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 FF *Guilty Overturned on Appeal
• Stalking &/or Intimidation on FM *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?

 

[winyhill]

Back to William. It's clear a crime has been committed. We are now looking for evidence against someone in particular. How would you feel if FM was hauled before a judge with the case, "William is missing. Prove you didn't disappear him!" ?

Well, actually, that is almost what happened at the Crime Commission, as they are above the law and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply there. That is why somehow they managed to get her before that, even though that is not the type of crime that the CC is usually investigating.

But even that did not produce any evidence in the matter of William so now back to Square 1. I wonder who the next suspect will be? Blame the FGM, she is dead, that is very convenient for them? Or just file it in cold cases.

It seems to have been the Police method all along. Pick someone, then find something to pressure them with. Whether they actually had anything to do with it is secondary. They just want an arrest so they can brag about it.

 

[jason_recliner]

It didn't go to trial initially because there was no evidence Spedding did anything.

Of course, when a child says they've been abused you believe them but was it the child who said they'd been abused or was it a vengeful adult making the claim?

Given it was the officer defending the pursuit of Spedding referring to medical reports and the subsequent recent court findings that had Spedding awarded nearly $2m for malicious prosecution, I doubt theire's much of substance in them.

That's a reasonable assumption but there are all sorts of legal tricks and loopholes abusers use to get off. Casting doubt on the victim's accounts is a common one and one comment I've seen repeatedly from the judge refers to an inconsistent account or inconsistent evidence. Also accusations they were coached. Is it fair to say we don't know the content of the medical reports? I haven't been able to find details.

I'd say a parent or career made the allegations to the police initially - I wouldn't expect three and six year olds to do so, especially in 1987.

 

[Lady O]

That's a reasonable assumption but there are all sorts of legal tricks and loopholes abusers use to get off. Casting doubt on the victim's accounts is a common one and one comment I've seen repeatedly from the judge refers to an inconsistent account or inconsistent evidence. Also accusations they were coached. Is it fair to say we don't know the content of the medical reports? I haven't been able to find details.

I'd say a parent or career made the allegations to the police initially - I wouldn't expect three and six year olds to do so, especially in 1987.

Complicated by the parents being estranged. Apparently, Police formed the opinion that the accusation was made vengefully, presumably in order to give the other partner an advantage in custody and assets in the divorce.

I wonder how it would have changed things if there hadn't been a parental dispute and the children had made the same allegation?

 

[Kurve]

That's a reasonable assumption but there are all sorts of legal tricks and loopholes abusers use to get off. Casting doubt on the victim's accounts is a common one and one comment I've seen repeatedly from the judge refers to an inconsistent account or inconsistent evidence. Also accusations they were coached. Is it fair to say we don't know the content of the medical reports? I haven't been able to find details.

I'd say a parent or career made the allegations to the police initially - I wouldn't expect three and six year olds to do so, especially in 1987.

There was evidence the kids were coached, big difference.

You have to let this go, it's very unwise to continue to drag Bill Spedding in here. He didn't do it and it couldn't be any clearer.

 

[31550]

Again, William disappeared down the side of his grandmother’s house towards the backyard.​

..​

Down the street, a man on a ride-on mower cut his lawn.​

...​

Further down Benaroon Drive, the man who had been mowing his lawn said he was unaware of what was happening until, “I was on my ride-on mower and saw a police car”.​

​

from https://www.news.com.au/national/co...d/news-story/c3b76e8d4fc18401ebc17df61f45a62d​

​

We can't take this article as fact because some of the narrative is inconsistent with other evidence.​

​

But the implications are​

- "lawnmower man" was mowing his lawns when William was noticed missing,​

- lawnmower man was still mowing his lawns when police arrived, but was unaware of events.​

​

So, did FM walk right past him (twice) on the way to the bus shelter and back and not stop to ask if he'd seen William?​

Did FM drive past him (twice) on the way to BCR and back as well?​

Did any of the neighbours ask lawnmower man about William?​

​

Did police interview lawnmower man at all to establish exactly what time he was mowing on Benaroon Drive or to see if he saw any cars or people?​

 

[31550]

That's a reasonable assumption but there are all sorts of legal tricks and loopholes abusers use to get off. Casting doubt on the victim's accounts is a common one and one comment I've seen repeatedly from the judge refers to an inconsistent account or inconsistent evidence. Also accusations they were coached. Is it fair to say we don't know the content of the medical reports? I haven't been able to find details.

I'd say a parent or career made the allegations to the police initially - I wouldn't expect three and six year olds to do so, especially in 1987.

All accused people, offenders and non-offenders alike, and their lawyers will use all sorts of legal tricks and loopholes at their disposal to "get off" if they consider it worthwhile.
Fortunately, judges aren't usually idiots and can discern between fact and fiction. They can certainly decide what evidence, if any, is legally admissible and what is not. And there is an appeals process if the lawyers disagree.

 

[Kurve]

I'm drawing a line under the Bill Spedding discussion and raising questions of his involvement in any crime. In the circumstances, it's not on.

 

[Lady O]

All accused people, offenders and non-offenders alike, and their lawyers will use all sorts of legal tricks and loopholes at their disposal to "get off" if they consider it worthwhile.
Fortunately, judges aren't usually idiots and can discern between fact and fiction. They can certainly decide what evidence, if any, is legally admissible and what is not. And there is an appeals process if the lawyers disagree.

Continually letting repeat juvenile offenders out on bail so they can offend again (usually later the same day).

 

[Lady O]

I'm drawing a line under the Bill Spedding discussion and raising questions of his involvement in any crime. In the circumstances, it's not on.

I was waiting for this. Does it mean we can't discuss the potential involvement of any others? The person we cannot discuss was charged and acquitted (did it even get that far?). No other persons, except for the FPs have been implicated by Police, so are they the only ones we can discuss on the forum?

 

[Kurve]

I was waiting for this. Does it mean we can't discuss the potential involvement of any others? The person we cannot discuss was charged and acquitted (did it even get that far?). No other persons, except for the FPs have been implicated by Police, so are they the only ones we can discuss on the forum?

I was referring specifically to Bill Spedding.

 

[winyhill]

I was waiting for this. Does it mean we can't discuss the potential involvement of any others? The person we cannot discuss was charged and acquitted (did it even get that far?). No other persons, except for the FPs have been implicated by Police, so are they the only ones we can discuss on the forum?

But he was NOT charged at all in relation to William. The charges were a resurrection of trumped up charged from 30plus years ago that never got past the committal hearing.

NO-ONE has ever been charged with ANYTHING related to William's disappearance. I think that is an important point to make. Not even a speeding ticket.

 

[Kurve]

But he was NOT charged at all in relation to William. The charges were a resurrection of trumped up charged from 30plus years ago that never got past the committal hearing.

A big part of the damages Spedding was awarded, was on harm to reputation and the abuse he was subjected to by neighbours and the public.

We're not adding to it in here.

 

[Lady O]

I was referring specifically to Bill Spedding.

Ok, so everyone else is fair game except the person we cannot discuss?

 

[Kurve]

Ok, so everyone else is fair game except the person we cannot discuss?

I wouldn't say fair game, just best to leave Bill Spedding alone.

 

[31550]

Continually letting repeat juvenile offenders out on bail so they can offend again (usually later the same day).

That's a different issue. Relates to sentencing not a matter of guilt/innocence.

 

[31550]

But he was NOT charged at all in relation to William. The charges were a resurrection of trumped up charged from 30plus years ago that never got past the committal hearing.

NO-ONE has ever been charged with ANYTHING related to William's disappearance. I think that is an important point to make. Not even a speeding ticket.

The case is still open.

 

[Lady O]

That's a different issue. Relates to sentencing not a matter of guilt/innocence.

Bail awaiting court.

 

[winyhill]

The case is still open.

Sorry, which case? William Tyrell? Agree, still open, but Police just waiting for Coroner to return open finding , then they will send it to cold cases. It will still be open though.

 

[31550]

Bail awaiting court.

At the discretion of the judge, who will hear submissions from LE and determine if the person presents a threat.
Of course they don't always get it right.
A previous offender might find it harder to get bail than a first-time accused (one would think).

 

[LRitz]

Well this is new information for me and something to add to the already confusing timeline?

Yes confusing.

Just to make it clear, I was reporting on what the reporter reported that Mr Craddock reportedly reported at the opening of the inquest (2019) that had been reported to him by assumedly the FPs, FGM, police and others.

Interesting that before the the photos there is allegedly lots going on, slow to finish a big breakfast with orange juice, bike riding, tree climbing, injuring hand etc.... After 9:37 and the last photo not much happens - still drawing, throwing dice and maybe another cup of tea, and this mostly is all on the back patio.

 

[31550]

Yes confusing.

Just to make it clear, I was reporting on what the reporter reported that Mr Craddock reportedly reported at the opening of the inquest (2019) that had been reported to him by assumedly the FPs, FGM, police and others.

Interesting that before the the photos there is allegedly lots going on, slow to finish a big breakfast with orange juice, bike riding, tree climbing, injuring hand etc.... After 9:37 and the last photo not much happens - still drawing, throwing dice and maybe another cup of tea, and this mostly is all on the back patio.

Yes a hive of activity from before 9am right up until 9.37 as you mention.
Then nothing much at all happens between ~9.40 and 10.30. Tea and dice rolling, William roaring, "He's gone quiet", "Mum I can't find him!" - "Oh, the little devil!", ...
Then another hive of activity from 10.33 to 10.56. ("doing the frantic thing", talking to neighbours, walking to the bus shelter, driving to the riding school, looking for William,...)

But the middle period is supposedly when "it all happened". And he "was here five minutes ago" when FF returns at 10.33.

It's a shame Craddock didn't give us his version of what happened between 9.40 and 10.30 since he seems to have the timeline sorted in his own mind.

 

[Lady O]

Yes a hive of activity from before 9am right up until 9.37 as you mention.
Then nothing much at all happens between ~9.40 and 10.30. Tea and dice rolling, William roaring, "He's gone quiet", "Mum I can't find him!" - "Oh, the little devil!", ...
Then another hive of activity from 10.33 to 10.56. ("doing the frantic thing", talking to neighbours, walking to the bus shelter, driving to the riding school, looking for William,...)

But the middle period is supposedly when "it all happened". And he "was here five minutes ago" when FF returns at 10.33.

It's a shame Craddock didn't give us his version of what happened between 9.40 and 10.30 since he seems to have the timeline sorted in his own mind.

Yep, just noticed that when we started talking about it last week. I wonder why nobody seems to have noticed it before?

Absolutely nothing between the photo and FF's return, except maybe another cup of tea.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes a hive of activity from before 9am right up until 9.37 as you mention.
Then nothing much at all happens between ~9.40 and 10.30. Tea and dice rolling, William roaring, "He's gone quiet", "Mum I can't find him!" - "Oh, the little devil!", ...
Then another hive of activity from 10.33 to 10.56. ("doing the frantic thing", talking to neighbours, walking to the bus shelter, driving to the riding school, looking for William,...)

But the middle period is supposedly when "it all happened". And he "was here five minutes ago" when FF returns at 10.33.

It's a shame Craddock didn't give us his version of what happened between 9.40 and 10.30 since he seems to have the timeline sorted in his own mind.

Dare I say.....explaining detail prior to 9.37 is important because SFR are looking for holes and clues..once you get past 9.37 if you can convince SFR then you just have to have the abduction occur ( him being left alone for 5) for your hoax to be completed. Think about it, because you've established last fake proof of life and limited time for you to have caused his death instead of a perp it makes abduction infinitely more logical. That was the very aim

 

[31550]

Dare I say.....explaining detail prior to 9.37 is important because SFR are looking for holes and clues..once you get past 9.37 if you can convince SFR then you just have to have the abduction occur ( him being left alone for 5) for your hoax to be completed. Think about it, because you've established last fake proof of life and limited time for you to have caused his death instead of a perp it makes abduction infinitely more logical. That was the very aim

explaining detail prior to 9.37 is irrelevant if your 9.37 POL is faked properly. But you still need to account for the time between 9.37 and 10.33.

 

[Underarrest_]

explaining detail prior to 9.37 is irrelevant if your 9.37 POL is faked properly. But you still need to account for the time between 9.37 and 10.33.

Could it be that everyone during this time has a solid alibi?