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

 

[31550]

If something happened early that morning, the Fosters wouldn't want to involve the FGM. The surest way to do that would be to argue that she was up late and saw nothing. What's more she didn't even see the FF. So she had no involvement in anything directly or indirectly as an accessory..That was what was sought to be achieved by the lies. But instead what shows up are multiple red flags and a clear troubled timeline where over 1 hour is mysteriously unaccounted for. This on the morning WT went missing is conspicuous as to something happening in this time.

The issues with that theory are:

• FF car was seen on CCTV only once at ~8:50 passing the tennis club
• no neighbours saw any cars coming and going from the FGM house, but a few people were in the street getting kids to school, going to work etc.
• FGM and LT alibis needed to be created and they needed to be coached before talking to police. A big risk for an elderly woman and very young child. What if they didn't go along with the concocted story?
• Savage heard children (plural) playing - not proof but casts reasonable doubt
• and of course the photos. No mean feat to expertly create those

I think more likely FGM is covering up for other events which occurred - a family fight? , an accident ? for which she was either embarrassed or took some personal responsibility. What if FM asked FGM to mind the kids for a few minutes and something happened to William? What if someone else was at the house they don't want anyone to know about?

 

[LRitz]

She makes a comment that her usual waking time was 7.30. With visitors you'd expect with manners you'd at least wake the same time as them..Was she late because she had the cold? But then again the kids went into TO wake her. We will never know. The only things we do know is she said FF wasn't there at 8 and there is a whole bunch on incriminating red flags to multiple comments she made. To me they all seem to centre around the fact she was a very poor liar.

Yes I noticed too the breakfast list. That IS a technique used to both distract and convey you are a person of detail and therefore truth to which I respond.......why would conveying that be necessary at all if you are being truthful in all you say? Red flag again.

I still don't understand how Bigfooty came in possession of the entire police walk through not the edited version..was it intentionally leak by them because it was incriminating? I suspect so.

As regards the 8 v 9 discrepancy I say this. Her cognitive capacity was sufficient the night before for the FF to ask then rely on her answer about what the opening time was for the chemist...we know is 9. Yet a mere week later you consider she was so muddled that she couldn't tell the difference between 8 and 9. I can't accept that. I believe that she knew it was 9 and she knew she was up before 8 and she wanted to hide where he was and help the alibi and rather than say they were up later her solution was to lie and say he had to go to chemist early before 8 yet knowing it wasn't open until 9 hoping the police wouldn't check. It was imo an intentional lie in am amateurish way to hide whatever happened between 7.39 and 8.40. But the lie was exposed as a lie by her own conduct

No proof of lots of things. No proof what time anyone was awake. And if WT was abducted after the photo 9:37, anything that happened before is mostly inconsequential to finding a third party. And if WT was abducted the foster family would be telling the truth about everything. But..

I think FGM was confused with two versions of events. She knew that FF had to be SAID to leave before the photo was taken. So she should have said around 9:00, and everyone happy. But what if the photo was at (say) 8:10 and she got mixed up and said he left at 8:00. Leaving at 8:00 does not fit in with his drive time to Lakewood. So yes a possible lie.

 

[Lady O]

No proof of lots of things. No proof what time anyone was awake. And if WT was abducted after the photo 9:37, anything that happened before is mostly inconsequential to finding a third party. And if WT was abducted the foster family would be telling the truth about everything. But..

I think FGM was confused with two versions of events. She knew that FF had to be SAID to leave before the photo was taken. So she should have said around 9:00, and everyone happy. But what if the photo was at (say) 8:10 and she got mixed up and said he left at 8:00. Leaving at 8:00 does not fit in with his drive time to Lakewood. So yes a possible lie.

I don't think there would be any day that I could tell to within 10 minutes (or maybe even an hour) about what time something happened. Really, you don't consciously keep track, especially on a day off. Maybe when you are constrained by time (get to work, have lunch, knock off, etc), but on a weekend with lots of things happening in a random fashion - nope. Add to that the shock of your daughter's foster child going missing, Police and searchers everywhere, heightened emotions by your daughter and husband. Anyone could be confused, but especially an elderly new widow, who is recovering from an illness and MAY have early dementia. Really, people, I think you are very harsh in your assessment of FGM's abilities.

However, when she said "this is where it all happened", my ears pricked up.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The issues with that theory are:

• FF car was seen on CCTV only once at ~8:50 passing the tennis club
• no neighbours saw any cars coming and going from the FGM house, but a few people were in the street getting kids to school, going to work etc.
• FGM and LT alibis needed to be created and they needed to be coached before talking to police. A big risk for an elderly woman and very young child. What if they didn't go along with the concocted story?
• Savage heard children (plural) playing - not proof but casts reasonable doubt
• and of course the photos. No mean feat to expertly create those

I think more likely FGM is covering up for other events which occurred - a family fight? , an accident ? for which she was either embarrassed or took some personal responsibility. What if FM asked FGM to mind the kids for a few minutes and something happened to William? What if someone else was at the house they don't want anyone to know about?

• FF went opposite direction on Batar Cr Rd the earlier time so no CCTV
• no neighbours saw because the time was earlier
• clear evidence that FGM collaborated with FF in walk through .."he told me later...".
• Savage final testimony at inquest he said he heard nothing
• you suggest FGM was hiding something not being WT demise. All conjecture but we know WT is missing and it happened in Fosters care so most likely the thing hidden

 

[31550]

• FF went opposite direction on Batar Cr Rd the earlier time so no CCTV
• no neighbours saw because the time was earlier
• clear evidence that FGM collaborated with FF in walk through .."he told me later...".
• Savage final testimony at inquest he said he heard nothing
• you suggest FGM was hiding something not being WT demise. All conjecture but we know WT is missing and it happened in Fosters care so most likely the thing hidden

You seem convinced FF was there when something happened to William, yet LT told police he "went to look for Daddy's car". How do you reconcile that? Clearly LT did not think FF was there when William disappeared.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You seem convinced FF was there when something happened to William, yet LT told police he "went to look for Daddy's car". How do you reconcile that? Clearly LT did not think FF was there when William disappeared.

Because an explanation would need to be provided to a child by an adult that allowed them to process what had occurred including if they were involved. A child will parrot what they are told and that will be sanitized or random

Adults usually have adequate impulse control. Children from DV environments don't. The most likely cause here is siblicide not an accident. They already had one altercation that morning. I suspect that WT had an existing skull fracture....the black eyes, the head shyness, the introspective demeanor last bio visit. The lame explanations to hide existence of the injury......fall off a chair, fall off the FM, unable to get up. All stories designed to create an explanation if the body was ever found with head fracture injuries.

The existing injury may have been the more significant and a further hit with an existing injury then becomes a fatal one.

That's my theory

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You seem convinced FF was there when something happened to William, yet LT told police he "went to look for Daddy's car". How do you reconcile that? Clearly LT did not think FF was there when William disappeared.

So let me get this straight. FGM advised FF the night before what the opening time of chemist was. He thought enough of her cognitive capacity to ask and rely upon answer.. but a week later when she lies about him going to chemist leaving before 8 knowing it didn't open until 9 you resolve it to be FGM confusion not to be believed this latter exchange being a police recorded walk through. Not incriminating at all.

But then you will believe what a 4 year old said about WT going missing which in all likelihood was some BS story from parents to distract her with some random explanation.. There is a reason police don't give great weight to 4 year olds comments ......especially ones that might have had their minds filled with nonsense. Maybe FD asked where he was AND in order at that stage to further the alleged lies they initially push wandering off to follow FF car. A little later they realise that won't wash because he's too little so instead opt for the abduction strategy. Either way you can't place too much reliance on what FD said

That right there is classic example of tunnel vision and confirmation bias. You worked out in your mind what is your theory and despite the relative merits of actual evidence will continue to hold to the theory despite the evidence being weak or strong in opposite direction contrary to your theory

 

[31550]

So let me get this straight. FGM advised FF the night before what the opening time of chemist was. He thought enough of her cognitive capacity to ask and rely upon answer.. but a week later when she lies about him going to chemist leaving before 8 knowing it didn't open until 9 you resolve it to be FGM confusion not to be believed this latter exchange being a police recorded walk through. Not incriminating at all.

But then you will believe what a 4 year old said about WT going missing which in all likelihood was some BS story from parents to distract her with some random explanation.. There is a reason police don't give great weight to 4 year olds comments ......especially ones that might have had their minds filled with nonsense. Maybe FD asked where he was AND in order at that stage to further the alleged lies they initially push wandering off to follow FF car. A little later they realise that won't wash because he's too little so instead opt for the abduction strategy. Either way you can't place too much reliance on what FD said

That right there is classic example of tunnel vision and confirmation bias. You worked out in your mind what is your theory and despite the relative merits of actual evidence will continue to hold to the theory despite the evidence being weak or strong in opposite direction contrary to your theory

I am familiar with confirmation bias. It's when you use a specific fact to prove your theory or reinforce your belief; but that fact has a reasonable and plausible explanation which is unrelated in any way to your theory or belief. I can illustrate for you:

In my case I used the fact that LT said William had gone looking for Daddy's car to support the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. This fact is related to whether FF was present or not, because it makes no sense for William to look for FF's car if FF is actually present - his car would be in the carport!

Now, the question is why said that. Either she believed it to be true (in which case FF was not present), or somebody told her that William had gone to look for Daddy's car - i.e. part of the FM narrative. But it makes no sense for this to be part of FM's narrative: Firstly because it raises the possibility that FF was very close to the house when William disappeared. Secondly it suggests that FM (negligently) told William to go out onto Benaroon Drive (unsupervised). If LT was told William had gone looking for the car when FF was actually present she would not have been so accepting of this narrative. Therefore I believe the fact that LT said William was looking for Daddy's car is related and supports the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. Not confirmation bias.

On the other hand, your theory that FF was present when the 'roar' photo was taken is supported by the fact that William is not looking at the camera because 'he must be looking at FF' is pure confirmation bias. There are any number of plausible explanations for William not looking at the camera which don't involve the FF being present. But your logic is he must be looking at someone(1), so that someone must be the FF (2) , so therefore either the pictures are faked (3) or FFs alibi has been faked (4). Four unlikely conclusions when there is a much simpler explanation - he simply wasn't looking at the camera when the photo was snapped.

 

[Lady O]

I am familiar with confirmation bias. It's when you use a specific fact to prove your theory or reinforce your belief; but that fact has a reasonable and plausible explanation which is unrelated in any way to your theory or belief. I can illustrate for you:

In my case I used the fact that LT said William had gone looking for Daddy's car to support the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. This fact is related to whether FF was present or not, because it makes no sense for William to look for FF's car if FF is actually present - his car would be in the carport!

Now, the question is why said that. Either she believed it to be true (in which case FF was not present), or somebody told her that William had gone to look for Daddy's car - i.e. part of the FM narrative. But it makes no sense for this to be part of FM's narrative: Firstly because it raises the possibility that FF was very close to the house when William disappeared. Secondly it suggests that FM (negligently) told William to go out onto Benaroon Drive (unsupervised). If LT was told William had gone looking for the car when FF was actually present she would not have been so accepting of this narrative. Therefore I believe the fact that LT said William was looking for Daddy's car is related and supports the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. Not confirmation bias.

On the other hand, your theory that FF was present when the 'roar' photo was taken is supported by the fact that William is not looking at the camera because 'he must be looking at FF' is pure confirmation bias. There are any number of plausible explanations for William not looking at the camera which don't involve the FF being present. But your logic is he must be looking at someone(1), so that someone must be the FF (2) , so therefore either the pictures are faked (3) or FFs alibi has been faked (4). Four unlikely conclusions when there is a much simpler explanation - he simply wasn't looking at the camera when the photo was snapped.

FGM in her walk through says that she and FM were sitting on the patio when WT disappeared around the corner. She says "Then he said, Mummy, I'm a big daddy tiger" and then he ran around the corner of the house. In the walk through, there was washing on the line and FGM took the Police woman off the patio to point to where he went. But, when you look at the video, they would not have been able to tell if he went onto the high verandah or around the corner of the house, as from their position with backs against the house, there is only a sliver of a view. If the Police were correct, then he could easily have gone onto the high verandah rather than around the back of the house.



You can see there is only a post between being on the verandah, and being beside the house.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I am familiar with confirmation bias. It's when you use a specific fact to prove your theory or reinforce your belief; but that fact has a reasonable and plausible explanation which is unrelated in any way to your theory or belief. I can illustrate for you:

In my case I used the fact that LT said William had gone looking for Daddy's car to support the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. This fact is related to whether FF was present or not, because it makes no sense for William to look for FF's car if FF is actually present - his car would be in the carport!

Now, the question is why said that. Either she believed it to be true (in which case FF was not present), or somebody told her that William had gone to look for Daddy's car - i.e. part of the FM narrative. But it makes no sense for this to be part of FM's narrative: Firstly because it raises the possibility that FF was very close to the house when William disappeared. Secondly it suggests that FM (negligently) told William to go out onto Benaroon Drive (unsupervised). If LT was told William had gone looking for the car when FF was actually present she would not have been so accepting of this narrative. Therefore I believe the fact that LT said William was looking for Daddy's car is related and supports the theory that FF was not present when William disappeared. Not confirmation bias.

On the other hand, your theory that FF was present when the 'roar' photo was taken is supported by the fact that William is not looking at the camera because 'he must be looking at FF' is pure confirmation bias. There are any number of plausible explanations for William not looking at the camera which don't involve the FF being present. But your logic is he must be looking at someone(1), so that someone must be the FF (2) , so therefore either the pictures are faked (3) or FFs alibi has been faked (4). Four unlikely conclusions when there is a much simpler explanation - he simply wasn't looking at the camera when the photo was snapped.

We are dealing with what FM told FD not what she told WT to do. She clearly didn't tell him to go look for car..On my reckoning WT was at that stage dead. FF had taken him away and FD may perhaps have asked where FF is then where William was and given a BS response because she.could hardly say......with FF in his car for obvious reasons

WT looking at the FF beside FM taking the picture isn't THE factor but one of multiple factors all pointing to correctness of the earlier timeline. I believe he was looking at someone and if he is that person given the time of morning and location would have been FF..Logical sound deductive reasoning. I don't think some random person wandered into the yard before 8, steps beside FM to pose for a photo. So yes it makes perfect sense that person is FF

FGM in her walk through says that she and FM were sitting on the patio when WT disappeared around the corner. She says "Then he said, Mummy, I'm a big daddy tiger" and then he ran around the corner of the house. In the walk through, there was washing on the line and FGM took the Police woman off the patio to point to where he went. But, when you look at the video, they would not have been able to tell if he went onto the high verandah or around the corner of the house, as from their position with backs against the house, there is only a sliver of a view. If the Police were correct, then he could easily have gone onto the high verandah rather than around the back of the house.

View attachment 1856504

You can see there is only a post between being on the verandah, and being beside the house.

View attachment 1856510

In the extended version she actually walks around that corner.

Yes your comments are entirely relevant. If you want to believe that he went along the top balcony then you must connect the dots as to why he would then have gone over that balcony. Was it a chasing game gone wrong? Was it siblicide where he was chased to be retaliatory hit then pushed off? Did FM chase him to smack him and he jumped? All possibilities. What's less likely is he went along that top balcony and off it under his own measures. There is no reason for him to do that.

 

[Lady O]

What's less likely is he went along that top balcony and off it under his own measures. There is no reason for him to do that.

He could have been hanging over the rail "looking for Daddy", and just overbalanced and fell off. That is a very dangerous area for small children.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

He could have been hanging over the rail "looking for Daddy", and just overbalanced and fell off. That is a very dangerous area for small children.

Yes possible of course. BUT if that's what happened then there must be symmetry between that and failure to report. Why not report what was purely an accident? There is no significant motive. Yeah I understand that FAC involvement may be an obstacle. But it is a MAJOR crime to hide a child's body after an accident. I struggle to believe they did that or would do that.

 

[Lady O]

Yes possible of course. BUT if that's what happened then there must be symmetry between that and failure to report. Why not report what was purely an accident? There is no significant motive. Yeah I understand that FAC involvement may be an obstacle. But it is a MAJOR crime to hide a child's body after an accident. I struggle to believe they did that or would do that.

I can't explain why you would see a 3yo go around towards the front of the house and then just go inside and make some tea? Why you wouldn't have made sure he didn't have access to the extremely high verandah. Why, if there was an accident, you wouldn't just call 000. Why if there was obviously no chance of him being revived, you would bundle him up in your mother's car and take his body and just dispose of it in the bush. Why then allow people to search for him when you knew exactly where he was. Why suggest that he was abducted and even remember you had seen cars and a creepy man that morning. Why would you let completely uninvolved neighbours and tradesmen be treated as suspects. I struggle to believe that also, if indeed it did happen.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I can't explain why you would see a 3yo go around towards the front of the house and then just go inside and make some tea? Why you wouldn't have made sure he didn't have access to the extremely high verandah. Why, if there was an accident, you wouldn't just call 000. Why if there was obviously no chance of him being revived, you would bundle him up in your mother's car and take his body and just dispose of it in the bush. Why then allow people to search for him when you knew exactly where he was. Why suggest that he was abducted and even remember you had seen cars and a creepy man that morning. Why would you let completely uninvolved neighbours and tradesmen be treated as suspects. I struggle to believe that also, if indeed it did happen.

Yes I cant understand it either. When you can't understand and it doesn't make sense from human nature perspective then it is an indication perhaps that it didn't happen. That's why I lean to indirect involvement in the incident as causation. A push. A. Chase. An argument prior to the fall if in fact it was a fall rather than a head strike

 

[31550]

FGM in her walk through says that she and FM were sitting on the patio when WT disappeared around the corner. She says "Then he said, Mummy, I'm a big daddy tiger" and then he ran around the corner of the house. In the walk through, there was washing on the line and FGM took the Police woman off the patio to point to where he went. But, when you look at the video, they would not have been able to tell if he went onto the high verandah or around the corner of the house, as from their position with backs against the house, there is only a sliver of a view. If the Police were correct, then he could easily have gone onto the high verandah rather than around the back of the house.

View attachment 1856504

You can see there is only a post between being on the verandah, and being beside the house.

View attachment 1856510

The walkthrough was several days after William disappeared. The washing seen in the walkthrough was unlikely to have been there on the3 day William disappeared. But I agree William could have easily gone round the corner onto the high verandah/balcony. He 'disappeared around the corner' according to one version, and he 'kept going around the corner' according to another version. In any case there was no barrier to prevent him running onto the high verandah/balcony, and from all accounts nobody could say for certain that he didn't.

 

[Lady O]

The walkthrough was several days after William disappeared. The washing seen in the walkthrough was unlikely to have been there on the3 day William disappeared. But I agree William could have easily gone round the corner onto the high verandah/balcony. He 'disappeared around the corner' according to one version, and he 'kept going around the corner' according to another version. In any case there was no barrier to prevent him running onto the high verandah/balcony, and from all accounts nobody could say for certain that he didn't.

Well, no of course there was no washing on the line as the machine was broken down. There was a barrier (gate) on the verandah, but in the walk through, you can see the gate to the verandah is open, so it's possible it was also open when the children were there.

 

[Kurve]

This thread is closing, please continue to Part 2.

Current - Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * FM guilty of assault & intimidation

Continued from PART 1 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...

www.bigfooty.com