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

[Kurve]

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 against a child on former foster mother *Guilty
• 1 x charge of assault against a child on former foster father
• Stalking &/or Intimidation on both
• Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty

TIMELINE

Where's William Tyrrell? - The Ch 10 podcast (under Coroner's subpoena)

Operation Arkstone

 

[stormbird]

If William never arrived at Kendall, then FM, FF and FGM all deliberately lied to police on multiple occasions, yet in eight years of investigation, the police have been unable to prove even a single lie by any of these. But also, more importantly, it means William's sister has also lied to investigators for the past eight years about the circumstances of William's disappearance. What motive would she have to keep lying. now that she is no longer in their care, and is ~ 12 years old?

A version of events which is wrong wouldn't necessarily be due to lies, it could be caused by memories which are false. And I think it's not okay to be accusing this child or any child of "lying", not even when just speculating. It shouldn't be necessary to discuss her at all, IMO.

 

[31550]

As far as I've seen, no one reported the reasons for the coroner seeking an independent review of the time discrepancy. Best-case scenario, maybe by 2019 there were new forensic tools or techniques that hadn't been available to police in 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018.

I believe it was requested by lawyers for the biological father at the coronial inquest.

 

[31550]

A version of events which is wrong wouldn't necessarily be due to lies, it could be caused by memories which are false. And I think it's not okay to be accusing this child or any child of "lying", not even when just speculating. It shouldn't be necessary to discuss her at all, IMO.

I did not accuse her of lying. It was suggested William was never at the house. IF he was not at the house, then his sisters' account of events cannot be true. She told police he 'jumped off the balcony'. She showed police the rooms she and William slept in the night before. She told police he 'went to look for Daddy's car'. None of those things could possibly be true if William was never there. They would have been lies, (intentional or otherwise). But I don't believe they were lies.

 

[stormbird]

I believe it was requested by lawyers for the biological father at the coronial inquest.

Yes, which is what was said in post 7,701, which also had the coroner saying "I think it's important that that's dealt with in detail" - none of which tells us anything about the reasons for the coroner thinking that a review was needed (unless you think a request by a barrister is reason enough, and I don't).

MOO, maybe it's possible it was not only the camera's time discrepancy that was of interest but also the apparent police failure to investigate it properly, or the apparent gap in time between FM starting a police statement on 17 March 2015 but then (by the look of the apparently empty paragraphs at the end of the statement) not answering questions before, during or after the paragraph that shows police notes about the time discrepancy (p.28, paragraph 87) and then signing off on an apparently-unfinished statement three years later, after the original interviewer (Det Snr Sgt Lambert) had left Strike Force Rosann. The photos were obviously important and could show that William was present and alive at the house at 9:37 am, but if they hadn't been investigated properly I imagine the barrister and coroner might have been wondering what had gone wrong and why.

 

[31550]

Yes, which is what was said in post 7,701, which also had the coroner saying "I think it's important that that's dealt with in detail" - none of which tells us anything about the reasons for the coroner thinking that a review was needed (unless you think a request by a barrister is reason enough, and I don't).

MOO, maybe it's possible it was not only the camera's time discrepancy that was of interest but also the apparent police failure to investigate it properly, or the apparent gap in time between FM starting a police statement on 17 March 2015 but then (by the look of the apparently empty paragraphs at the end of the statement) not answering questions before, during or after the paragraph that shows police notes about the time discrepancy (p.28, paragraph 87) and then signing off on an apparently-unfinished statement three years later, after the original interviewer (Det Snr Sgt Lambert) had left Strike Force Rosann. The photos were obviously important and could show that William was present and alive at the house at 9:37 am, but if they hadn't been investigated properly I imagine the barrister and coroner might have been wondering what had gone wrong and why.

Just my opinion but I reckon the comment by the coroner was made just to appease the barrister for the bio dad. I think the coroner was satisfied that the photo date discrepancy had been resolved but acknowledged that maybe it hadn't been adequately explained to the bio-Dad and his legal team, so the comment was made by the coroner on record essentially "to deal with it in detail, later but not now".

 

[BFew]

The photos were obviously important and could show that William was present and alive at the house at 9:37 am, but if they hadn't been investigated properly I imagine the barrister and coroner might have been wondering what had gone wrong and why.

Maybe if (and only if) the photos weren't initially investigated properly, it was because of some concern that if they were investigated properly, and they resulted in evidence that they had been photoshopped or the timestamp/EXIF data had been deliberately tampered with in an attempt to mislead/falsify the time and or date the photos were taken, that this might cause issues for NSW Police, or some individuals involved current/historical in the investigation, or FACS and the Minister(s) ultimately responsible in some way, for the State Care of William and his Sister whilst they were foster children.

 

[31550]

Maybe if (and only if) the photos weren't initially investigated properly, it was because of some concern that if they were investigated properly, and they resulted in evidence that they had been photoshopped or the timestamp/EXIF data had been deliberately tampered with in an attempt to mislead/falsify the time and or date the photos were taken, that this might cause issues for NSW Police, or some individuals involved current/historical in the investigation, or FACS and the Minister(s) ultimately responsible in some way, for the State Care of William and his Sister whilst they were foster children.

I agree that at some stage, FACS and the minister must be answerable re what happened to William.
But I also think that time can only come when it has been established with some degree of certainty what actually happened.

In my opinion, the photo timestamp is just one of many 'red herrings' in this case. These red herrings are only distracting and delaying police and investigators from coming to a proper conclusion.

In my view there are several "non-red-herring" issues which need to be addressed to move this case forward:

• What was the exact nature, purpose, and timing of the foster mother's trip in her mother's car on the morning of William's disappearance?
• Why was the NSWCC involved in questioning the fosters, and what light has been shed on William's case through this questioning?
• Why was Ally Chumley's book removed from circulation in NSW / What has changed in Chumley's mind about the case since the book was published / Why doesn't she want it discussed publicly?

If anyone knows the answers to the above, please share.

 

[Lady O]

• Why was Ally Chumley's book removed from circulation in NSW / What has changed in Chumley's mind about the case since the book was published / Why doesn't she want it discussed publicly?

If anyone knows the answers to the above, please share.

You could message her on her FB page and ask.

 

[BFew]

In my opinion, the photo timestamp is just one of many 'red herrings' in this case. These red herrings are only distracting and delaying police and investigators from coming to a proper conclusion.

Hopefully only distracting some of us posters/readers, and not Police investigators/prosecutors.

 

[31550]

You could message her on her FB page and ask.

That's a bit 'stalkerish' for me. She has stated in public that she "regrets" writing the book but has not gone into detail as to why. So, she has had the opportunity, and apparently chooses not to disclose the reasons publicly. That is her prerogative. I would like to know why, but I also respect her rights and privacy at the same time.

 

[Lady O]

That's a bit 'stalkerish' for me. She has stated in public that she "regrets" writing the book but has not gone into detail as to why. So, she has had the opportunity, and apparently chooses not to disclose the reasons publicly. That is her prerogative. I would like to know why, but I also respect her rights and privacy at the same time.

Well, rather than getting second hand information that may not be right, finding out from the source would not be "stalking". She can tell you if she wants to or not.

 

[stormbird]

Maybe if (and only if) the photos weren't initially investigated properly, it was because of some concern that if they were investigated properly, and they resulted in evidence that they had been photoshopped or the timestamp/EXIF data had been deliberately tampered with in an attempt to mislead/falsify the time and or date the photos were taken, that this might cause issues for NSW Police, or some individuals involved current/historical in the investigation, or FACS and the Minister(s) ultimately responsible in some way, for the State Care of William and his Sister whilst they were foster children.

Quoting you, BFew: "Maybe if (and only if) the photos weren't initially investigated properly"...

You're right, maybe they weren't, or maybe they were. I shouldn't have jumped straight to concluding the police had been incompetent.

 

[stormbird]

The NSW Online Registry has the foster parents' charges for "dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception" listed for another mention in Parramatta Local Court next week.

Last week's mention confirmed their not-guilty pleas and set the hearing date as 21 July 2023 (News.com.au, 11 Nov 2022).

 

[nut]

I’ve been saying this about the photos being the key for a few weeks…

And I still think the photos being doctored is the key…

 

[Kurve]

And I still think the photos being doctored is the key…

Paying attention here, hopefully we'll find out if it is.

 

[stormbird]

The judgment in William Harrie Spedding v State of New South Wales* is now on the list at the NSW Online Registry: judgment by Justice I. Harrison, Supreme Court Sydney, 01 December 2022.

*"Mr Spedding is suing the State of NSW in the Supreme Court for malicious prosecution, seeking compensation for reputation harm and psychological treatment.
He's also seeking exemplary damages to punish police for purportedly using the courts for an improper purpose."
- AAP via the Canberra Times, 17 Aug 2022

 

[spike101]

The NSW Online Registry has the foster parents' charges for "dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception" listed for another mention in Parramatta Local Court next week.

Last week's mention confirmed their not-guilty pleas and set the hearing date as 21 July 2023 (News.com.au, 11 Nov 2022).

Whatever the outcome there needs to be more diligent examination of foster parent suitability. I can imagine the stresses and strains of being the “placement “ officer and we certainly wouldn’t take on the FP role But obviously something has gone wrong and there needs to be some accountability.

 

[Pies1990]

I agree that at some stage, FACS and the minister must be answerable re what happened to William.
But I also think that time can only come when it has been established with some degree of certainty what actually happened.

In my opinion, the photo timestamp is just one of many 'red herrings' in this case. These red herrings are only distracting and delaying police and investigators from coming to a proper conclusion.

In my view there are several "non-red-herring" issues which need to be addressed to move this case forward:

• What was the exact nature, purpose, and timing of the foster mother's trip in her mother's car on the morning of William's disappearance?
• Why was the NSWCC involved in questioning the fosters, and what light has been shed on William's case through this questioning?
• Why was Ally Chumley's book removed from circulation in NSW / What has changed in Chumley's mind about the case since the book was published / Why doesn't she want it discussed publicly?

If anyone knows the answers to the above, please share.

I read that it was because she had initials of people that were then under suppression orders. But read elsewhere was edited and rereleased- can’t confirm though as I forgot where I read this.
Probably copped threats of legal action too….which seems common these days of those who speak out against the foster parents. The level of control and intimidation in this case is mind boggling. If true it says a lot about possible guilt though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stormbird]

Whatever the outcome there needs to be more diligent examination of foster parent suitability. I can imagine the stresses and strains of being the “placement “ officer and we certainly wouldn’t take on the FP role But obviously something has gone wrong and there needs to be some accountability.

Accountability in the foster care system will be relevant if it turns out that William's disappearance was caused by unsuitable foster care, but so far no one has been able to explain how or why he went missing. If the police are on the right track now with their sole POI, good luck to them, but I wish they'd give us some reason to have faith.

I wonder whether the charges for auction fraud years later might be a police tactic to scare away the foster carers' friends and supporters. If so, that seems cruel - particularly if the police are targetting the wrong people again, but even if they're correct I think it shouldn't be necessary to destroy someone's life just so police can look for evidence against them. MOO

 

[FeelingThroaty]

Not that I think they are much chop but what have psychics picked up on Williams location,? I am in Perth and can't travel there. Though I used to go to the Central coast & the Ku Gai Chase National pk spooked me several times but this area is related to other cases. I was not driven there as we were heading elsewhere.

 

[31550]

Accountability in the foster care system will be relevant if it turns out that William's disappearance was caused by unsuitable foster care, but so far no one has been able to explain how or why he went missing. If the police are on the right track now with their sole POI, good luck to them, but I wish they'd give us some reason to have faith.

I wonder whether the charges for auction fraud years later might be a police tactic to scare away the foster carers' friends and supporters. If so, that seems cruel - particularly if the police are targetting the wrong people again, but even if they're correct I think it shouldn't be necessary to destroy someone's life just so police can look for evidence against them. MOO

There is no doubt in my mind that William's foster care was 'unsuitable'. The simple evidence is that William has disappeared without trace while under the care of the fosters (and by extension, FACS, and the minister). Whether that 'unsuitability of care' is simply a case of bad luck, misadventure, carelessness, negligence, or criminal activity is yet to be determined. If William had not been left unsupervised for however long it was, none of this would have happened, or, at least, we would know exactly what did happen.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Whatever the outcome there needs to be more diligent examination of foster parent suitability. I can imagine the stresses and strains of being the “placement “ officer and we certainly wouldn’t take on the FP role But obviously something has gone wrong and there needs to be some accountability.

I would've a more diligent examination of the NSW police force would be the first order of business.
The handling of this case has been a shambles from 3 separate investigations.

 

[Awakening]

Anyone know anything about Google trends?

I saw someone using google trends on another case so I thought I would try it on William Tyrrell.

As I understand it, it shows peaks in search history of names, places etc.

If you’re a nobody like me you will get “not enough data” when you put in your own name.

Seems a strong interest in the case from Tasmania?

 

[stormbird]

The foster parents had a "Mention (Police)" listed for court today in the "dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception" case. I can't find any news reports, though. Did it go ahead today? What was it for?

 

[stormbird]

Anyone know anything about Google trends?

I saw someone using google trends on another case so I thought I would try it on William Tyrrell.

As I understand it, it shows peaks in search history of names, places etc.

If you’re a nobody like me you will get “not enough data” when you put in your own name.

Seems a strong interest in the case from Tasmania?

I don't really understand what the graphs are saying, Awakening, or what you're saying about them: do you think the information could be useful or do you just find it interesting? Why does the timeline start at 2004, or is that just by default?
Thanks