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?

 

[jason_recliner]

Scientific method, which is applicable to investigations, isn't being doggedly wedded to one hypothesis, and trying to make a few facts and many more ignorant inferences and narratives fit that hypothesis, especially in the face of a lack of evidence supporting that fixation and with evidence clearly supporting other outcomes. That's literally the opposite of the scientific method.

 

[Earls Smother]

Scientific method, which is applicable to investigations, isn't being doggedly wedded to one hypothesis, and trying to make a few facts and many more ignorant inferences and narratives fit that hypothesis, especially in the face of a lack of evidence supporting that fixation and with evidence clearly supporting other outcomes. That's literally the opposite of the scientific method.

Exactly. In this thread it is like there can only be one hypothesis/perpetrator and it needs to be made to fit.

It's like Kurve is a lecturer who has given his/her students a task to establish how the FM did it and has managed to get away with it for 10 years.

 

[31550]

Scientific method, which is applicable to investigations, isn't being doggedly wedded to one hypothesis, and trying to make a few facts and many more ignorant inferences and narratives fit that hypothesis, especially in the face of a lack of evidence supporting that fixation and with evidence clearly supporting other outcomes. That's literally the opposite of the scientific method.

Agree generally but not entirely accurate. Certainly one should not be doggedly wedded to one hypothesis.
The scientific method is generally:

• Observation and Questioning
• Hypothesis formation
• Data collection and experimentation
• Analysis and evaluation
• Conclusion

So, development of (multiple) hypotheses is an important aspect.
It seems to me that there was never sufficient observation and questioning from the outset for the scientific method to be properly pursued. When it came to hypothesis formation, police immediately jumped on one theory (lost), then another (abducted), without even considering other hypotheses. Therefore the subsequent steps of data collection and analysis were incomplete and unreliable to draw conclusions.

Any hypothesis is just that - a hypothetical explanation of known facts. Until the data collection and analysis is performed, no particular hypothesis should be considered 'better' than any other.

You mention "evidence clearly supporting other outcomes" - what evidence do you refer to, and what 'other outcomes' does it support?

Has the hypothesis of "unexpected death / cover-up" been satisfactorily examined? What data has been collected? What experimentation has been performed? Is there any evidence which would rule this theory out?

 

[DropBearess]

Does anyone know the exact type of anxiety meds that FF was on? How often did he take them?
There are a number of mentions in the narrative about FF and his meds:

• He says he takes them regularly, but for some reason did not take them to Kendall (was this because they left earlier than originally planned)? Wouldn't he carry these with him, and/or wouldn't FM know to pack them for him?
• He was anxious about getting his meds on the Friday - asked FGM and/or looked up on his computer what time the chemist opened (possibly did this Thursday night when he realised he didn't have them?)
• Was in a hurry to leave the house Friday Morning to get his meds (and do his online conference)
• Yet, did not arrive at Lakewood Pharmacy in time to go in and get them, had to wait for his online meeting to end. If he got there by 9am sharp, he would have had time to get them before his meeting?
• Did he present a prescription at the pharmacy? (Indicating he knew he had to buy more meds, and this was planned) OR did they have to look it up online before dispensing? (Indicating he actually forgot to bring them to Kendall).
• When Rowley attended the FGM house, FF was seen coming out of the bathroom. Had he perhaps just taken his meds or had some sort of anxiety attack?
• Was the bathroom searched? Did they find FF meds in the bathroom? Or packaging in any of the rubbish bins?
• An ambulance was called for FF in the evening. Was this related in any way to his anxiety or medication?
• Are the meds supposed to be taken with alcohol? Fosters were observed drinking wine on the Friday evening, and FF interview also says he drank wine on the Thursday night after arriving.
• How did FF usually transport his meds? Were they in the original child-safe blister packaging, or did he perhaps transfer them (maybe with other pills) into a pill-box, as many people on multiple meds do?
• How did FF usually take his meds? E.g. swallow them with water, or crush them up into his coffee or orange juice?

Why do I want to know all this?
Is it possible that William somehow ingested FF's anxiety meds? Possibly during the early morning chaos?
I know that an overdose of some anti-anxiety medication can bring about behavioural changes, and ultimately result in a seizure and death to a victim. A small child could easily overdose. A seizure would not be immediate, but would probably arise in an hour or two after consuming a fatal dose. It might take a while before the meds took effect on the child.

Was this why it was important for the narrative to include the following points which were emphasised by FGM:

• FF was gone a long time before anything happened to William
• FF did not have his meds at the house, that's why he had to go get some
• everyone was happy
• William was getting fed up with drawing etc, taking over the conversation
• William was full of life, 'jumping out of his skull', then 'deathly quiet'.

This might explain the FM 'drive':
Early in the day William is found to have taken FF's meds. He doesn't show any immediate symptoms so FF leaves for his meeting and to get more meds. Later, William is suffering from the effects of the meds - possibly headaches, dizziness, behavioural changes, change in heart rate or breathing (asthma attack?) - eventually leading to a fatal seizure after he runs round the verandah. FM finds him in the front yard - realises that if an autopsy / toxicology analysis is performed, then the meds will be found in his system. This would be criminal negligence on behalf of the FF - children should never have access to this sort of medication. So she drives him away and hides him before FF returns home, and invents the 'wandered off, can't find him' narrative.
Later in the evening she tells FF what really happened - FF has a guilt / panic attack as he knows he is responsible. Then later, he realises if the body is ever found, there is still a risk that a toxicology will be done, so he goes out and moves the body to a more secure location.

FGM and FM divert attention away from FF by ensuring police know that FF was 'long gone' before anything happened to William. Yet, there is no real need for them to do this as the chemist receipt and online conference provide him a cast-iron alibi for 9.30-10.00.

Yet, the story around activities from say 8am to 9am is very muddled. Some say they had breakfast. Some say FF wasn't there at all. Some say bike riding, tree climbing etc. What did they really do between 8am and 9am? Perhaps panic about William ingesting FF's meds, and watching him, before deciding it was OK for FF to leave for his meeting and replenish his meds. Then they had breakfast and went to the verandah (as per FGM walkthrough, only later).

Wow, you're a strange one 31550! I suggested this very same thing years ago in my post #7929. You poo-pood it in no uncertain terms, as you usually do. You were so dismissive that l suggested you be awarded a trophy for the biggest poo-pooer here. Go back and read from #7929 onwards!

 

[31550]

Wow, you're a strange one 31550! I suggested this very same thing years ago in my post #7929. You poo-pood it in no uncertain terms, as you usually do. You were so dismissive that l suggested you be awarded a trophy for the biggest poo-pooer here. Go back and read from #7929 onwards!

How do I find 7929? Was it very early on?
If I was dismissive without giving any reason, then I should not have done so, and apologise.
Just shows we should all stay open-minded unless we have good reasons.

 

[31550]

How do I find 7929? Was it very early on?
If I was dismissive without giving any reason, then I should not have done so, and apologise.
Just shows we should all stay open-minded unless we have good reasons.

OK I found it and here is a link to my reply

Current - Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell * The foster mother has been recommended for charges of pervert the course of justice & interfere with a corpse

Criminal charges the former foster parents currently face as at 15 April 2022 include: 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...

www.bigfooty.com

I don't think I exactly "poo-pooed" the idea but maybe it came across that way.
I merely challenged the theory by asking a few (relevant) questions, similar to what I proposed above:

• Did police check the prescription status?
• Why wouldn't they report it to police?

You actually referred to Xanax and Valium, which I pointed out would be VERY difficult for a 3YO boy to acccidentally and fatally overdose on.

I was referring to some other anti-anxiety meds which are known to cause seizures in overdose situations.
Anyway, sorry, and thanks for directing us to that previous discussion.
Do you still think this is a viable theory?

 

[Earls Smother]

There really are 3 possible scenarios - lost, family cover-up, or abducted.

In the absence of an answer after 10 years, as well as no genuine evidence pointing in a particular direction, ask yourself this question, "Which of the scenarios is most likely to have occurred without leaving any genuine evidence?"

1. Lost. Highly improbable that he could have got far. The search got underway very quickly and covered an area that was plenty large enough. The dogs didn't react to anything beyond the boundary of the property. There was not a shred of clothing, hair, footwear left anywhere, despite extremely dense bushland.

2. Family cover up for accident or reckless act resulting in death. This scenario almost certainly would have left a trail of evidence. An unplanned death on a relatively unfamiliar property, involving inexperienced "criminal/s", using a known car, transporting and disposing of a body, burying/hiding said body within limited distance, removing any forensic traces sufficiently in a matter of minutes, then carrying on a charade for a decade despite LE surveillance. Really?

3. Abduction. The very nature of a random abduction means it is likely to be either, a) detected straight away, because someone saw something (car, rego, description of driver etc.), b) detected reasonably quickly because an obvious suspect can be linked (phone tracking, CCTV etc.), or c) not detected for years because no-one sees anything, someone does see something but doesn't realise it is important, or police ignore a vital piece of reported information.

For mine it is 3c), not because the evidence says so directly, but because of what the evidence doesn't say in relation to the alternative scenarios.

 

[Kurve]

Exactly. In this thread it is like there can only be one hypothesis/perpetrator and it needs to be made to fit.

It's like Kurve is a lecturer who has given his/her students a task to establish how the FM did it and has managed to get away with it for 10 years.

It wasn't until the fosters were charged and the Commissioner said the FM was the sole person of interest that eyes turned to her in here.

That's not on us but of course then she became the focus and regardless of how many times I make notices or issue warnings, until we hear back from either the Coroner or the ODPP of no charges, it will probably stay that way and there's very little I can actually do about it, tbf.

A few of us have tried to steer the conversation in a different direction but it always somehow returns to the current fixation.

While we wait and in a vacuum of information, something usually fills the thread space if I look forward to being able to move off further discussion about and draw a line under those spiderman images.

BTW I was shopping today in a kids clothing store and found a heap of spiderman gear, hmmm I don't think so and walked out.

 

[31550]

There really are 3 possible scenarios - lost, family cover-up, or abducted.

In the absence of an answer after 10 years, as well as no genuine evidence pointing in a particular direction, ask yourself this question, "Which of the scenarios is most likely to have occurred without leaving any genuine evidence?"

1. Lost. Highly improbable that he could have got far. The search got underway very quickly and covered an area that was plenty large enough. The dogs didn't react to anything beyond the boundary of the property. There was not a shred of clothing, hair, footwear left anywhere, despite extremely dense bushland.

2. Family cover up for accident or reckless act resulting in death. This scenario almost certainly would have left a trail of evidence. An unplanned death on a relatively unfamiliar property, involving inexperienced "criminal/s", using a known car, transporting and disposing of a body, burying/hiding said body within limited distance, removing any forensic traces sufficiently in a matter of minutes, then carrying on a charade for a decade despite LE surveillance. Really?

3. Abduction. The very nature of a random abduction means it is likely to be either, a) detected straight away, because someone saw something (car, rego, description of driver etc.), b) detected reasonably quickly because an obvious suspect can be linked (phone tracking, CCTV etc.), or c) not detected for years because no-one sees anything, someone does see something but doesn't realise it is important, or police ignore a vital piece of reported information.

For mine it is 3c), not because the evidence says so directly, but because of what the evidence doesn't say in relation to the alternative scenarios.

I agree in general of your assessment of the various scenarios.
Where I differ is in the assignment of likelihood / probabilities.

Considering only scenario 2 and scenario 3(c) for the time being:

• home accidents involving toddlers are quite common in a family home / any residence, whereas opportunistic abductions from a family home / private residence are extremely rare. When you consider just the location of Benaroon Drive and the position of the house at the end of a virtual cul-de-sac, the chances of a random abduction are incredibly low.
• the observations re scenario 3(c) - "no-one sees anything, someone does see something but doesn't realise it is important, or police ignore a vital piece of reported information" applies equally to scenario 2. In fact probably moreso - police were pursuing the 'abduction' narrative publicly, so the public would have had increased awareness about seeing strangers or strange vehicles, or small boys in the area. However, with scenario 2, police did not go public and ask if anyone had seen FM or FGM or FF anywhere - they couldn't, because their identities are secret. They did not even publicly release details about the FM drive in FGM car for about seven years - so it is quite possible that somebody did see something of importance and not realise when considering scenario 2.
• Your analysis of scenario 2 and evaluation is not fact-based but narrative-based - you are assuming that the FM drove her mothers' car when and where she said she drove it. We don't know any of this for an absolute fact. How can you say there were no know forensic traces if you don't know exactly where she went and hence where to look? You are also assuming other aspects of the narrative affecting the timeline are true with respect to the FM and FGM - otherwise either one fo them could have gone virtually anywhere in a 10-15km radius in any vehicle without detection. "removing any forensic traces sufficiently in a matter of minutes" is an assumption based on narrative. We don't know what forensic traces there may have been which were ignored or overlooked (injury to FM hand is one that certainly was!) - and there was more than a matter of minutes - the FF was not present at the house on the Saturday morning and was supposedly 'out on his own looking for William' - who knows where he went or what he could have achieved during this time period?
• There is also the $1M reward which nobody has claimed. In the case of an abduction, somebody usually knows something and there is no honour amongst thieves.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Exactly. In this thread it is like there can only be one hypothesis/perpetrator and it needs to be made to fit.

It's like Kurve is a lecturer who has given his/her students a task to establish how the FM did it and has managed to get away with it for 10 years.

Opinions and conjecture

I don't think FM did it at all. I think the FF time from 8.40 to 10.30 is a fake alibi based upon substituted photos and timestamp manipulation. I think W went missing at 8 when the FGM and FF couldn't work out who was there or saw each other and FF on FGMs notion had left to go 3 min that took 40 min

I keep looking for and posting anomalies to show photo errors

Another one here. Photo of kitchen window allegedly on 12th showing NO plants in window sill. Then 6 days later at FGM walk through there were 3 plants in window sill.

Sooooooo whilst her Grandson went missing probably dead and a command centre was centre stage at the premises hundreds going looking in every direction....the FGM decided to go buy three new plants for the window sill. You honestly think she has the energy and inclination from depths of despair to do that? My grandson has been taken, molested and killed by a pedophile....I might just redecorate my plants and do some gardening.

Sorry no i don't..

 

[jason_recliner]

Opinions and conjecture

I don't think FM did it at all. I think the FF time from 8.40 to 10.30 is a fake alibi based upon substituted photos and timestamp manipulation. I think W went missing at 8 when the FGM and FF couldn't work out who was there or saw each other and FF on FGMs notion had left to go 3 min that took 40 min

I keep looking for and posting anomalies to show photo errors

Another one here. Photo of kitchen window allegedly on 12th showing NO plants in window sill. Then 6 days later at FGM walk through there were 3 plants in window sill.

Sooooooo whilst her Grandson went missing probably dead and a command centre was centre stage at the premises hundreds going looking in every direction....the FGM decided to go buy three new plants for the window sill. You honestly think she has the energy and inclination from depths of despair to do that? My grandson has been taken, molested and killed by a pedophile....I might just redecorate my plants and do some gardening.

Sorry no i don't..

The blue pot plant is clearly visible in the second pic. The others aren't shown (if they are present and we have no reason to believe they aren't) because the window is out of frame.

 

[Kurve]

Opinions and conjecture

I don't think FM did it at all. I think the FF time from 8.40 to 10.30 is a fake alibi based upon substituted photos and timestamp manipulation. I think W went missing at 8 when the FGM and FF couldn't work out who was there or saw each other and FF on FGMs notion had left to go 3 min that took 40 min

I keep looking for and posting anomalies to show photo errors

Another one here. Photo of kitchen window allegedly on 12th showing NO plants in window sill. Then 6 days later at FGM walk through there were 3 plants in window sill.

Sooooooo whilst her Grandson went missing probably dead and a command centre was centre stage at the premises hundreds going looking in every direction....the FGM decided to go buy three new plants for the window sill. You honestly think she has the energy and inclination from depths of despair to do that? My grandson has been taken, molested and killed by a pedophile....I might just redecorate my plants and do some gardening.

Sorry no i don't..

That's a double sliding window, the second image is only showing half of it and from an entirely different angle.

 

[Kurve]

Opinions and conjecture

I don't think FM did it at all. I think the FF time from 8.40 to 10.30 is a fake alibi based upon substituted photos and timestamp manipulation. I think W went missing at 8 when the FGM and FF couldn't work out who was there or saw each other and FF on FGMs notion had left to go 3 min that took 40 min

I keep looking for and posting anomalies to show photo errors

Another one here. Photo of kitchen window allegedly on 12th showing NO plants in window sill. Then 6 days later at FGM walk through there were 3 plants in window sill.

Sooooooo whilst her Grandson went missing probably dead and a command centre was centre stage at the premises hundreds going looking in every direction....the FGM decided to go buy three new plants for the window sill. You honestly think she has the energy and inclination from depths of despair to do that? My grandson has been taken, molested and killed by a pedophile....I might just redecorate my plants and do some gardening.

Sorry no i don't..

Why stage such an elaborate set up substituting images and then not doing it properly by leaving obvious tells? Especially when they didn't have to.

 

[Earls Smother]

I agree in general of your assessment of the various scenarios.
Where I differ is in the assignment of likelihood / probabilities.

Considering only scenario 2 and scenario 3(c) for the time being:

• home accidents involving toddlers are quite common in a family home / any residence, whereas opportunistic abductions from a family home / private residence are extremely rare. When you consider just the location of Benaroon Drive and the position of the house at the end of a virtual cul-de-sac, the chances of a random abduction are incredibly low.
• the observations re scenario 3(c) - "no-one sees anything, someone does see something but doesn't realise it is important, or police ignore a vital piece of reported information" applies equally to scenario 2. In fact probably moreso - police were pursuing the 'abduction' narrative publicly, so the public would have had increased awareness about seeing strangers or strange vehicles, or small boys in the area. However, with scenario 2, police did not go public and ask if anyone had seen FM or FGM or FF anywhere - they couldn't, because their identities are secret. They did not even publicly release details about the FM drive in FGM car for about seven years - so it is quite possible that somebody did see something of importance and not realise when considering scenario 2.
• Your analysis of scenario 2 and evaluation is not fact-based but narrative-based - you are assuming that the FM drove her mothers' car when and where she said she drove it. We don't know any of this for an absolute fact. How can you say there were no know forensic traces if you don't know exactly where she went and hence where to look? You are also assuming other aspects of the narrative affecting the timeline are true with respect to the FM and FGM - otherwise either one fo them could have gone virtually anywhere in a 10-15km radius in any vehicle without detection. "removing any forensic traces sufficiently in a matter of minutes" is an assumption based on narrative. We don't know what forensic traces there may have been which were ignored or overlooked (injury to FM hand is one that certainly was!) - and there was more than a matter of minutes - the FF was not present at the house on the Saturday morning and was supposedly 'out on his own looking for William' - who knows where he went or what he could have achieved during this time period?
• There is also the $1M reward which nobody has claimed. In the case of an abduction, somebody usually knows something and there is no honour amongst thieves.

I agree that scenario 2 (the actual accident/incident) is way more likely to occur than 3c).

Where it goes off the rails, is the actual hiding/disposal of the body. That is NOT a common or likely scenario and would in fact be rarer than an abduction. When has this ever happened before? The motive put forward is the loss of the FD due to negligence in regard to William. If someone had a week to think about all the repercussions, then maybe a nutcase might go down that path.

If a child (foster or otherwise) is injured or killed whilst under the care of their guardian, the first response is going to be to seek medical assistance or provide CPR or scream for help. NO-ONE is going to come to such an immediate decision to conceal what has occurred, particularly with other family in FGM and his sister present at the property. Not to mention the neighbours who could be looking out their front windows.

My analysis of scenario 2 doesn't have to be fact based for the riders to apply. It is a fact that the body is not there, so it must have been disposed of. We know she/they had to use a car that they owned - they didn't steal one. Yes, she could have gone elsewhere, but that would suggest the police are imbeciles who just dig very expensive holes for the sake of it. The FF left on Saturday morning when the command post was operational (had been all night) and night searchers were out and about. He couldn't have taken a vehicle undetected, so it is pie-in-the-sky nonsense to suggest he moved a body. FM's hand injury was reasonably explained, it wasn't "overlooked".

The million dollar reward could equally apply to friends or relatives of the fosters who smelt a rat.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes agreed..so she may have MOVED the pot plants whilst during this time span when all that was happening at her house in her life and her grandsons..ok. is that the explanation?.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Why stage such an elaborate set up substituting images and then not doing it properly by leaving obvious tells? Especially when they didn't have to.

Because whatever photos that day were revealing and couldn't be used.....like McD type revealing

Elaborate? Edits alone are elaborate. Cloning old images as well not much more TBH.

But having no scrutiny at all on 7.39 to 9.37 has been a godsend

 

[Awakening]

Wow, you're a strange one 31550! I suggested this very same thing years ago in my post #7929. You poo-pood it in no uncertain terms, as you usually do. You were so dismissive that l suggested you be awarded a trophy for the biggest poo-pooer here. Go back and read from #7929 onwards!

I knew I’d read it before and I believe I responded about why I didn’t believe this theory based on my own experience of anti-anxiety meds.

Seems like FGM isn’t the only one with memory problems.

 

[31550]

I agree that scenario 2 (the actual accident/incident) is way more likely to occur than 3c).

Where it goes off the rails, is the actual hiding/disposal of the body. That is NOT a common or likely scenario and would in fact be rarer than an abduction. When has this ever happened before? The motive put forward is the loss of the FD due to negligence in regard to William. If someone had a week to think about all the repercussions, then maybe a nutcase might go down that path.

If a child (foster or otherwise) is injured or killed whilst under the care of their guardian, the first response is going to be to seek medical assistance or provide CPR or scream for help. NO-ONE is going to come to such an immediate decision to conceal what has occurred, particularly with other family in FGM and his sister present at the property. Not to mention the neighbours who could be looking out their front windows.

My analysis of scenario 2 doesn't have to be fact based for the riders to apply. It is a fact that the body is not there, so it must have been disposed of. We know she/they had to use a car that they owned - they didn't steal one. Yes, she could have gone elsewhere, but that would suggest the police are imbeciles who just dig very expensive holes for the sake of it. The FF left on Saturday morning when the command post was operational (had been all night) and night searchers were out and about. He couldn't have taken a vehicle undetected, so it is pie-in-the-sky nonsense to suggest he moved a body. FM's hand injury was reasonably explained, it wasn't "overlooked".

The million dollar reward could equally apply to friends or relatives of the fosters who smelt a rat.

Perhaps scenario 2 needs to be split?
2 (a) genuine accident and subsequent coverup
2 (b) death as a result of reckless, careless, negligent act on behalf of someone other than William, and a cover-up.

2 (a) would not normally warrant concealment unless there is another reason: e.g. autopsy might reveal physical abuse. Or, say the adult had some psychotic episode. Another reason is perhaps the accident was caused by William's sister, and the coverup was to protect her? All hypothetical. I am not suggesting any of this is the case, just presenting alternative explanations.

In the case of 2(b) however, a cover-up or attempted cover-up might be a very common course of action. The consequences of the truth coming out are far more severe than just losing FD!

"We know she/they had to use a car that they owned" - again this is narrative, not fact. Yes, it is likely, but we don't know that a third-party was not engaged to come over with a vehicle.

Yes, she could have gone elsewhere, but that would suggest the police are imbeciles who just dig very expensive holes for the sake of it. - no not necessarily imbeciles, they had to investigate based on what they were told. And they did, in fact go on to dig very expensive holes in other locations to no avail.

The FF left on Saturday morning when the command post was operational (had been all night) and night searchers were out and about. He couldn't have taken a vehicle undetected - again this is narrative not fact. Do you know for a fact the command post was physically manned all night? Do you know for a fact ground searchers were in Benaroon drive and FGM driveway all night? Why would they be looking there? More likely to be searching bushland etc - clearly William was not in the street or the driveway. How would they know it was FF, or his car if they saw him?

FM's hand injury was reasonably explained, it wasn't "overlooked". No, her narrative was accepted without investigation. No forensic analysis of the wound is on record. This is literally 'overlooked'.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I knew I’d read it before and I believe I responded about why I didn’t believe this theory based on my own experience of anti-anxiety meds.

Seems like FGM isn’t the only one with memory problems.

Amongst other things.

 

[Underarrest_]

Police theory is FM has removed and disposed of William.
What evidence do police have that William was deceased before he left the property?

 

[31550]

I knew I’d read it before and I believe I responded about why I didn’t believe this theory based on my own experience of anti-anxiety meds.

Seems like FGM isn’t the only one with memory problems.

The discussion was primarily about Xanax and Valium if I remember correctly. And my doubts were around the ability of a 3YO to accidentally or voluntarily ingest enough of one of these for it to be instantly fatal.

Since then I have researched some other anti-anxiety medications and discovered that there are several common ones which even a moderate dose could potentially result in a seizure within a couple of hours if ingested by a very young child.
That's why I brought the subject up again and asked if anyone knew specifically which meds FF took.

Also since that discussion, it has become clear to me that the FM drive in her mothers' car fits the timeline of before FF returned home, rather than afterwards, and hence the explanation 'looking for William' is less believable. Further, police have floated allegations of 'interfere with a corpse', so I am exploring theories which encompass this behaviour.

 

[31550]

Police theory is FM has removed and disposed of William.
What evidence do police have that William was deceased before he left the property?

AFAIK they don't have any evidence that he is deceased at all.
Except that nobody has seen him since the 'Roar' photograph.
But the coronial inquest is based on the premise that he is deceased.
Whether the police believe he died on the property or elsewhere has not been disclosed, so we don't know what evidence they might have one way or the other.

 

[Earls Smother]

Perhaps scenario 2 needs to be split?
2 (a) genuine accident and subsequent coverup
2 (b) death as a result of reckless, careless, negligent act on behalf of someone other than William, and a cover-up.

2 (a) would not normally warrant concealment unless there is another reason: e.g. autopsy might reveal physical abuse. Or, say the adult had some psychotic episode. Another reason is perhaps the accident was caused by William's sister, and the coverup was to protect her? All hypothetical. I am not suggesting any of this is the case, just presenting alternative explanations.

In the case of 2(b) however, a cover-up or attempted cover-up might be a very common course of action. The consequences of the truth coming out are far more severe than just losing FD!

"We know she/they had to use a car that they owned" - again this is narrative, not fact. Yes, it is likely, but we don't know that a third-party was not engaged to come over with a vehicle.

Yes, she could have gone elsewhere, but that would suggest the police are imbeciles who just dig very expensive holes for the sake of it. - no not necessarily imbeciles, they had to investigate based on what they were told. And they did, in fact go on to dig very expensive holes in other locations to no avail.

The FF left on Saturday morning when the command post was operational (had been all night) and night searchers were out and about. He couldn't have taken a vehicle undetected - again this is narrative not fact. Do you know for a fact the command post was physically manned all night? Do you know for a fact ground searchers were in Benaroon drive and FGM driveway all night? Why would they be looking there? More likely to be searching bushland etc - clearly William was not in the street or the driveway. How would they know it was FF, or his car if they saw him?

FM's hand injury was reasonably explained, it wasn't "overlooked". No, her narrative was accepted without investigation. No forensic analysis of the wound is on record. This is literally 'overlooked'.

2(b) or not 2(b), that is the question.

Reminds me of a Three Investigators book I read as a teenager - The Mystery of the Stuttering Parrot.

I favour 3(c), others don't, I get that.

I'm pretty certain it's not 4(A), subsection 2(iii), Chapter 6(e), where William has been dismembered and buried in a planter box that is continually moved to capture maximum warmth.

 

[Underarrest_]

AFAIK they don't have any evidence that he is deceased at all.
Except that nobody has seen him since the 'Roar' photograph.
But the coronial inquest is based on the premise that he is deceased.
Whether the police believe he died on the property or elsewhere has not been disclosed, so we don't know what evidence they might have one way or the other.

What ever evidence police do or don’t have to say that William was deceased when disposed of is important. We don’t know what evidence they do or don’t have.

 

[Lady O]

It wasn't until the fosters were charged and the Commissioner said the FM was the sole person of interest that eyes turned to her in here.

That's not on us but of course then she became the focus and regardless of how many times I make notices or issue warnings, until we hear back from either the Coroner or the ODPP of no charges, it will probably stay that way and there's very little I can actually do about it, tbf.

A few of us have tried to steer the conversation in a different direction but it always somehow returns to the current fixation.

While we wait and in a vacuum of information, something usually fills the thread space if I look forward to being able to move off further discussion about and draw a line under those spiderman images.

BTW I was shopping today in a kids clothing store and found a heap of spiderman gear, hmmm I don't think so and walked out.

Well, I don't think you can blame posters for concentrating on the theory that has been put forward by the Police. If they think FM disposed of WT after a fatal accident, we can only assume that they have evidence to support this theory.

However, I have never dismissed the other popular theories; wandered off and was lost/subsequent died in the bush; abducted by 'someone' and murdered/disposed of. Really, unless they find a corpse, we should never dismiss the possibility that an abductor could have kept him alive and well and living as a family member in a remote location.