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

 

[ms finch]

Maybe just going off a source of info that said she is dead, without that source saying whether she had just died, or in died in the months earlier.
Hardly surprising if everyone (including the media) just assumed she had only just died.

And with none of the media reporting that there had even been a funeral, that could also indicate that the funeral was months earlier.

I would have thought that the media could get accurate details from the probate file on her estate. BUT we don't know if they bothered to check that much or if they have deliberately obfuscated the actual date.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Maybe just going off a source of info that said she is dead, without that source saying whether she had just died, or in died in the months earlier.
Hardly surprising if everyone (including the media) just assumed she had only just died.

And with none of the media reporting that there had even been a funeral, that could also indicate that the funeral was months earlier.

Maybe they topped her as well, she knew too much

 

[ms finch]

I can pretty much explain everything with the FM being due to grief, panic or stress. I know we debate whether people's reactions make sense, which is fine, but there are endless examples of people behaving as we expect and being guilty of something and people behaving seemingly really strangely and having done nothing wrong so I usually don't look at those things as of the greatest significance. There are two things I really can't explain that make me uneasy. Apologies if this has been discussed already (I simply could not keep track of reading all of the thread I'd missed), but one part of it is relevant to the giving false or misleading evidence charges she and the FF are facing.

The forensic investigators said that the camera's time had always been wrong, or at least, that it wasn't specifically modified around that photo. And even if it was I don't think that is significant because there could be tons of innocent explanations.

The part I don't understand is that the FM's timeline of events actually puts the photos at being taken shortly before he disappeared, not 2 hours earlier. In the Where's William Tyrrell podcast (now subopened) she talks about them being taken not long before he was running around the garden and went missing. In addition, there is quite a bit of info about that morning. FF talks about how William woke up and they were playing in the room together before his sister came in, and then FM got up and they did some things before getting William dressed in his Spiderman suit. The photos would have to have been taken around this time for the new timestamp of 7:39am to be accurate. But neither FM or FF indicate this at all, and FF has never spoken about the photos being taken, with the original timing of 9:37am he wasn't around for it as he was out doing his conference call.

I don't expect people to remember the time the photo was taken, especially not given everything that went on that day that would have probably resulted in a warped sense of time anyway. But I would have expected them to recall the events and circumstances around the photo being taken, with all the minute examination they were forced to do of that day. Surely, if the photos were taken at 7:39am, FF remembers them being taken? And surely FM recalls that it was during activities long before the point at which William went missing? I also say this in the context that they have been absolutely clear and certain on those events, and the photo being taken around 9:37am based on that. Surely there would at least have been a bit of uncertainty?

Are the forensic investigators likely to be wrong? Or is this the possible "false and misleading evidence"? It's the only thing that I can see where the police have concrete evidence to which to compare part of the story.

I had to listen to the Where's William Tyrrell podcast in figuring this out and it jumped out at me that FM seems to have a very strong sense of ownership of William. Totally understandable for a parent, and I understand she saw herself as his parent, but in this instance he also had biological parents who wanted him back and were hopeful they would get the opportunity for that or at least to form an ongoing relationship with him. Nothing had been finalised at the time William disappeared. It really makes me feel uneasy that she fails to show any empathy or acknowledgement of them (not just directly, but indirectly) and places herself as the sole mother as though they're the only people who lost him.

 

[31550]

Tyrrell's foster mum charged with lying

The charges relate to evidence the foster mother gave at a hearing before the NSW Crime Commission, and are not related to the operations of NSW Police.​

​

So, is Strikeforce Rosann part of NSW Police? Is William's case still related to the operations of NSW Police?

If the evidence is not related to the operations of NSW Police, what could it relate to? Something before NSWCC which is not NSW-Police related? E.g. an AFP matter? ASIC? ASIO?

Or is MSN publishing nonsense?

 

[BFew]

The part I don't understand is that the FM's timeline of events actually puts the photos at being taken shortly before he disappeared, not 2 hours earlier. In the Where's William Tyrrell podcast (now subopened) she talks about them being taken not long before he was running around the garden and went missing. In addition, there is quite a bit of info about that morning. FF talks about how William woke up and they were playing in the room together before his sister came in, and then FM got up and they did some things before getting William dressed in his Spiderman suit. The photos would have to have been taken around this time for the new timestamp of 7:39am to be accurate. But neither FM or FF indicate this at all, and FF has never spoken about the photos being taken, with the original timing of 9:37am he wasn't around for it as he was out doing his conference call.

Screenshot from the front end of the video in the below article yesterday.

What I assume is William's sister wearing what looks like a too big for her blue dressing gown, still bothers me a bit for being 9:37am, rather than an earlier time of day, what with all the things they were claimed to have done that morning.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/william-tyrrell-where-foster-mum-fits-into-missing-toddler-mystery/news-story/65a0ecde5f265bf69beacef17bdfc066

 

[BFew]

Or is MSN publishing nonsense?

Obviously
(MSN is owned by Nine Entertainment)

 

[Lady O]

Tyrrell's foster mum charged with lying

The charges relate to evidence the foster mother gave at a hearing before the NSW Crime Commission, and are not related to the operations of NSW Police.​

​

So, is Strikeforce Rosann part of NSW Police? Is William's case still related to the operations of NSW Police?

If the evidence is not related to the operations of NSW Police, what could it relate to? Something before NSWCC which is not NSW-Police related? E.g. an AFP matter? ASIC? ASIO?

Or is MSN publishing nonsense?

“On Tuesday, Strike Force Rosann detectives issued a Future Court Attendance Notice to a 56-year-old woman for knowingly [giving] false or misleading evidence at hearing,” police said in a statement on Thursday.

“She remains before the courts. Investigations under Strike Force Rosann continue.”

That charge relates to evidence she gave to the Crime Commission about William’s disappearance from a home in Kendall on the NSW Mid North Coast while the family were on holiday in September 2014.

The Crime Commission works alongside NSW Police to investigate homicides and other serious offences and has the power to compel people to give evidence.

The maximum penalty for misleading the Crime Commission is five years’ imprisonment.

William Tyrrell’s foster mother charged with giving misleading evidence, intimidation

The missing little boy’s father has also been charged with one count of intimidation.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Kurve]

In here also:

The foster mother of missing child William Tyrrell provided a NSW Crime Commission hearing about the boy’s disappearance with false or misleading information, police have alleged.

On Thursday, detectives from strike force Rosann – which was established to investigate Tyrrell’s disappearance – issued a 56-year-old woman with a court attendance notice.

Guardian Australia understands this occurred at a hearing before the NSW Crime Commission – a body that works alongside police to investigate serious crimes.

William Tyrrell’s foster mother charged with giving misleading evidence

The foster mother of Tyrrell, who disappeared in northern NSW in 2014, was charged with giving false or misleading evidence to state’s crime commission

www.theguardian.com

 

[Kurve]

Tyrrell's foster mum charged with lying

The charges relate to evidence the foster mother gave at a hearing before the NSW Crime Commission, and are not related to the operations of NSW Police.​

​

So, is Strikeforce Rosann part of NSW Police? Is William's case still related to the operations of NSW Police?

If the evidence is not related to the operations of NSW Police, what could it relate to? Something before NSWCC which is not NSW-Police related? E.g. an AFP matter? ASIC? ASIO?

Or is MSN publishing nonsense?

This MSN article isn't written well but given the NSW Crime Commission as a separate body, isn't part of NSW Police, I strongly suspect that's what the writer intended to convey.

 

[ms finch]

Screenshot from the front end of the video in the below article yesterday.

What I assume is William's sister wearing what looks like a too big for her blue dressing gown, still bothers me a bit for being 9:37am, rather than an earlier time of day, what with all the things they were claimed to have done that morning.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/william-tyrrell-where-foster-mum-fits-into-missing-toddler-mystery/news-story/65a0ecde5f265bf69beacef17bdfc066

View attachment 1373619

Interesting. In the Where's William Tyrrell podcast, reading from her police statement, FM is very specific that William's sister dressed herself at the same time as she dressed William. So either both kids dressed or both in nightclothes. So if that is a dressing gown on William's sister, the information in the statement is inaccurate.

Given we now know the time on the photo was 7:39am and not 9:37am, and FF said that William woke up early and they played in the room, I wonder if he got William dressed early before his sister got up?

It's also in the podcast that the night before they put the kids in pullups for overnight. Now in my (albeit limited) experience of kids wearing pullups, you check them first thing in the morning. You don't let them run around for hours in them in case they are wet. Perhaps FF checked when they got up and William needed them changed so he got him dressed?

 

[BFew]

Given we now know the time on the photo was 7:39am and not 9:37am

I thought that this maybe proof of life photo was proof of life at 9:37am, not proof of life at 7:39am?

Makes a huge difference to the alibis of people for between 7:39am and 9:37am.

ms finch I think you've seriously misinterpreted something you've read.

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/mystery-over-william-tyrrell-photo-throws-doubt-on-timeline-of-boys-disappearance/news-story/219eb525eb0e76070785485909574131

'In his opening address Gerard Craddock SC said the photograph was taken at 9.37am on the day in question, saying “that is a time of which we can be certain”.'

'The photograph, regarded as “proof of life” that William was still alive at 9.37am, was a vital part of the timeline presented by Mr Craddock of William’s last known morning.'

 

[BFew]

You don't let them run around for hours in them

So the blue dressing gown came off for the bike riding in the driveway, and then went back on again for the Spiderman photo at 9:37am?

‘Where’s the red?’: Mum’s frantic search

William Tyrrell’s foster mother broke down while describing the frantic moments after William vanished and she desperately searched for him in his Spider Man suit.

www.news.com.au

'The foster mother also became upset when she was describing another car in the street that morning driven by a “thick-necked” man with a weathered face who had given her a challenging stare.

“You know when you look at someone and there’s that second challenge, ‘why are you watching me, I am watching you’.
“It was fleeting.”

The foster mother said that the police had since identified the car.

“I did have pretty intense reaction,” she said, her voice breaking.
“But in terms of the person … the image we ended up with is not the man.”

She described the man as large, with a big abdomen, short red hair, “not overly tanned” and having no facial hair.
“He was a big man,” she said.

She had noticed him when her daughter ws bike riding in the front driveway and said, “who’s that car Mummy?”.'

‘Somebody has taken him’: William Tyrrell’s foster mother shares grief over loss of three-year-old

Day two of the Coronial Inquest in the disappearance of William Tyrrell on NSW’s mid-north coast continues.

www.9news.com.au

'* William's foster father went to nearby Lakewood about 9am for a solid internet connection for the call. He had a prescription filled at a chemist there at 10.19am.

• William and his sister started riding bikes on the driveway after he left.
• Another man drove past them in the dead-end street. The foster mother locked eyes with him as he continued down the road in an old teal-coloured car.
• William and his foster mother played a game called "mummy monster" where they would roar at one another.
• They explored the tree-lined yard as William's sister sat inside with their grandmother drawing art for their late grandfather's grave.
• William's foster mother made cups of tea before snapping the now iconic photo of the three-year-old boy sitting on the deck dressed as Spider-Man at 9.37am.'

 

[ms finch]

I thought that this maybe proof of life photo was proof of life at 9:37am, not proof of life at 7:39am?

Makes a huge difference to the alibis of people for between 7:39am and 9:37am.

ms finch I think you've seriously misinterpreted something you've read.

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/mystery-over-william-tyrrell-photo-throws-doubt-on-timeline-of-boys-disappearance/news-story/219eb525eb0e76070785485909574131

'In his opening address Gerard Craddock SC said the photograph was taken at 9.37am on the day in question, saying “that is a time of which we can be certain”.'

'The photograph, regarded as “proof of life” that William was still alive at 9.37am, was a vital part of the timeline presented by Mr Craddock of William’s last known morning.'

Subsequently, evidence was introduced that demonstrated the photograph had a "created" time of 7:39am and later "corrected" to 9:37am. The Coroner orderd an urgent investigation into this. It's in the same article as you posted. https://www.news.com.au/national/co...e/news-story/219eb525eb0e76070785485909574131 (This article also addressed the Coroner's opening remarks, which it says could have been incorrect in light of this).

From memory the forensic investigators determined this was correct, but that it was applicable to all the photos so the camera had just had the time set incorrectly. I am just looking for that part of the information. ETA: What I read was an interview with a forensic expert who said this was a possible explanation. The official result of this have not been revealed as far as I can tell, and it fits with the timing of when investigations into FM & FF started.

My interpretation of this is not that subsequently 9:37am was automatically correct because the camera adjusted, but that the time the photo was taken could actually be 7:39am. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but it seems a fair interpretation.

 

[BFew]

My interpretation of this is not that subsequently 9:37am was shown to be correct because the camera adjusted, but that the time the photo was taken was actually 7:39am. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but it seems a fair interpretation.

The timeline according to the Daily Telegraph yesterday has 9:37am.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/william-tyrrell-where-foster-mum-fits-into-missing-toddler-mystery/news-story/65a0ecde5f265bf69beacef17bdfc066

'William Tyrrell: where foster mum fits into missing toddler mystery​

William Tyrrell’s foster mother has been thrust into the spotlight, charged with misleading police as investigators work to piece together his disappearance. Here’s what we know so far.'

'Janet Fife-Yeomans
April 14, 2022 - 5:15PM'

.....
.....

 

[ms finch]

The timeline according to the Daily Telegraph yesterday has 9:37am.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/william-tyrrell-where-foster-mum-fits-into-missing-toddler-mystery/news-story/65a0ecde5f265bf69beacef17bdfc066

'William Tyrrell: where foster mum fits into missing toddler mystery​

William Tyrrell’s foster mother has been thrust into the spotlight, charged with misleading police as investigators work to piece together his disappearance. Here’s what we know so far.'

'Janet Fife-Yeomans
April 14, 2022 - 5:15PM'

.....
.....

It's a pretty basic timeline so can't see them including any items that are potentially in doubt. If the Coroner hasn't made an official conclusion about the timing of the photo, or police haven't released details of the timing examination, I don't see them officially changing it yet. I am happy to disagree on this one; it's part of the engagement on these boards.

I think there are things in the group of photos taken around that time that make it more consistent with being taken at 7:39am than 9:37am as well.

 

[Poppy Penny]

Ms Finch Quote.
”I had to listen to the Where's William Tyrrell podcast in figuring this out and it jumped out at me that FM seems to have a very strong sense of ownership of William. Totally understandable for a parent, and I understand she saw herself as his parent, but in this instance he also had biological parents who wanted him back and were hopeful they would get the opportunity for that or at least to form an ongoing relationship with him. Nothing had been finalised at the time William disappeared. It really makes me feel uneasy that she fails to show any empathy or acknowledgement of them (not just directly, but indirectly) and places herself as the sole mother as though they're the only people who lost him.

Agree completely. I will be honest in saying that this occurs in other interviews and it has always sickened me. She is a smart lady who always chose her words carefully. She knew what she was saying and simply didn’t care. Her lack of respect and empathy for William’s biological parents is shameful.

 

[Lady O]

It's a pretty basic timeline so can't see them including any items that are potentially in doubt. If the Coroner hasn't made an official conclusion about the timing of the photo, or police haven't released details of the timing examination, I don't see them officially changing it yet. I am happy to disagree on this one; it's part of the engagement on these boards.

I think there are things in the group of photos taken around that time that make it more consistent with being taken at 7:39am than 9:37am as well.

I doubt I have ever taken any notice of the time set on my camera. Hopefully, it won't ever need to be used as evidence. This article from the Australian Sept 2019, revisits the confusion over the time stamp on the camera, which may or may not have ever been resolved.

"The Australian understands Ms Grahame last week agreed to an application by Michelle Swift, counsel for William’s biological father, for further forensic testing of the image.

Ms Swift’s application was made in open court shortly before the inquest was suddenly adjourned for seven months. The subject matter wasn’t revealed, and Ms Swift refused to comment. However, Ms Grahame responded to the application by saying the matter needed investigation, and Mr Craddock agreed it was important. Police have been unable to provide the court with an explanation for this terminology, which has in turn created uncertainty.

It is not uncommon for there to be confusion about metadata terminology. Phrases such as “date created”, “date modified”, “date digitised” and “date captured” are all commonly used.

As a general rule, a digital camera will record the date and time information in the actual image as EXIF (or “exchangeable image file format”) metadata.

EXIF data mostly travels with the photo when it is exported from camera to computer, printer or USB, and it’s therefore considered the most reliable guide to the time of creation. Accuracy depends, however, on the date and time settings of the camera. A modified or created date will normally refer to the time the image arrived on a computer, or else was edited, or otherwise accessed.

There are several explanations for the different time stamp on the photograph of William: the earlier time may be the right one; the camera may not have been adjusted for local time; the computer may have incorrect settings; or else the mistake may be in the report itself (a product of input error, for example)."

 

[BFew]

I am happy to disagree on this one; it's part of the engagement on these boards.

I think there are things in the group of photos taken around that time that make it more consistent with being taken at 7:39am than 9:37am as well.

All I disagree with you on this point, is that I don't think that the article you quoted from provides a conclusion about the actual time of the photo being taken. one way or the other.

I have speculated that all of the fosters, have lied about when that photo was taken.
Something that the 2 of them that are still alive (FGM is no longer alive), might get them each a few years in jail for, should it be proven they have lied beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, not withstanding any mental health get out of jail free cards they have.

And the point of my posting yesterday's Daily Telegraph timeline, was that it has not been posted in here yet, and that it was different to what you had concluded.

 

[ms finch]

I doubt I have ever taken any notice of the time set on my camera. Hopefully, it won't ever need to be used as evidence. This article from the Australian Sept 2019, revisits the confusion over the time stamp on the camera, which may or may not have ever been resolved.

"The Australian understands Ms Grahame last week agreed to an application by Michelle Swift, counsel for William’s biological father, for further forensic testing of the image.

Ms Swift’s application was made in open court shortly before the inquest was suddenly adjourned for seven months. The subject matter wasn’t revealed, and Ms Swift refused to comment. However, Ms Grahame responded to the application by saying the matter needed investigation, and Mr Craddock agreed it was important. Police have been unable to provide the court with an explanation for this terminology, which has in turn created uncertainty.

It is not uncommon for there to be confusion about metadata terminology. Phrases such as “date created”, “date modified”, “date digitised” and “date captured” are all commonly used.

As a general rule, a digital camera will record the date and time information in the actual image as EXIF (or “exchangeable image file format”) metadata.

EXIF data mostly travels with the photo when it is exported from camera to computer, printer or USB, and it’s therefore considered the most reliable guide to the time of creation. Accuracy depends, however, on the date and time settings of the camera. A modified or created date will normally refer to the time the image arrived on a computer, or else was edited, or otherwise accessed.

There are several explanations for the different time stamp on the photograph of William: the earlier time may be the right one; the camera may not have been adjusted for local time; the computer may have incorrect settings; or else the mistake may be in the report itself (a product of input error, for example)."

I recall reading this and the point about input error did interest me because 9:37 and 7:39 include the same digits, just rearranged. I'd hope they checked that properly at the time given the significance of the photo and how many people looked at it and knew it as being 9:37.

 

[ms finch]

All I disagree with you on this point, is that I don't think that the article you quoted from provides a conclusion about the actual time of the photo being taken. one way or the other.

I have speculated that all of the fosters, have lied about when that photo was taken.
Something that the 2 of them that are still alive (FGM is no longer alive), might get them each a few years in jail for, should it be proven they have lied beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, not withstanding any mental health get out of jail free cards they have.

And the point of my posting yesterday's Daily Telegraph timeline, was that it has not been posted in here yet, and that it was different to what you had concluded.

I probably should, in my comment about the photo, have been a bit more subjective in my language rather than presenting it as objective, which I usually try to do. (In my defence, I was supervising my cats outside and both of them were on the roof of the car thinking about going over the fence at the time.) Personally, I don't think the Tele has really done any concluding, and are just going with the longstanding information.

I suppose if they have lied, and obviously we don't know that yet as they are just charges, it will depend on the significance of the lie what ultimately happens.

 

[Lady O]

I probably should, in my comment about the photo, have been a bit more subjective in my language rather than presenting it as objective, which I usually try to do. (In my defence, I was supervising my cats outside and both of them were on the roof of the car thinking about going over the fence at the time.) Personally, I don't think the Tele has really done any concluding, and are just going with the longstanding information.

I suppose if they have lied, and obviously we don't know that yet as they are just charges, it will depend on the significance of the lie what ultimately happens.

Originally the reason given for the discrepancy was that the camera was purchased in Bali and the time was not changed.

Bali time is two hours behind Eastern Standard Time in Australia.

 

[BFew]

Personally, I don't think the Tele has really done any concluding, and are just going with the longstanding information.

The timeline according to the Daily Telegraph yesterday has 9:37am.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/t...y/news-story/65a0ecde5f265bf69beacef17bdfc066

ms finch
I forgot to mention what else the above article yesterday claimed about the timing of the photo.

'The house in Benaroon Drive was where the foster mother took the now iconic photograph of him on the deck in his Spider-Man suit at 9.37am on September 12, 2014. She has said that as she then sat drinking tea with her mum, she heard William roar as he pretended to be a tiger — and then “nothing”.

Metadata has confirmed the photograph was indeed taken at that time after questions during the inquest into William’s disappearance that it may have been taken two hours earlier.'

 

[Awakening]

This is pretty scathing

"Detective Chief Inspector Laidlaw was also quizzed as to whether he got a formal handover from Gary Jubelin after taking over from him in January 2019.

Mr Jubelin was stood down after illegally recording a person of interest.

His successor said he made the decision not to after approaching Mr Jubelin more than once.

"The discussion of the investigation wasn't at the fore and my view at that stage was that I was going to get more knowledge about the investigation from all those who worked on it."

No one has been ruled out in William Tyrrell investigation, inquest hears

www.9news.com.au

 

[ms finch]

ms finch
I forgot to mention what else the above article yesterday claimed about the timing of the photo.

'The house in Benaroon Drive was where the foster mother took the now iconic photograph of him on the deck in his Spider-Man suit at 9.37am on September 12, 2014. She has said that as she then sat drinking tea with her mum, she heard William roar as he pretended to be a tiger — and then “nothing”.

Metadata has confirmed the photograph was indeed taken at that time after questions during the inquest into William’s disappearance that it may have been taken two hours earlier.'

I saw that. I'd like to see it sourced and the actual explanation of the conclusion. I am going to be genuinely hard to convince that the photo wasn't taken earlier, in part because I've thought it since the beginning. The timeframe is the thing that I go over and over and cannot make sense of, regardless of whether William was abducted or something happened to him at FGM house.

But I have also been trying to think of other reasons why they would have been charged with providing false or misleading evidence.

It could be tangentially related to William's disappearance - ie if they have been receiving money to campaign for him from supporters but have been doing something else with it and misrepresented that.

It could be something very innocuous that is open to interpretation and this is a pressure tactic. That's a risk, though, because if the charge lacks proper foundation I can't imagine FPs taking it lying down and this investigation is already riddled with problems of overstepping and overreaching.

I don't think they're going to be charged with something where they have told the truth to the best of their ability (eg saying they stopped at McDonalds at 6pm when it was actually 6:30pm) or where it is immaterial to the investigation.

In my view it is most likely to be something concrete they can compare the statements to, and there is very little of that in this case because what happened prior to and at the time of William's disappearance is only known to them.

 

[31550]

This MSN article isn't written well but given the NSW Crime Commission as a separate body, isn't part of NSW Police, I strongly suspect that's what the writer intended to convey.

Yeah, probably more sloppy reporting. They are separate bodies, but they do work together. So the charge relates to (allegedly false) evidence given to the NSWCC rather than evidence given to NSW Police (including Rosann)? This is possibly due to NSWCC power to compel witnesses to give evidence (despite potential self-incrimination). Also, NSWCC can override witness's right to have a legal representative present. So they might have had to answer certain NSWCC questions which they didn't have to answer to NSW police.

Do NSWCC have power to lay charges themselves? I see that it was Rosann who laid charges against FM for lying to NSWCC.

And is it now confirmed that NSWCC are investigating WT case, or could it still be tangential (but related)?

Another thing - the fosters names have now been removed from court listings - indicates possibly another stuff-up - this information should not have been made publicly available. Hope it doesn't compromise proceedings.