.

- Edit - There is absolutely no mention of the bike riding or strange car that FM says drove past during it. FM provides quite a detailed account of the whole activity, while FGM leaves it out completely. Likely it didn't happen IMO.

The FGM "which-way-would-I-have-gone" Walkthrough is interesting. (Why ask the detective what had happened)

As well as the above and comments by others on FGM walkthrough, of the initial moments after William allegedly went down the side of the house to the road, the FGM actions do not fit with FM's first statement.

FM says she WALKS to the road and then words to the effect ... i walked back up the other side of the house...all the way around ....I went inside. But FGM says she follows FM to the street she sees neighbour Annemaree . And then FGM says FM "came back up", after I assume FM had run down to the bus shelter. It does not make sense. it does not match either with Anne Maree's account or FM. How could FM be down the road without passing FGM. And did FGM still have her slippers on? IMO adds to the possibility that there was no initial search by FM or FGM before FF came home, IMO.

There is some information of FGM statement. The statement, dated two days after the William disappeared. "The statement was tendered to the inquest on March 25 (2019) and released on Tuesday following an application to the Coroner's Court by Daily Mail Australia". I have summarised some of it below and added link. FGM says she saw FM speaking to a Neighbour (presumably Anne Maree). So the FGM statement is different to her walkthrough.

From the articel:
'I can't think of anyone who would want to harm William,' 'I was asked this question initially by Wendy Hudson ) and I suggested Peter across the road, (as he keeps odd hours and lives alone),' 'Wendy assures me she has checked him out thoroughly.'
She next saw the foster carer standing out the front of the house speaking to a neighbour and calling out William's name.
'The female foster carer walked back to the house and told me she was calling the because she couldn't find William.
'The female foster carer called the police (and the male foster carer as well). I think the male foster carer arrived home before the police but I'm not entirely sure.

One of the last people to see William Tyrrell alive finally speaks

When William Tyrrell's foster grandmother was asked who would want to harm the little boy, she could only suggest one person - a man who lived across the road.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[LRitz]

I think FGM was told to say 'everyone was happy'. I think everyone was not happy, and most likely there were arguments and tensions in the morning. FGM did not want to directly lie, so she made up that FF was gone early. But she forgot that she had already told the truth about being up at 7.30. So she ended up implying (wrongly) he left at 8.

I reckon she was up at 7.30 and heard an hour or more of tension and arguments. But was told not to, or didn't want to, mention these to police. Hence her compromised timeline.

We don't know if there were arguments. That is just your guess. Maybe it fits in better with your theory of what happened.

Kids (allegedly) fighting over toys is not an argument. Kids wanting the same toy is pretty ordinary. They are not fighting in the photos. William (allegedly) throwing he dice is not misbehaviour. After all he is only three years old.

Maybe there was tension, but could have been for another reason.

 

[31550]

We don't know if there were arguments. That is just your guess. Maybe it fits in better with your theory of what happened.

Kids (allegedly) fighting over toys is not an argument. Kids wanting the same toy is pretty ordinary. They are not fighting in the photos. William (allegedly) throwing he dice is not misbehaviour. After all he is only three years old.

Maybe there was tension, but could have been for another reason.

I thought I was quite explicit in saying "I think" and "I reckon" and "IMO".

It is a fact that FGM said "Everyone was happy". It's my conjecture and opinion that everyone was not happy. It's also my conjecture that FGM was told to say this. I think that the fact she said anything at all about 'happiness' is interesting, and could be relevant.

Why else would she say it? Nobody asked her anything about it. It couldn't possibly be relevant to a 'wandered off' or even 'abduction' scenario.

But, for instance, if there was any suspicion or even a suggestion of something more serious, such as a fatal injury to William which was covered up, or something else sinister being concealed, then 'everyone being happy" would be very relevant. If there was some sort of violent behaviour, police would want to know what motivated it. "Everyone was happy" subtly dismisses this possibility. So its insertion into the narrative may have been deliberate. IMO

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Woke up at 7.30
No sorry we had b'fast at 8
I actually was up late
But FF wasn't there nor did I see him
But he asked me what time the chemist opened
He had to go early and was really keen because he has a 3 min drive that took him 45 or more
Had 3 up to b'fast....no sorry 4 ( 2 kids)
This is where it all happened
He was bouncing out of his skull with happiness

If this wasn't true you wouldn't believe the debacle it is

 

[31550]

While on the subject of the FGM walkthrough it's important to observe what information is provided by the interviewee (in this case the FGM) which is extraneous, or additional to straightforward answers to questions. Sometimes this information is more revealing than the actual answer to the question being asked. We don't know if this information is true or not, but it's interesting that the interviewee wants the interviewer (in this case the police) to know or believe certain things.

For example,

VP: So, Friday morning, can you tell us ...
FGM: When I got up, ... yes
VP: Do you know what time that was, roughly?
FGM: I, I, about half past seven, that's when I usually get up.
VP: Yep
FGM: Um, uhh, I didn't see [FF]. Earlier. I er I think, I was fairly late getting up. I did hear people in the kitchen. and I think that was [FF] getting his coffee. and getting. . I knew he had to go early ... he wanted to go to Lakewood chemist to get his .. some tablets .
VP: Uh huh
FGM: I heard later, [FM] told me later, he'd be some time because he had to have an um, online conversation ....

Note that all FGM was asked was what time she got up. Instead of saying, "7.30" or "8.00" or "I don't know", she actually chooses to spew forth a whole dialog about how she usually gets up at 7.30, but she didn't see FF because she was fairly late getting up, but she did hear him getting coffee, and he had to go the chemist and have his online meeting, etc ...

She wasn't asked anything at all about FF - whether he was there or not, what time he left, why he left. She obviously wants VP to know or believe that she didn't see FF in the morning, but she heard him getting coffee. Her explanation is that he was gone to Lakewood by the time she got up.

We don't know if any of this is true or not, but I think she wants VP to believe she didn't see FF in the morning. It's important enough for her to tell this to VP, unprompted, very early in the interview - before telling her anything about how William came to disappear.

But why she wants this, or how it is relevant to the case, I don't know.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

While on the subject of the FGM walkthrough it's important to observe what information is provided by the interviewee (in this case the FGM) which is extraneous, or additional to straightforward answers to questions. Sometimes this information is more revealing than the actual answer to the question being asked. We don't know if this information is true or not, but it's interesting that the interviewee wants the interviewer (in this case the police) to know or believe certain things.

For example,

VP: So, Friday morning, can you tell us ...
FGM: When I got up, ... yes
VP: Do you know what time that was, roughly?
FGM: I, I, about half past seven, that's when I usually get up.
VP: Yep
FGM: Um, uhh, I didn't see [FF]. Earlier. I er I think, I was fairly late getting up. I did hear people in the kitchen. and I think that was [FF] getting his coffee. and getting. . I knew he had to go early ... he wanted to go to Lakewood chemist to get his .. some tablets .
VP: Uh huh
FGM: I heard later, [FM] told me later, he'd be some time because he had to have an um, online conversation ....

Note that all FGM was asked was what time she got up. Instead of saying, "7.30" or "8.00" or "I don't know", she actually chooses to spew forth a whole dialog about how she usually gets up at 7.30, but she didn't see FF because she was fairly late getting up, but she did hear him getting coffee, and he had to go the chemist and have his online meeting, etc ...

She wasn't asked anything at all about FF - whether he was there or not, what time he left, why he left. She obviously wants VP to know or believe that she didn't see FF in the morning, but she heard him getting coffee. Her explanation is that he was gone to Lakewood by the time she got up.

We don't know if any of this is true or not, but I think she wants VP to believe she didn't see FF in the morning. It's important enough for her to tell this to VP, unprompted, very early in the interview - before telling her anything about how William came to disappear.

But why she wants this, or how it is relevant to the case, I don't know.

It's what ive been saying all along. Ignore the timestamps as mistake and this is the smoking gun

Yeeeeeees.. she spent the kitchen time of walk through talking exclusively about what the FF had to do and where he was without even being asked.

 

[31550]

It's what ive been saying all along. Ignore the timestamps as mistake and this is the smoking gun

Yeeeeeees.. she spent the kitchen time of walk through talking exclusively about what the FF had to do and where he was without even being asked.

You cannot ignore the timestamps. They need to be accounted for. If they are not genuine, then we need a credible explanation of how they came to be, who did it, when, and why.

 

[LRitz]

While on the subject of the FGM walkthrough it's important to observe what information is provided by the interviewee (in this case the FGM) which is extraneous, or additional to straightforward answers to questions. Sometimes this information is more revealing than the actual answer to the question being asked. We don't know if this information is true or not, but it's interesting that the interviewee wants the interviewer (in this case the police) to know or believe certain things.

For example,

VP: So, Friday morning, can you tell us ...
FGM: When I got up, ... yes
VP: Do you know what time that was, roughly?
FGM: I, I, about half past seven, that's when I usually get up.
VP: Yep
FGM: Um, uhh, I didn't see [FF]. Earlier. I er I think, I was fairly late getting up. I did hear people in the kitchen. and I think that was [FF] getting his coffee. and getting. . I knew he had to go early ... he wanted to go to Lakewood chemist to get his .. some tablets .
VP: Uh huh
FGM: I heard later, [FM] told me later, he'd be some time because he had to have an um, online conversation ....

Note that all FGM was asked was what time she got up. Instead of saying, "7.30" or "8.00" or "I don't know", she actually chooses to spew forth a whole dialog about how she usually gets up at 7.30, but she didn't see FF because she was fairly late getting up, but she did hear him getting coffee, and he had to go the chemist and have his online meeting, etc ...

She wasn't asked anything at all about FF - whether he was there or not, what time he left, why he left. She obviously wants VP to know or believe that she didn't see FF in the morning, but she heard him getting coffee. Her explanation is that he was gone to Lakewood by the time she got up.

We don't know if any of this is true or not, but I think she wants VP to believe she didn't see FF in the morning. It's important enough for her to tell this to VP, unprompted, very early in the interview - before telling her anything about how William came to disappear.

But why she wants this, or how it is relevant to the case, I don't know.

When you put it like that it does sound rehearsed, IMO. Or that she was anticipating some questions.

And she wanted to get that bit straight , before she was confused by other questions. Yes she does give lots of information about FF that has not been asked.

What happened to FGM allegedly being shown the new car by FF that morning. Was that something in a later media interview?

Again, if the photo was taken at 9:37, and William looks alive and well, why did they all have such problems with what happened earlier at say 8:30, or who was there together for breakfast, and what time FF left. Makes me think.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Ok

You cannot ignore the timestamps. They need to be accounted for. If they are not genuine, then we need a credible explanation of how they came to be, who did it, when, and why.

Opinion and conjecture

This isn't my skill set but my theory is. W went missing..they believed their story.. searches started to try find him. Confirmation bias pressure on the forensic guy to confirm 9.37..they only had 7.39 and no evidence of manipulation..he saw the image TV
sunrise and HE/SHE changed to corrected time. The FF used the image to trick the LE..at end of 3 mths when they still thought they were legit both batteries expired and they lost opportunity to check.

I believe substituion.. that means edits..there was I understand at one stage a trick using 2 cameras . Cant remember detail.. the clear I thought was FF camera at McD. Only hers was handed?

Those McD photos are critical for now 2 reasons..Looking at W and the camera.

 

[jason_recliner]

Interestingly, if not critically committed to and invested in a (highly implausible and improbable) narrative to the extent that one is blinded by confirmation bias, the events can be perceived differently:

...it's important to observe what information is provided by the interviewee (in this case the FGM) which is extraneous, or additional to straightforward answers to questions. Sometimes this information is more revealing than the actual answer to the question being asked.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

We don't know if this information is true or not

Correct.

VP: So, Friday morning, can you tell us ...
FGM: When I got up, ... yes
VP: Do you know what time that was, roughly?
FGM: I, I, about half past seven, that's when I usually get up.
VP: Yep
FGM: Um, uhh, I didn't see [FF]. Earlier. I er I think, I was fairly late getting up. I did hear people in the kitchen. and I think that was [FF] getting his coffee. and getting. . I knew he had to go early ... he wanted to go to Lakewood chemist to get his .. some tablets .
VP: Uh huh
FGM: I heard later, [FM] told me later, he'd be some time because he had to have an um, online conversation ....

Note that all FGM was asked was what time she got up. Instead of saying, "7.30" or "8.00" or "I don't know", she actually chooses to spew forth a whole dialog about how she usually gets up at 7.30, but she didn't see FF because she was fairly late getting up, but she did hear him getting coffee, and he had to go the chemist and have his online meeting, etc ...

She wasn't asked anything at all about FF - whether he was there or not, what time he left, why he left. She obviously wants VP to know or believe that she didn't see FF in the morning, but she heard him getting coffee. Her explanation is that he was gone to Lakewood by the time she got up.

Another possible interpretation is that she's the elderly foster grandmother of a child who has gone missing, is worried and upset, and wishes to aid the investigators as much as possible, including by providing as much information as possible and not miss out any small detail, however irrelevant some small details may seem (which is what investigators often tell people to do before interviewing them).

We don't know if any of this is true or not, but I think she wants VP to believe she didn't see FF in the morning. It's important enough for her to tell this to VP, unprompted, very early in the interview - before telling her anything about how William came to disappear.

But why she wants this, or how it is relevant to the case, I don't know.

Or she didn't see FF in the morning (because she wasn't up at 7:30 on that particular day), which is a more reasonable, likely and logical interpretation as it doesn't require the subsequent complicated conjecture to support an improbable narrative.

It's clearly more likely that her responses are accurate and true to the extent possible, perhaps slightly muddled due to her age and the highly stressful scenario, than the outlandish alternatives posited here.

 

[Underarrest_]

Ok

Opinion and conjecture

This isn't my skill set but my theory is. W went missing..they believed their story.. searches started to try find him. Confirmation bias pressure on the forensic guy to confirm 9.37..they only had 7.39 and no evidence of manipulation..he saw the image TV
sunrise and HE/SHE changed to corrected time. The FF used the image to trick the LE..at end of 3 mths when they still thought they were legit both batteries expired and they lost opportunity to check.

I believe substituion.. that means edits..there was I understand at one stage a trick using 2 cameras . Cant remember detail.. the clear I thought was FF camera at McD. Only hers was handed?

Those McD photos are critical for now 2 reasons..Looking at W and the camera.

Just on a different note, it would be interesting to know if police sighted/examined the clothes William was wearing in the Maccas footage and if the children had pull ups on when they left daycare given the stop on the road by Foster parents was to put pull-ups on.
FF said he asked William that morning to change his pull up. Why did Foster father give out this information to police? It doesn’t appear that FM has added a pull up to the list of items William was wearing that morning. Might seem irrelevant but maybe not if you’re looking for any evidence of William (anything that might be found.)

 

[LRitz]

Interestingly, if not critically committed to and invested in a (highly implausible and improbable) narrative to the extent that one is blinded by confirmation bias, the events can be perceived differently:


Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.


Correct.


Another possible interpretation is that she's the elderly foster grandmother of a child who has gone missing, is worried and upset, and wishes to aid the investigators as much as possible, including by providing as much information as possible and not miss out any small detail, however irrelevant some small details may seem (which is what investigators often tell people to do before interviewing them).


Or she didn't see FF in the morning (because she wasn't up at 7:30 on that particular day), which is a more reasonable, likely and logical interpretation as it doesn't require the subsequent complicated conjecture to support an improbable narrative.

It's clearly more likely that her responses are accurate and true to the extent possible, perhaps slightly muddled due to her age and the highly stressful scenario, than the outlandish alternatives posited here.

So if FGM did not see FF, and this in your opinion is the reasonable answer, then FM's statement that FGM was there for breakfast is incorrect.

FM statement: ..."MFC had some toast with us and he was getting ready for his meeting. Mum also had breakfast with us."

They can't both be right. I don't think we know what the FF statement said about breakfast.

 

[jason_recliner]

So if FGM did not see FF, and this in your opinion is the reasonable answer, then FM's statement that FGM was there for breakfast is incorrect.

FM statement: ..."MFC had some toast with us and he was getting ready for his meeting. Mum also had breakfast with us."

They can't both be right. I don't think we know what the FF statement said about breakfast.

Or FF had some toast, ran out the door, FGM had some breakfast a bit later, mum and the kids were in the kitchen/dining area/patio eating/having tea etc over an extended period, which isn't at all unusual when on holidays/weekend.

 

[31550]

Interestingly, if not critically committed to and invested in a (highly implausible and improbable) narrative to the extent that one is blinded by confirmation bias, the events can be perceived differently:


Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.


Correct.


Another possible interpretation is that she's the elderly foster grandmother of a child who has gone missing, is worried and upset, and wishes to aid the investigators as much as possible, including by providing as much information as possible and not miss out any small detail, however irrelevant some small details may seem (which is what investigators often tell people to do before interviewing them).


Or she didn't see FF in the morning (because she wasn't up at 7:30 on that particular day), which is a more reasonable, likely and logical interpretation as it doesn't require the subsequent complicated conjecture to support an improbable narrative.

It's clearly more likely that her responses are accurate and true to the extent possible, perhaps slightly muddled due to her age and the highly stressful scenario, than the outlandish alternatives posited here.

Which outlandish alternatives, specifically?
You have responded to my post, but I am not aware that I posited anything (outlandish or otherwise) in that post.

Perhaps your own theory is clouded by confirmation bias and might be considered outlandish by others?

 

[Merlina]

Or FF had some toast, ran out the door, FGM had some breakfast a bit later, mum and the kids were in the kitchen/dining area/patio eating/having tea etc over an extended period, which isn't at all unusual when on holidays/weekend.

FF supposedly didn't leave home until about 8:40. That's why I find it hard to believe that FGM and FF didn't see or speak to each other before he left.

 

[31550]

FF supposedly didn't leave home until about 8:40. That's why I find it hard to believe that FGM and FF didn't see or speak to each other before he left.

Yes but let's not let facts get in the way of the narrative

 

[31550]

So if FGM did not see FF, and this in your opinion is the reasonable answer, then FM's statement that FGM was there for breakfast is incorrect.

FM statement: ..."MFC had some toast with us and he was getting ready for his meeting. Mum also had breakfast with us."

They can't both be right. I don't think we know what the FF statement said about breakfast.

There is no FF statement. None was ever made.

There was an interview done in 2015, and a transcript was leaked in 2021. He says,

Ah, and so we watched um, Bananas​

in Pyjama's I think it was or Fireman Sam. Ah, then we all got up and​

did the routine of breakfast you know, milk and all those sorts of​

things and started to have breakfast. And I needed to go and fill a​

script for myself.​

He was not asked about any interaction with FGM, and he says nothing about FGM in this interview. But it was a year after the event, so who knows?

 

[Kurve]

One of the first things to do is clothing. Take a picture of everyone there so you know the clothing and can detect anomalies

I'm told (don't know how they know) that the FGM clothes were catalogued what she was wearing and that the clothes on verandah matched the high balcony clothes

These two. Don't look the same to me..

What makes you think that's the FGM with the white hair?

 

[Lady O]

You cannot ignore the timestamps. They need to be accounted for. If they are not genuine, then we need a credible explanation of how they came to be, who did it, when, and why.

Wasn't it said that he was out with the children riding their bikes? I thought FM was "in the shower" at that time and FGM was there with him, maybe he was showing her his new car and FGM didn't remember that. I'd have to look back at those posts.

Edit: Ok this is from Chumley's book. It was FM who didn't rememer:

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Looks like a camera and lens to me

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What makes you think that's the FGM with the white hair?

Well recognised photo as being FGM

 

[pinkjellybean]

I thought I was quite explicit in saying "I think" and "I reckon" and "IMO".

It is a fact that FGM said "Everyone was happy". It's my conjecture and opinion that everyone was not happy. It's also my conjecture that FGM was told to say this. I think that the fact she said anything at all about 'happiness' is interesting, and could be relevant.

Why else would she say it? Nobody asked her anything about it. It couldn't possibly be relevant to a 'wandered off' or even 'abduction' scenario.

But, for instance, if there was any suspicion or even a suggestion of something more serious, such as a fatal injury to William which was covered up, or something else sinister being concealed, then 'everyone being happy" would be very relevant. If there was some sort of violent behaviour, police would want to know what motivated it. "Everyone was happy" subtly dismisses this possibility. So its insertion into the narrative may have been deliberate. IMO

Just on the happiness thing, it seems the FPs went overboard in the 60mins interview trying their best to paint WT as a happy, carefree little boy. Screaming with joy when they picked him up from daycare and told him they were off to FGMs. FM constantly talking about him giggling and being full of joy. Already laughing and giggling early that morning at FGMs house even though waking at the crack of dawn with a soaking wet nappy.
This is a contrast to what she had said previously about WT becoming increasingly difficult to handle. I feel certain that because of the trauma he experienced right from birth, he would have had attachment issues and probably never bonded with FM at all.

 

[LRitz]

Wasn't it said that he was out with the children riding their bikes? I thought FM was "in the shower" at that time and FGM was there with him, maybe he was showing her his new car and FGM didn't remember that. I'd have to look back at those posts.

Edit: Ok this is from Chumley's book. It was FM who didn't rememer:

View attachment 2267886

More confusion.
Who alleged that FF and FGM looked at the car? I am guessing it must have been FF.
FGM omitted or forgot looking at the car with FF.
FM allegedly was not with them so possibly showering and getting dressed.
So this narrative fits in with everyone up and dressed by around 8:00. And then the breakfast at 8:30 ish with FGM.
FGM also omits or forgets the bikes and ready set go after FF leaves.

This puts the bike ride with FM and FGM to after FF leaves around 9. Specifically it says the car has gone. Which gives a lot of activity between 9 and the time to start the drawings on the patio (has been commented before). FGM .... I would have done the dishes... ..mummy monsters, tree climbing, chasing, FM falling and hurting hand, FD then joining FM and William outside and then more playing and chasing.

Was Chumley able to check with FGM if this was correct. I don't know when or how Chumley obtained this information. If things allegedly happened that morning as said later by FF and FM i guess FGM was not available or capable of an interview.

My Edit: Also after Breakfast is the call to Spedding. So when is there time for bike riding? The Photos time stamp if correct have them drawing on the patio by around 9:30.

 

[31550]

Was Chumley able to check with FGM if this was correct. I don't know when or how Chumley obtained this information. If things allegedly happened that morning as said later by FF and FM i guess FGM was not available or capable of an interview.

I believe Chumley (and Overington to a large extent) would have made every effort to 'fact-check' with FGM, FM and FF. Both authors essentially present the fosters narrative, and only on rare occasions do they call out the inconsistencies or contradictions.
I also believe the fosters (probably via Insight) would have closely reviewed drafts of the books to ensure that there was no suggestion of any guilt on their part. The books would have been blocked from publication if there was.
When the books were published, the paedophile / abduction theory was firmly the 'mainstream' theory, and both books seem to be aligned with this theory. Chumley actually proposes a theory which involves a coordinated snatch and grab of William. Overington does not go that far in her book, but her later TV doco certainly points the finger at Abbott, and treats the Roy Porter death bed revelation as serious.

Both books were on the shelves before SFR nominated FM as a POI. Chumley's was withdrawn after the first Inquest tranche but she is coy about why.

Overington has been pretty silent on William for the last few years.

 

[LRitz]

I believe Chumley (and Overington to a large extent) would have made every effort to 'fact-check' with FGM, FM and FF. Both authors essentially present the fosters narrative, and only on rare occasions do they call out the inconsistencies or contradictions.
I also believe the fosters (probably via Insight) would have closely reviewed drafts of the books to ensure that there was no suggestion of any guilt on their part. The books would have been blocked from publication if there was.
When the books were published, the paedophile / abduction theory was firmly the 'mainstream' theory, and both books seem to be aligned with this theory. Chumley actually proposes a theory which involves a coordinated snatch and grab of William. Overington does not go that far in her book, but her later TV doco certainly points the finger at Abbott, and treats the Roy Porter death bed revelation as serious.

Both books were on the shelves before SFR nominated FM as a POI. Chumley's was withdrawn after the first Inquest tranche but she is coy about why.

Overington has been pretty silent on William for the last few years.

Not that it adds to any information, but just out of interest. Was the FGM's walkthrough released to the public around the time of the 2019 coroners inquest? How does this timing fit in with Chumleys's book. If the book was already out, must have caused a bit of concern that FGM says she did not see FF that morning.