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?

 

[Merlina]

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.

I was responding to your mention of motive and looking at the possible reasons someone would be willing to take the risk of a cover up. I think that a cover up would be unusual and very risky in these circumstances.

That's why I believe the motive has to be strong. If there was a cover up, they perceived the risk to be worth it.

I was talking quite broadly when I mentioned William's body. I didn't just mean potential signs of prior abuse (although possible, I think that's the least likely), but was thinking something about his injuries or an autopsy might suggest (for example) that he was hit by a car, or struck with something, or manually strangled, or something else that suggested someone else's involvement in his death, whether accidental or not.

Or assessment of the time of death might suggest a delay in reporting.

Regarding drugs and alcohol testing, I was thinking more of the adults rather than William.

I think that there is some circumstantial evidence available to support a cover up theory (the FM's drive), but it is not strong. There's not much evidence of anything - publicly available anyway.

I am not saying that I would consider the FPs guilty if I was on a jury - I wouldn't with the evidence that is publicly available. I am just brainstorming and looking at theories.

All my own opinion and speculation.

 

[31550]

possible reasons someone would be willing to take the risk of a cover up.

• Fear, shame, self-preservation (real or misguided)
• Fear of legal consequences, societal judgement
• Denial of loss, denial of reality, denial of responsibility,
• Protection of another person
• Avoidance of public scrutiny

Human emotions are complex. Different people might have different 'reasons', depending on their personality, beliefs, and value systems.

 

[31550]

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?

I find this argument somewhat hypocritical. You accuse the OP of using narrative to support their theory, yet you yourself use the fosters narrative of tree-climbing, bike-riding etc. to make your point. We don't know for a fact William did any of those things.
Why take him to Grandma's? What choice did they have if they needed to go there before she sold the house? They had to take the children. Do you think they were going to board them like the cats?
He didn't necessarily have to be 'full of drugs or alcohol' or have visible or obvious injuries - what is being suggested (I believe) is that an autopsy and/or toxicology report may have revealed something sinister.
If his death was caused by say, suffocation, drowning, electrical shock, blunt-force trauma, then this would be inconsistent with a 'pure accident' explanation, and may be cause for possible further criminal investigation beyond 'interfere with a corpse'.

 

[Earls Smother]

I was responding to your mention of motive and looking at the possible reasons someone would be willing to take the risk of a cover up. I think that a cover up would be unusual and very risky in these circumstances.

That's why I believe the motive has to be strong. If there was a cover up, they perceived the risk to be worth it.

I was talking quite broadly when I mentioned William's body. I didn't just mean potential signs of prior abuse (although possible, I think that's the least likely), but was thinking something about his injuries or an autopsy might suggest (for example) that he was hit by a car, or struck with something, or manually strangled, or something else that suggested someone else's involvement in his death, whether accidental or not.

Or assessment of the time of death might suggest a delay in reporting.

Regarding drugs and alcohol testing, I was thinking more of the adults rather than William.

I think that there is some circumstantial evidence available to support a cover up theory (the FM's drive), but it is not strong. There's not much evidence of anything - publicly available anyway.

I am not saying that I would consider the FPs guilty if I was on a jury - I wouldn't with the evidence that is publicly available. I am just brainstorming and looking at theories.

All my own opinion and speculation.

Fair enough.

The only one of those that I could see a case for disposing of the corpse would be strangulation - a frustrated act that went too far and would be easily detectable for what it was. Anything else could be fairly easily explained as an accident.

I just can't see how this could happen without the FGM or sister being aware. The FGM is erratic and unreliable memory-wise, but I don't think she's a liar. It would be like Manuel (Fawlty Towers) being told not to mention the war. She would have been hopeless if she knew something sinister had occurred.

Whilst one person might make the decision to dispose of the evidence, it then relies on either keeping it together to hide it from FF, or telling him. Then it would require a second person to keep mum and hold it together, which just increases the odds incrementally of it being viable to have lasted 10 years.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

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.

Opinion and speculation

Lots of things I could suggest. Mostly to do with witness account and corroborating proof surrounding evidence that the photos were substituted including why they were and with what photos

The narrative here has arisen by close analysis of the photos and timelines, the multiple different narratives of what happened by FPs.....some may say are allegedly flagrant lies pushing an alleged abduction hoax

In the closed session coroner hearings they would have been discussing aspects of the case not yet meant to be made public. Little doubt

Yes there was something which would have been incriminating had they used any photos from that day itself. There are ways you can check for that as I have with quite alarming results.

The coroner will in my opinion find that W died at 48 on the very early morning of 12th at the hands of someone known, his body then having been hidden in a place not known by that same person. Charges will be recommended.

The whole problem has been GJ going off chasing multiple pedophiles and 'clearing' the FPs solely by listening device strategies. This wasted 5 years on false leads in my opinion..

Let's reframe it

97% by persons known
500% increase Cinderella effect
850% increase DV hands around neck

The SFR only wanted in my opinion the public to believe a body was hidden after an accident to give them more time to accumulate evidence. 40+ people..Expert photography analysis.. Other expert reports..

 

[Earls Smother]

I find this argument somewhat hypocritical. You accuse the OP of using narrative to support their theory, yet you yourself use the fosters narrative of tree-climbing, bike-riding etc. to make your point. We don't know for a fact William did any of those things.
Why take him to Grandma's? What choice did they have if they needed to go there before she sold the house? They had to take the children. Do you think they were going to board them like the cats?
He didn't necessarily have to be 'full of drugs or alcohol' or have visible or obvious injuries - what is being suggested (I believe) is that an autopsy and/or toxicology report may have revealed something sinister.
If his death was caused by say, suffocation, drowning, electrical shock, blunt-force trauma, then this would be inconsistent with a 'pure accident' explanation, and may be cause for possible further criminal investigation beyond 'interfere with a corpse'.

And I find you hypocritical. You accept the narrative that suits your version and constantly attack any alternative version as not being factual.

 

[31550]

And I find you hypocritical. You accept the narrative that suits your version and constantly attack any alternative version as not being factual.

What narrative specifically am I using in this case?

 

[Earls Smother]

Opinion and speculation

Lots of things I could suggest. Mostly to do with witness account and corroborating proof surrounding evidence that the photos were substituted including why they were and with what photos

The narrative here has arisen by close analysis of the photos and timelines, the multiple different narratives of what happened by FPs.....some may say are allegedly flagrant lies pushing an alleged abduction hoax

In the closed session coroner hearings they would have been discussing aspects of the case not yet meant to be made public. Little doubt

Yes there was something which would have been incriminating had they used any photos from that day itself. There are ways you can check for that as I have with quite alarming results.

The coroner will in my opinion find that W died at 48 on the very early morning of 12th at the hands of someone known, his body then having been hidden in a place not known by that same person. Charges will be recommended.

The whole problem has been GJ going off chasing multiple pedophiles and 'clearing' the FPs solely by listening device strategies. This wasted 5 years on false leads in my opinion..

Let's reframe it

97% by persons known
500% increase Cinderella effect
850% increase DV hands around neck

The SFR only wanted in my opinion the public to believe a body was hidden after an accident to give them more time to accumulate evidence. 40+ people..Expert photography analysis.. Other expert reports..

You have your reasons for believing that. I lean more towards us being back at square one after her verdict.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You have your reasons for believing that. I lean more towards us being back at square one after her verdict.

You assume I'm referring to FM

 

[31550]

Fair enough.

The only one of those that I could see a case for disposing of the corpse would be strangulation - a frustrated act that went too far and would be easily detectable for what it was. Anything else could be fairly easily explained as an accident.

I just can't see how this could happen without the FGM or sister being aware. The FGM is erratic and unreliable memory-wise, but I don't think she's a liar. It would be like Manuel (Fawlty Towers) being told not to mention the war. She would have been hopeless if she knew something sinister had occurred.

Whilst one person might make the decision to dispose of the evidence, it then relies on either keeping it together to hide it from FF, or telling him. Then it would require a second person to keep mum and hold it together, which just increases the odds incrementally of it being viable to have lasted 10 years.

According to FGM, she did not see FF the entire morning, so unaware of anything that happened before 8.45.
According to FGM there was no bike riding or tree climbing, and no cars in the street.
According to FGM they went straight from the breakfast table to the verandah, and that's where William disappeared from, then FM was gone for some time, FGM went down to the street and back, by which time FF returned.

We either believe FGM or we don't. She is erratic and unreliable. So either she is telling the truth or lying. If she's telling the truth she is unaware of anything happening for large periods of time - so she could be unaware of the 'drive'. Alternatively she is lying, so she could be lying about the drive. Take your pick, there are only two alternatives. FGM is dead now and cannot be interviewed.

A major problem is that no independent sworn formal statement ever seems to have been made by FGM - we just have a 15-minute walkthrough. There is no cross-examination.

As for FD - we don't know what she is aware of or unaware of. We haven't seen her give any testimony. Despite that, she was a young 4YO child who was clearly traumatised - can we rely on her testimony as being accurate and not influenced by others?

So the reality is that there remains the possibility that one person acted alone without the knowledge or assistance of any other party. Much easier for one person to keep a secret than two.

 

[Lady O]

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.

I'm not sure how that would go, seeing as neither her or FF have been identified. I don't think she could remain anonymous and it seems she is determined to do so. You get the feeling there is something else she is hiding.

 

[Earls Smother]

Opinion and speculation

Lots of things I could suggest. Mostly to do with witness account and corroborating proof surrounding evidence that the photos were substituted including why they were and with what photos

The narrative here has arisen by close analysis of the photos and timelines, the multiple different narratives of what happened by FPs.....some may say are allegedly flagrant lies pushing an alleged abduction hoax

In the closed session coroner hearings they would have been discussing aspects of the case not yet meant to be made public. Little doubt

Yes there was something which would have been incriminating had they used any photos from that day itself. There are ways you can check for that as I have with quite alarming results.

The coroner will in my opinion find that W died at 48 on the very early morning of 12th at the hands of someone known, his body then having been hidden in a place not known by that same person. Charges will be recommended.

The whole problem has been GJ going off chasing multiple pedophiles and 'clearing' the FPs solely by listening device strategies. This wasted 5 years on false leads in my opinion..

Let's reframe it

97% by persons known
500% increase Cinderella effect
850% increase DV hands around neck

The SFR only wanted in my opinion the public to believe a body was hidden after an accident to give them more time to accumulate evidence. 40+ people..Expert photography analysis.. Other expert reports..

Now I'll play Devil's Advocate and reframe it a different way. Given no-one can provide a single example of a previous instance of covering up an accidental or reckless death within a family, I will be generous and say 1%.

3% by persons unknown.
1% by family member to hide accident or reckless act.

Therefore it is at least 3 times more likely that he was abducted, than the current theory involving the foster family.

 

[Kurve]

Now I'll play Devil's Advocate and reframe it a different way. Given no-one can provide a single example of a previous instance of covering up an accidental or reckless death within a family, I will be generous and say 1%.

3% by persons unknown.
1% by family member to hide accident or reckless act.

Therefore it is at least 3 times more likely that he was abducted, than the current theory involving the foster family.

This wasn't a regular, or average family. There are elements within this family, namely that the two kids were foster children and which might factor in to the motivation to remove one after death.

 

[Underarrest_]

If I was to follow the police theory and consider feedback given by the DPP who asked if another car could have been used, I’d ask what and where is the other vehicle?
Was there another vehicle or motorbike in the garage?
Was there another car there, person visiting/going to the house?

 

[Earls Smother]

This wasn't a regular, or average family. There are elements within this family, namely that the two kids were foster children and which might factor in to the motivation to remove one after death.

The statistics take into account all events and all types of families.

If the 97-3% can be relied upon, then someone needs to show evidence of a foster family having done this previously. Otherwise the stats are completely irrelevant.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Now I'll play Devil's Advocate and reframe it a different way. Given no-one can provide a single example of a previous instance of covering up an accidental or reckless death within a family, I will be generous and say 1%.

3% by persons unknown.
1% by family member to hide accident or reckless act.

Therefore it is at least 3 times more likely that he was abducted, than the current theory involving the foster family.

No all those are related to non bio family with DV and hands being placed in neck as alleged by FD..

3% would be people who know W cause. At that location only them...500% ie 5 times increase profile death in non bio care. Then 8 tines increase if hands go around neck in DV context. It was alleged FF put hands around FD neck but wasn't proven. When you run the multiplier profile effect there is less than a 0.01 chance someone other than FPs were involved or in reverse there is a 99.99% chance they are involved..

I know the photos are substituted which proves it to me if no one else

 

[Earls Smother]

If I was to follow the police theory and consider feedback given by the DPP who asked if another car could have been used, I’d ask what and where is the other vehicle?
Was there another vehicle or motorbike in the garage?
Was there another car there, person visiting/going to the house?

The DPP would have reasonably expected forensic evidence to have been found in the "offending" vehicle.

Given the police had none from a known car, the DPP wanted to ascertain if there was possible use of another. There wasn't.

 

[Kurve]

The statistics take into account all events and all types of families.

If the 97-3% can be relied upon, then someone needs to show evidence of a foster family having done this previously. Otherwise the stats are completely irrelevant.

What does happen more often, is careless/inadquate supervision of foster children. A little boy drowned in his carer's swimming pool within one or two days of William going missing. That woman had a few kids in her care iirc, I imagine they were probably removed.

Added motivation may be the FM knew if William had an accident falling from a high balcony he shouldn't have been on unsupervised and died, her chances of adopting William's sister would go down to about zero.

I'm thinking investigators are probably taking that in to consideration.

 

[Earls Smother]

No all those are related to non bio family with DV and hands being placed in neck as alleged by FD..

3% would be people who know W cause. At that location only them...500% ie 5 times increase profile death in non bio care. Then 8 tines increase if hands go around neck in DV context. It was alleged FF put hands around FD neck but wasn't proven. When you run the multiplier profile effect there is less than a 0.01 chance someone other than FPs were involved or in reverse there is a 99.99% chance they are involved..

I know the photos are substituted which proves it to me if no one else

Well I think he was 100% abducted. Disprove that.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Well I think he was 100% abducted. Disprove that.

Don't need to..Alternative will be proven which disproves abduction.

But is ok. Is free world we can believe what we choose

 

[31550]

Now I'll play Devil's Advocate and reframe it a different way. Given no-one can provide a single example of a previous instance of covering up an accidental or reckless death within a family, I will be generous and say 1%.

3% by persons unknown.
1% by family member to hide accident or reckless act.

Therefore it is at least 3 times more likely that he was abducted, than the current theory involving the foster family.

Just because nobody immediately responded to your request does not mean that these things never happen. You might find that it happens quite often but never finds its way into mainstream media, because people are entitled to privacy, and it is usually brought about by very unfortunate family circumstances. Most of these such cases, when discovered will never be reported publicly or spoken about to protect surviving family members. Usually there are things such as mental health issues in play, and it is not in the public interest to report them widely.

There are documented cases, however if you care to look.
Kaydence Mills, for example in Australia. Jaydyn Leskie is another.
Victoria Climbie and Peter Connelly (Baby P) both in the UK.
Rilya Wilson in the USA.

There are also similar themes / allegations running through the Jon Benet Ramsay and Madeleine McCann cases, although these have not been proven in court.

 

[31550]

Well I think he was 100% abducted. Disprove that.

Good that you are keeping an open mind then.

 

[Earls Smother]

What does happen more often, is careless/inadquate supervision of foster children. A little boy drowned in his carer's swimming pool within one or two days of William going missing. That woman had a few kids in her care iirc, I imagine they were probably removed.

Added motivation may be the FM knew if William had an accident falling from a high balcony he shouldn't have been on unsupervised and died, her chances of adopting William's sister would go down to about zero.

I'm thinking investigators are probably taking that in to consideration.

And I think that first sentence may well have applied here.

He should not have been allowed out of sight long enough for people to have no idea what happened to him. That is definitely the FM's fault and she has to live with that. Most parents are a lot more comfortable if there is a second child present.

We still had a 2 year old boy drown in the street next to ours, whilst in the care of his slightly older sister. She just walked off for a few minutes which is all it took. Point is, if you're unlucky, anything can go wrong very quickly. They didn't take their other kids off them though, which is an unfair double standard.

 

[31550]

The DPP would have reasonably expected forensic evidence to have been found in the "offending" vehicle.

Given the police had none from a known car, the DPP wanted to ascertain if there was possible use of another. There wasn't.

The known car was not adequately examined at the time of the event. If it was, there would have been no need to recover it years later for further investigation.
The police were unable to identify any other vehicle which may have been used. Doesn't mean there wasn't one - just means they couldn't identify one. How many did they actually consider? Did they forensically examine every car owned by the fosters and their immediate family / neighbours / close connections? I think not.
Lack of positive evidence is not equal to negative evidence.

 

[31550]

And I think that first sentence may well have applied here.

He should not have been allowed out of sight long enough for people to have no idea what happened to him. That is definitely the FM's fault and she has to live with that. Most parents are a lot more comfortable if there is a second child present.

We still had a 2 year old boy drown in the street next to ours, whilst in the care of his slightly older sister. She just walked off for a few minutes which is all it took. Point is, if you're unlucky, anything can go wrong very quickly. They didn't take their other kids off them though, which is an unfair double standard.

The standards for bio parents will always be different to those for foster parents. Like it or not.