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:

WT - William Tyrrell
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?

 

[DropBearess]

Was it reported if anyone else was at FGM'S that day?
I remember reading FGM had a male friend? Was he a pilot?
I can't remember

Yes, she allegedly did have a visiting male friend at the time. He was a pilot. I have his details and pic, but probably not appropriate to post here. I raised this a couple of times early in this thread, but no-one seemed interested.

 

[DropBearess]

I wouldn’t be relying on those books for factual and accurate information.

I'm currently rereading one of the books. It's astonishingly inaccurate and is founded entirely on FM's narrative. Knowing what we know now, it's pretty disgraceful.

 

[Leon Higgins]

I'm currently rereading one of the books. It's astonishingly inaccurate and is founded entirely on FM's narrative. Knowing what we know now, it's pretty disgraceful.

From a journalistic perspective it seems they all got too close and crossed the professional boundaries. It could be said that their output has in fact made it harder to find the truth.

Repeating the line of a child who vanished wearing a Spider-Man suit without trace from Kendall, tends to obscure other possibilities.

 

[Curious Clues]

I'm currently rereading one of the books. It's astonishingly inaccurate and is founded entirely on FM's narrative. Knowing what we know now, it's pretty disgraceful.

Probably why both authors have gone to ground on the topic.

 

[passball]

Yes, she allegedly did have a visiting male friend at the time. He was a pilot. I have his details and pic, but probably not appropriate to post here. I raised this a couple of times early in this thread, but no-one seemed interested.

Im interested, very interested in fact.
I'm at the top of the rabbit hole on this.
We must be thinking the same person.
FF would like him, they could talk scouts, etc.
Also I remember FF liked to take William to the airport and watch the planes, something FF liked to do, so this person might be of interest to FF as this person was a pilot among other things

 

[passball]

There is no evidence that a semi driver saw her. She said she saw a semi, doesn't mean he reacalled her. He never came forward, but again that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

So FM flapped her hands, doing the story thing, while she told her story about her interaction with the semi driver.
Apparently he acknowledged her.
You are saying that he might not recall her? Sounds to me she thinks he would, they had a moment.
Left/right, which way would I go?


Sounds similar to FMs story about locking eyes with the green car guy, same but different

 

[Curious Clues]

There was a case years ago where a couple were towing their caravan in Qld and a semi driver ran into them and they ran off the road and died. The semi driver kept going.
It wasn’t until years later when an officer was off duty and came across a driver at a servo in the same colour semi they’d been looking for (paint left on the caravan) and he started a conversation with the driver to find out what he’d been up too (routes/type of work etc) and then through investigations charged him.
I would have thought at the time they’d have the semi on cctv or witnesses who’d seen him driving but it was a chance encounter that cracked the case.

1998 Ian Fleming with his 3 kids, 12 year old Nick sadly died in the crash.
Good meticulous police work and forensics on that case, solved it in 6 months. Truck driver admitted to it once they found him, he only got a 5 year sentence.

 

[31550]

Because Batar Creek Road is a deadend street that ends at Kendall and leads to nowhere else? Oh wait, it runs on to Albert St so maybe it does lead to somewhere other than Kendall. Maybe those with tunnel vision don't realise it.

In 2014 folks didn't drive semi-trailers on BCR just for fun. Trucking companies and professional drivers keep logbooks. Owners and operators in the area are few, and can be easily identified from registration and license databases. Semi trailers are large and highly visible, especially on a (then) narrow and partly-unsealed, winding road, where any drivers on the road between 9.30 and 10.30 would be aware of them - they would be held up behind them, or would have to move to the shoulder to let each other past. The handful of residents along that stretch of road, and connecting roads would know if a semi-trailer visited their property that morning.

Peter the truck driver recounts how he had to wait and make special arrangements to do his job that morning - he had to drive slowly, made several stops, and be sure he could enter and exit the property safely and without being blocked or blocking other traffic. It wasn't a casual joy-ride.

 

[31550]

Yes, she allegedly did have a visiting male friend at the time. He was a pilot. I have his details and pic, but probably not appropriate to post here. I raised this a couple of times early in this thread, but no-one seemed interested.

Interested only if it can be proven he (or his vehicle) was at the FGM house or nearby on the Thursday night or Friday morning. Or if there is any proven communication between him and FGM at those times. Also interested in whether or not SFR asked these questions at the time, but I don't expect they will tell us.

 

[Earls Smother]

I’m saying it’s possible there were cars there.
All I know is the fosters took off a day early and William disappeared by the 000 call around 11am on the day they were meant to there.

What makes you lean more to targeted abduction than random?

I think it is quite possible that FGM unintentionally provided information to criminal-types, via Geoff Owen. I don't think that would have had anything directly to do with William though. She wouldn't have known William was going to be there early on Friday morning, when she last spoke to Owen.

It is more likely Owen became aware that the Millers were away. Others with a proven history of theft also became aware they were away.

I've always felt if you were going to invent seeing someone outside the window at 7:30am, you would say there was 1 car, not 2. Two cars for an abduction scenario is absurd, but not so absurd if you are planning to rob a house and need some room to transport whatever you are planning to steal.

It's feasible both cars had nefarious intentions, parked around the bend from the Millers at 7:30-ish, but realised there were neighbours up and about and it was too risky. So they left very quickly, decreasing the chances of multiple people noticing them. Then one car returned around 10:08am for another look and took advantage of a totally random situation.

It's not like there were no people in the Kendall area who were capable of committing both burglaries and offences against young kids.

 

[31550]

What makes you lean more to targeted abduction than random?

I think it is quite possible that FGM unintentionally provided information to criminal-types, via Geoff Owen. I don't think that would have had anything directly to do with William though. She wouldn't have known William was going to be there early on Friday morning, when she last spoke to Owen.

It is more likely Owen became aware that the Millers were away. Others with a proven history of theft also became aware they were away.

I've always felt if you were going to invent seeing someone outside the window at 7:30am, you would say there was 1 car, not 2. Two cars for an abduction scenario is absurd, but not so absurd if you are planning to rob a house and need some room to transport whatever you are planning to steal.

It's feasible both cars had nefarious intentions, parked around the bend from the Millers at 7:30-ish, but realised there were neighbours up and about and it was too risky. So they left very quickly, decreasing the chances of multiple people noticing them. Then one car returned around 10:08am for another look and took advantage of a totally random situation.

It's not like there were no people in the Kendall area who were capable of committing both burglaries and offences against young kids.

OK let's assume FM saw the two cars at 7.30, and they were there to rob the Millers house. They have just lobbed up in the morning with two cars? No previous surveillance? Because if they checked the house the night before, they would have seen FF car in the driveway of FGM house, signalling she had visitors. The best time to rob the Millers would be after FGM was asleep on the Thursday night, not on Friday morning when people are awake and getting ready for work or their kids ready for school etc. But they arrive Friday morning park in plain view where AMS or any other neighbour can see them - they see FF car, they hear and see kids playing, maybe they see FM or the kids on the balcony so they decide it's not a good time to rob the Millers and they leave? At this stage it's all theoretically possible but this has no connection to William's disappearance.

Then you suggest maybe one of them returns only a few hours later in only one (different) car? What possible reason for returning then? They have already determined it's too risky to rob the Millers with neighbours present.

Or is this a different person altogether? Is this the third car that FM saw during the bike riding? Someone else staking out the Millers and deciding not to rob it? Again, how is this connected to William's disappearance? This car drives off after being seen and the driver 'locking eyes' with the FM. They are not going to return and grab William.

Or is this a fourth car (not seen by FM) which is also there to rob the Millers (at a similarly inopportune time - 10.08), but just happens to arrive as William runs around the corner of the house. And in the blink of an eye, the driver suddenly decides not to rob the Millers, but to stop the car, get out, call to William, "Hey Spiderman!", and the 'head-shy', non-wandering little boy gets close enough so that the offender can grab him and bundle him into the car and drive off without anyone hearing or seeing a thing.

So for your explanation of the cars it would seem we have not one, but two (at least) seperate parties in Benaroon to rob the Millers house. Both arriving in broad daylight when people are often out and about in the street. And one of them also happens to be an opportunistic pedophile kidnapper.

 

[Earls Smother]

OK let's assume FM saw the two cars at 7.30, and they were there to rob the Millers house. They have just lobbed up in the morning with two cars? No previous surveillance? Because if they checked the house the night before, they would have seen FF car in the driveway of FGM house, signalling she had visitors. The best time to rob the Millers would be after FGM was asleep on the Thursday night, not on Friday morning when people are awake and getting ready for work or their kids ready for school etc. But they arrive Friday morning park in plain view where AMS or any other neighbour can see them - they see FF car, they hear and see kids playing, maybe they see FM or the kids on the balcony so they decide it's not a good time to rob the Millers and they leave? At this stage it's all theoretically possible but this has no connection to William's disappearance.

Then you suggest maybe one of them returns only a few hours later in only one (different) car? What possible reason for returning then? They have already determined it's too risky to rob the Millers with neighbours present.

Or is this a different person altogether? Is this the third car that FM saw during the bike riding? Someone else staking out the Millers and deciding not to rob it? Again, how is this connected to William's disappearance? This car drives off after being seen and the driver 'locking eyes' with the FM. They are not going to return and grab William.

Or is this a fourth car (not seen by FM) which is also there to rob the Millers (at a similarly inopportune time - 10.08), but just happens to arrive as William runs around the corner of the house. And in the blink of an eye, the driver suddenly decides not to rob the Millers, but to stop the car, get out, call to William, "Hey Spiderman!", and the 'head-shy', non-wandering little boy gets close enough so that the offender can grab him and bundle him into the car and drive off without anyone hearing or seeing a thing.

So for your explanation of the cars it would seem we have not one, but two (at least) seperate parties in Benaroon to rob the Millers house. Both arriving in broad daylight when people are often out and about in the street. And one of them also happens to be an opportunistic pedophile kidnapper.

I could paint exactly the same alternative scenario for everything you and others say about the FM.

Where is the evidence? Where is the body? Why didn't they incriminate themselves on the listening devices? Did the FD have her entire memory erased, to have never said anything as she grew older? Why didn't they have their stories more aligned if they were concocting alibis?

The police targeted Spedding and Savage with no evidence. Then they pivoted to target the FM with still no evidence. The most likely occurrence when there is absolutely no evidence, is a totally random event, that by its nature leaves no evidential trail, barring eyewitnesses.

I agree a burglary would make more sense at night. Maybe they were going to pretend to be doing tradie type work? It is all guesswork, but some people would much rather guess with a known entity, because there is something to actually pick apart. A random abduction leaves people with very little to discuss, which is why similiar disappearances get very little attention compared with this one.

Madeleine McCann and Jon Benet Ramsey get similiar attention, because of the intrigue of possible parental involvement. Generally if a parent is involved, with absolutely no prior planning, they are going to make mistakes. How has the FM managed to defy history by not making one single error, in committing what would have to have been the perfect crime?

 

[31550]

I could paint exactly the same alternative scenario for everything you and others say about the FM.

I don't understand this part. I don't think I have posted any theory which is so obviously nonsensical or contradicts established fact. If I have, let's discuss.
I actually said some of what you posted (that one or even two of the cars were there for other nefarious purposes) was theoretically possible, just highly improbable. This cannot IMO be justifiably extrapolated into evidence of an opportunistic abduction. It just explains how it might be possible that the FM saw a car or cars that no-one else did. There is no proof the cars weren't there. There is no proof the cars were there. Neither position supports an opportunistic abduction theory.

 

[Earls Smother]

I don't understand this part. I don't think I have posted any theory which is so obviously nonsensical or contradicts established fact. If I have, let's discuss.
I actually said some of what you posted (that one or even two of the cars were there for other nefarious purposes) was theoretically possible, just highly improbable. This cannot IMO be justifiably extrapolated into evidence of an opportunistic abduction. It just explains how it might be possible that the FM saw a car or cars that no-one else did. There is no proof the cars weren't there. There is no proof the cars were there. Neither position supports an opportunistic abduction theory.

The problem with you is, you jump in at any opportunity when others might ask another poster a particular question. I asked Underarrest a specific question in relation to something they had posted. I'm not interested in what you might think, because I read about it every day.

It is reasonable to assume that most people who support the "FM did it", are basing that on the police theory. To come up with alternative versions of what she did, is just nonsensical. The police might be wrong, but they do have more information than any of us.

The amount of stuff I have read lately on here that is factually wrong (not from you) is ridiculous. Her phone was not turned off. It was left on the bench inside and she saw the text from the FF just before he arrived home. Then the FF apparently wandered on foot for hours during the night moving the body to another far off location. It is known that he and FM checked periodically throughout the night with the command centre. Therefore the command centre knew when and what he was doing, apart from a brief search on foot in the early morning. He would have had no time to physically carry William any distance, let alone dispose of the body in a manner that has meant it has never been found. I won't even mention the photos...

Some of these recently joined posters need to go back and read the earlier threads. There is that much contradictory rubbish being written, that the thread is becoming unreadable.

 

[Curious Clues]

I could paint exactly the same alternative scenario for everything you and others say about the FM.

Where is the evidence? Where is the body? Why didn't they incriminate themselves on the listening devices? Did the FD have her entire memory erased, to have never said anything as she grew older? Why didn't they have their stories more aligned if they were concocting alibis?

The police targeted Spedding and Savage with no evidence. Then they pivoted to target the FM with still no evidence. The most likely occurrence when there is absolutely no evidence, is a totally random event, that by its nature leaves no evidential trail, barring eyewitnesses.

I agree a burglary would make more sense at night. Maybe they were going to pretend to be doing tradie type work? It is all guesswork, but some people would much rather guess with a known entity, because there is something to actually pick apart. A random abduction leaves people with very little to discuss, which is why similiar disappearances get very little attention compared with this one.

Madeleine McCann and Jon Benet Ramsey get similiar attention, because of the intrigue of possible parental involvement. Generally if a parent is involved, with absolutely no prior planning, they are going to make mistakes. How has the FM managed to defy history by not making one single error, in committing what would have to have been the perfect crime?

Hypothetically, if you had a criminal secret you vowed never to speak of ever again, would you randomly start speaking about it 6 years later when that secret is still red hot?
A crime doesn’t need to be perfect to remain unsolved. Theres circumstantial missing person cases like Lynette Simms (Dawson), no physical evidence and no body, Chris Dawson convicted of murder.
IMO

 

[Underarrest_]

What makes you lean more to targeted abduction than random?

I think it is quite possible that FGM unintentionally provided information to criminal-types, via Geoff Owen. I don't think that would have had anything directly to do with William though. She wouldn't have known William was going to be there early on Friday morning, when she last spoke to Owen.

It is more likely Owen became aware that the Millers were away. Others with a proven history of theft also became aware they were away.

I've always felt if you were going to invent seeing someone outside the window at 7:30am, you would say there was 1 car, not 2. Two cars for an abduction scenario is absurd, but not so absurd if you are planning to rob a house and need some room to transport whatever you are planning to steal.

It's feasible both cars had nefarious intentions, parked around the bend from the Millers at 7:30-ish, but realised there were neighbours up and about and it was too risky. So they left very quickly, decreasing the chances of multiple people noticing them. Then one car returned around 10:08am for another look and took advantage of a totally random situation.

It's not like there were no people in the Kendall area who were capable of committing both burglaries and offences against young kids.

I think there’s a few possibilities if targeted.
Possible that it was a a targeted burglary and opportunistic abduction.
Also possible it was a targeted abduction.
FM is either telling the truth or not and adding that she saw two cars, another that drove into the neighbours driveway and then came across the truck driver would just add more suspicion to herself if all untrue.
I don’t believe it’s unreasonable that other people were in the area and unseen. It’s a very leafy area a few minutes from a main town and you wouldn’t see other cars unless you were out the front of your home or looking out windows. The only reason FM might have noticed those cars is because the house is so high. FM said she saw these cars early. They could have been there for a few minutes.
Did anyone see FF coming or going, did they see the tennis guy come home, did anyone notice the lady ( I can’t remember her name) head out to do the shopping?
I don’t buy it’s a rural area, no one would go there. It’s a section off a main town and they’ve more recently developed this area as an extension of the town.
I also wonder if there’s anything to what Paul Savage was recorded saying to himself. Something about two boys. Could he have meant men? ( similar to, going out with the boys tonight?) Or did he see two boys. Did he hear the children playing, did he see the four wheel drive the day before?

 

[winyhill]

wouldn’t be relying on those books for factual and accurate information.

Good point, but all the information we comes from them or media and again, we have no way of knowing what is true and what is not.
I think they would be the most reliable sources that we have.

 

[31550]

Hypothetically, if you had a criminal secret you vowed never to speak of ever again, would you randomly start speaking about it 6 years later when that secret is still red hot?
A crime doesn’t need to be perfect to remain unsolved. Theres circumstantial missing person cases like Lynette Simms (Dawson), no physical evidence and no body, Chris Dawson convicted of murder.
IMO

Agree A crime doesn’t need to be perfect to remain unsolved.
I would add that solving a crime is not exactly the same as charges being laid.
There are many instances where police, in their own minds, have solved a crime and identified the party responsible, but cannot, or do not proceed with laying related charges. There may be many reasons for doing so.

Sometimes, the evidence they collect along the way is given or obtained in such a way that it cannot be used in a court of law to convict. E.g. a suspect might slip up and say something "off the record" to a cop on their own with no witnesses present - something which they may later deny saying.

Another situation is where evidence is illegally obtained, and therefore 'tainted', so it cannot be used as part of a prosecution. Or evidence is lost or destroyed or corrupted along the way. Other situations may be where the evidence is hearsay. Or when a critical witness is unable to testify.

Some experienced police investigators are very skilled at reading body language and can tell (almost infallibly) when someone is lying, so they will be very confident about the facts of a case, even though they may never be able to prove it in court.

Some of the (past and present) police working on this case may have 'solved' it in their own minds. But unless they can put together a brief of evidence which will prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, they should not proceed to prosecution. It would be unwise to do so until they have built such a case.

 

[31550]

Good point, but all the information we comes from them or media and again, we have no way of knowing what is true and what is not.
I think they would be the most reliable sources that we have.

I think Overington did the honest best she could with the information available to her at the time and presented an impartial account. Chumley was a little more colourful and emotional, and swayed by looks and feels.

Both, unfortunately have presented narrative as though it was fact. If they had bothered to examine the details in what they had written, they would see the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies in the various narratives.

Both were hampered by suppression orders, and both were somewhat misdirected by various players in the investigation. This includes SFR, who I don't believe revealed everything they knew to the authors.

 

[Underarrest_]

Hypothetically, if you had a criminal secret you vowed never to speak of ever again, would you randomly start speaking about it 6 years later when that secret is still red hot?
A crime doesn’t need to be perfect to remain unsolved. Theres circumstantial missing person cases like Lynette Simms (Dawson), no physical evidence and no body, Chris Dawson convicted of murder.
IMO

If you were being called into another police interview six years later you might say something before or after the interview. Unless only one person knows what happened.

 

[Leon Higgins]

I have been following this case since the very first day it happened. I cant recall now and CBF looking for it but in one of the books or at the inquest it was stated that she had taken many photos that morning. Of the children together, the sister alone, , etc. As the FGM had sold the property and this would be their last trip there. But not all these were released by the coroner. If you research you may find more.
FM was going to hand the camera to FGM with these memories. She apparently took dozens,

I can see you have only recently been following this, there is sooo much back story that is can be hard to keep track of.

I have been following since September 2014. I picked out the address before it even became public. I initially wondered about the Taxi driver across the road. Peter. The house near where the phony cars were parked.

The reason being that there was a horse coral in the front yard visible on Google Earth. No one in the country ties up there horses near the front footpath. I wondered whether it was there to attract children. It was also the only place he could of disappeared quickly without being seen. There was a little hill he could have been taken behind. The house was put on the market and sold quickly.

Does that sound like someone who does not know the case? Just because people don’t go Big footy doesn’t mean they don’t know anything about the case. Plenty of people here seem to lack the reasoning or critical thinking to realise that the story of a little boy in a Spider-Man suit who disappeared around the corner is a load of cods wallop.

 

[passball]

I have been following since September 2014. I picked out the address before it even became public. I initially wondered about the Taxi driver across the road. Peter. The house near where the phony cars were parked.

The reason being that there was a horse coral in the front yard visible on Google Earth. No one in the country ties up there horses near the front footpath. I wondered whether it was there to attract children. It was also the only place he could of disappeared quickly without being seen. There was a little hill he could have been taken behind. The house was put on the market and sold quickly.

Does that sound like someone who does not know the case? Just because people don’t go Big footy doesn’t mean they don’t know anything about the case. Plenty of people here seem to lack the reasoning or critical thinking to realise that the story of a little boy in a Spider-Man suit who disappeared around the corner is a load of cods wallop.

Do you know if police talked to Peter the taxi man?
Is that your theory, Peter took him?

 

[Underarrest_]

Looking at this from all angles,
Is the FM’s narrative the truth?
Part of it is truth (unless for those who believe that William wasn’t there at all that morning.)
Is the police tactic trying to get to the truth?
Did William go down looking for Daddy’s car?

 

[Earls Smother]

Hypothetically, if you had a criminal secret you vowed never to speak of ever again, would you randomly start speaking about it 6 years later when that secret is still red hot?
A crime doesn’t need to be perfect to remain unsolved. Theres circumstantial missing person cases like Lynette Simms (Dawson), no physical evidence and no body, Chris Dawson convicted of murder.
IMO

Circumstantial cases like Dawson and to a large extent Greg Lynn, are more solvable because it is relatively easy to prove that only one person can have been responsible. The exact how and why might not be known, but the "who" is easy enough, because everyone else can be eliminated.

There is no way this case will be solved circumstantially, because there are still multiple scenarios and persons of interest on the table.

 

[31550]

Looking at this from all angles,
Is the FM’s narrative the truth?
Part of it is truth (unless for those who believe that William wasn’t there at all that morning.)
Is the police tactic trying to get to the truth?
Did William go down looking for Daddy’s car?

Of course part of it is the truth. They certainly drove to Kendall - they are on CCTV at McDonalds.
Of course part of it is not the truth - it cannot be all true if it contradicts itself, or contradicts known facts.
Of course police are going to try to get the truth.

Why would you single out the 'looking for Daddys car' part though?
Not even the FM asserts this as truth - she says maybe he did.
But it's unlikely. Sniffer dogs didn't detect William's scent off the property. FF didn't see him when he drove up. FM couldn't find him when she went looking for him. Mowing man didn't see him. No neighbours saw him. And he was supposed to be wearing a Spiderman suit. He had only been gone '5 minutes' when FF arrived at 10.30. So if he went looking for FF car, then why wasn't he ever found? Because something else must have happened, and whatever that something else was, the 'looking for Daddys car' part becomes pretty irrelevant, don't you think?