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?

 

[Underarrest_]

Just putting it out there, If it can be believed that FM would just dump William somewhere without any regard to him, why isn’t it a possibility that William was given to someone?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

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.

The crime

Misconduct With Regard to Corpses is an offence under section 81C of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison. To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that..You indecently interfered with any dead human body..

This would include hiding a body.....moving a dead body....transporting a dead body.

If you caused the dead body then possible manslaughter or murder change.

If they were convinced that there was an accident causing death they can then seek the 81C charge.

The crunch all cones down to the timestamps being manipulated.. if they are then charges will be upgraded..

 

[Lady O]

Just putting it out there, If it can be believed that FM would just dump William somewhere without any regard to him, why isn’t it a possibility that William was given to someone?

That is not how the police have suggested it happened.

 

[Underarrest_]

That is not how the police have suggested it happened.

Yes that’s true which is why police surely have evidence to support their theory.
If there’s no evidence of their theory anything’s possible. IMO.

 

[Lady O]

Yes that’s true which is why police surely have evidence to support their theory.
If there’s no evidence of their theory anything’s possible. IMO.

Yeah, but I think Kurve is trying to keep us on a track that aligns with what the investigators are suggesting. We can come up with any number of wild theories, backed up by next to no evidence or something someone thought they saw reflected in a window in a photo, but it is not something that should be discussed on the forum, due to absolutely no evidence.

I doubt the Police would put forward a theory like this without something to back it up. They don't normally publicly accuse the carers/fosters/parents of a victim without solid evidence. So whilst they may not be able to prove their theory, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That is not how the police have suggested it happened.

That's not how the NARRATIVE regarding how the police have suggest PUBLICLY it happened..

 

[Underarrest_]

Yeah, but I think Kurve is trying to keep us on a track that aligns with what the investigators are suggesting. We can come up with any number of wild theories, backed up by next to no evidence or something someone thought they saw reflected in a window in a photo, but it is not something that should be discussed on the forum, due to absolutely no evidence.

I doubt the Police would put forward a theory like this without something to back it up. They don't normally publicly accuse the carers/fosters/parents of a victim without solid evidence. So whilst they may not be able to prove their theory, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

My post has nothing to do with reflections in a window.
Whatever time the photos were taken, William disappeared.
There’s been a number of wild theories on here.
The point I was getting at is that police surely have some evidence that William was deceased when he was ‘disposed of’ (they might) or otherwise anything is possible. IMO

 

[Awakening]

We need Cordelia Cupp on the case.

 

[31550]

Just putting it out there, If it can be believed that FM would just dump William somewhere without any regard to him, why isn’t it a possibility that William was given to someone?

There is no need to give him to someone if he's alive. If she didn't want to foster him any more she could have just given him back to FACS. She would only dump him if there was a motive to dump him. IMO this is because his death implicates her or someone close to her. If she really wanted to just dispose of him completely she could have done so quite easily without faking a disappearance: go on a 'picnic' deep in the bush, drop him down a mineshaft and then pretend to search for him for several hours before reporting him lost, wandered off in the bush, just for example. No need for mysterious cars, photos, or other confusing elements of narrative.

 

[jason_recliner]

There is no need to give him to someone if he's alive. If she didn't want to foster him any more she could have just given him back to FACS. She would only dump him if there was a motive to dump him. IMO this is because his death implicates her or someone close to her. If she really wanted to just dispose of him completely she could have done so quite easily without faking a disappearance: go on a 'picnic' deep in the bush, drop him down a mineshaft and then pretend to search for him for several hours before reporting him lost, wandered off in the bush, just for example. No need for mysterious cars, photos, or other confusing elements of narrative.

Also no need to raise the alarm 90 minutes after he's died, not giving her enough time to get away with an extraordinarily complex crime.

 

[winyhill]

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

You missed infanticide and siblicide. As well as elaborate plot to sell him into sexual slavery to a paedophile ring.

 

[winyhill]

doubt the Police would put forward a theory like this without something to back it up. They don't normally publicly accuse the carers/fosters/parents of a victim without solid evidence. So whilst they may not be able to prove their theory, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Oh please,. Police putting forward theory without evidence to back it up? I just can't believe they would do that! And expose the NSW taxpayers to millions in compensation for malicious and unreasonable prosecution.
Now where did we hear that?

 

[Underarrest_]

There is no need to give him to someone if he's alive. If she didn't want to foster him any more she could have just given him back to FACS. She would only dump him if there was a motive to dump him. IMO this is because his death implicates her or someone close to her. If she really wanted to just dispose of him completely she could have done so quite easily without faking a disappearance: go on a 'picnic' deep in the bush, drop him down a mineshaft and then pretend to search for him for several hours before reporting him lost, wandered off in the bush, just for example. No need for mysterious cars, photos, or other confusing elements of narrative.

You could be right.
If you look at it this way FM could have handed William back to FACS at anytime, but she didn’t. Even when she was sending emails, admittedly struggling. This doesn’t mean she’d just disregard his little life.

 

[Merlina]

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.

If the foster family was involved, I think the motive was a lot stronger then loss of FD due to negligence. I think someone would have been looking at potential jail time. My opinion is that there might have been a cover up because the stakes were very high for someone.

Something about William's body might have implicated them. Or if things looked suspicious to first responders, the immediate creation of a crime scene with forensic analysis and drug & alcohol testing might have been problematic. This is just speculation and my opinion of course.

That's not how the NARRATIVE regarding how the police have suggest PUBLICLY it happened..

I agree with this. My feeling is that there is a public narrative. I find it hard to believe that FM is their only POI. I think it might be a tactic. I believe if FM was involved, so was FF. Again, just my opinion.

We need Cordelia Cupp on the case.

Well I had to Google that and I'm glad I did!

 

[31550]

Also no need to raise the alarm 90 minutes after he's died, not giving her enough time to get away with an extraordinarily complex crime.

There would if your husband came home and you told him your foster son was missing, and he asked why you hadn't called the police.

 

[Lady O]

Oh please,. Police putting forward theory without evidence to back it up? I just can't believe they would do that! And expose the NSW taxpayers to millions in compensation for malicious and unreasonable prosecution.
Now where did we hear that?

And when does the FM's case for malicious prosecution against NSW Police go to court?

 

[passball]

IMO

With the FGM going on about the chemist and really drilling it in to the Police.
Could it be that by saying it was so important FF gets his meds would make it seem he ran out and therefore there were no meds that William could accidently have taken.
As far as FF alibi, he would have to have gone to his meeting and visit the chemist because he was already committed to both to fit the narrative. By not going would seem a bit suss, especially when the child in your care goes missing. He needs that alibi and extra time.

I'm going to go off that the Police are looking at FM as was suggested and believing that they know something.
Whether that has possibly come from information from a witness who might have heard it from another witness who was even there on the day.
That witness might know what but have no idea where the body is, just that is was moved, interfered with.
Makes me wonder if this person who knows this is family.

IMO

 

[passball]

And when does the FM's case for malicious prosecution against NSW Police go to court?

Who knows? Maybe about now since the idea is out there.
Shame the FM didn't show any compassion towards the washing machine repairer or the postie loving neighbour when their names were being thrown around the media.

IMO

 

[shorsky]

We need Cordelia Cupp on the case.

She just might provide the much required shake-up.

Publicly documented evidence appears to be limited to:
the capture of the 4 members of the family on Macca’s CCTV
the FF’s vehicle clocked on tennis court CCTV at approx 8.45am ( considering they had to ask people to come forward to identify their vehicles on the ‘slide show’ are they even sure it was FF at the time, or did he say Yeah, that’s me ??)

I don’t list the iconic deck photos because I’ve heard of no word from the Coroner as to their validation, despite her orders to have them analysed.

On the basis of ‘lack of facts’ I find it impossible to come to a decision on what happened.
As much as so much of the narrative gives me the ‘icks’, that’s no enough to condemn anyone, so I’m trying desperately to remain open-minded while I question all suggested behaviours and ponder over all possibilities.

I find it bizarre that police would publicly state their belief that FM is responsible for William’s disappearance. …. I wonder how long she waits before launching a huge compensation claim ! Perhaps she thinks she will be exonerated by the Coroner

After all this time IMO a different approach is desperately called for.

 

[shorsky]

IMO

With the FGM going on about the chemist and really drilling it in to the Police.
Could it be that by saying it was so important FF gets his meds would make it seem he ran out and therefore there were no meds that William could accidently have taken.
As far as FF alibi, he would have to have gone to his meeting and visit the chemist because he was already committed to both to fit the narrative. By not going would seem a bit suss, especially when the child in your care goes missing. He needs that alibi and extra time.

I'm going to go off that the Police are looking at FM as was suggested and believing that they know something.
Whether that has possibly come from information from a witness who might have heard it from another witness who was even there on the day.
That witness might know what but have no idea where the body is, just that is was moved, interfered with.
Makes me wonder if this person who knows this is family.

IMO

It has always stuck in my mind that at the end of the previous tranche of the Inquest (COVID time) the police stated ‘ a new witness has come forward, someone we’ve not known about before, and that person is assisting ‘

Please don’t ask me to find a link as it’s too long ago. …. so I’ll just say in my opinion

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It has always stuck in my mind that at the end of the previous tranche of the Inquest (COVID time) the police stated ‘ a new witness has come forward, someone we’ve not known about before, and that person is assisting ‘

Please don’t ask me to find a link as it’s too long ago. …. so I’ll just say in my opinion

I don't think police have been open and transparent at all regarding their strategy or their evidence. Based upon what I know has been reported by others i can surmise that they are acting as though they are fully cognizant. There is a dramatic suprise looming I hope

 

[Earls Smother]

If the foster family was involved, I think the motive was a lot stronger then loss of FD due to negligence. I think someone would have been looking at potential jail time. My opinion is that there might have been a cover up because the stakes were very high for someone.

Something about William's body might have implicated them. Or if things looked suspicious to first responders, the immediate creation of a crime scene with forensic analysis and drug & alcohol testing might have been problematic. This is just speculation and my opinion of course.


I agree with this. My feeling is that there is a public narrative. I find it hard to believe that FM is their only POI. I think it might be a tactic. I believe if FM was involved, so was FF. Again, just my opinion.


Well I had to Google that and I'm glad I did!

People here constantly talk of the narrative created by the foster family.

The narrative in your first 2 paragraphs has basically been created by people here. Where is there any evidence for that? Why would they take him to see Grandma if his body was riddled with telltale signs of something sinister? How would he play on the verandah, climb a tree or stairs, or ride a bike, if he was somehow full of drugs or alcohol?

There is not one thing to support any of the above nonsense. It is not even narrative, it is made-up rubbish to support the theory on here.

I have asked multiple times and no-one can answer. When has it ever happened before that a person/family has hidden a corpse after an accidental or reckless death? It would be far rarer than an actual abduction. The figure of 3% has been bandied about by the agitated ruby bovine for a death where someone other than the family is responsible. The figure for deliberate cover up of an accidental or reckless death would be less than 1% and yet people say it can't be an abduction?

In regard to paragraph 3, it was stated during the last tranche of the inquest that there were over 700 POI's.

 

[winyhill]

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?.

Are you talking about the pot plants on the verandah? They were on wheels.
Or the small pot on the inside kitchen window sill? That would be moved regularly as part of wiping down the kitchen when washing dishes.

 

[Earls Smother]

I don't think police have been open and transparent at all regarding their strategy or their evidence. Based upon what I know has been reported by others i can surmise that they are acting as though they are fully cognizant. There is a dramatic suprise looming I hope

What are they waiting for?

It doesn't matter what the Coroner finds in terms of how that would influence a jury. They either have the evidence to prosecute or they don't. They don't seem to be actively seeking further evidence (or any) in relation to their "theory", so what are they doing? The Coroner is not going to suddenly give them a big green tick to proceed to DPP, because they are uncertain how to go about their own job.

 

[31550]

What are they waiting for?

It doesn't matter what the Coroner finds in terms of how that would influence a jury. They either have the evidence to prosecute or they don't. They don't seem to be actively seeking further evidence (or any) in relation to their "theory", so what are they doing? The Coroner is not going to suddenly give them a big green tick to proceed to DPP, because they are uncertain how to go about their own job.

If the police have new evidence which would impact the findings of the Coroner, they would usually approach the coroner to get the inquest paused while they pursue that line of investigation. The inquest is not paused, it is vacated.
So I think police either have no new evidence, or their new evidence will not impact the coroners findings.