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

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Again highlighting the importance of irrefutable verification (which we currently don't have) that the proof of life photo was taken at the approx. minutes/ time of day when claimed by the fosters.

Yes. But they were heard playing between 9 and 9.30 which is sort of independent verification.

I have greater belief that it's 7.37 than 9.37 but children being heard playing between 9 and 9.30 puts us straight back on same timeline

 

[31550]

Again highlighting the importance of irrefutable verification (which we currently don't have) that the proof of life photo was taken at the approx. minutes/ time of day when claimed by the fosters.

IMO there is no such thing as "irrefutable verification" in this case. What we do have is the absence of any compelling evidence which refutes the time of the photo being approximately 9:37. We have only conjecture that somehow the date/timestamp has been deliberately manipulated or falsified.

In his opening address at the coronial inquest 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”.

IMO if there was any compelling evidence that the photograph was not taken at this time, then the case would still be in the hands of TFR and not the coroner, and charges would be laid against the person or persons who falsified evidence.

I accept that some people will never be satisfied about the time of the photo.

 

[BFew]

IMO there is no such thing as "irrefutable verification" in this case.

There might be at some point in the future.

But we might only get to see them if they are used at any further reopening of the coronial enquiry, or during any trial prosecution of either of the fosters, for anything where the photos and their timing are relevant. Or any future inquiry involving how the investigation was conducted, where the forensic analysis of the photos was in scope.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The photo had a creation time that differed to altered time. Craddock SC at the inquest may have said that the "photo was taken at 9.37 of that we can be certain", but in the 2000 pages brief of evidence submitted was the information about the disparity in times which prompted the Coroner to then order an investigation be done the results of which we don't yet know.

Posters here have also undertaken detailed analysis of sun position including providing dozens of photos all of which supports my solid belief that at 45° 9.37 am the sun would create patches on overhead screen and onto deck whereas at 22° 7.37 am it would not. The picture is consistent with that earlier time. On the day in question nearby it was mostly sun and only partly cloudy. So not overcast as to disrupt sun patches I would expect

I've read elsewhere that a possibility is that edits were done to photo such as cropping or HD or contrast, saturation etc at that later time and the original photo was still on the phone when created. Very few people use a phone camera and accept the photo produced without editing it when you sit down perhaps to a cup of tea. Highly plausible. That of course would mean the original WAS taken at 7.37 and was maybe still on phone unless purposely deleted.

The police at this stage would know you would presume. So why wouldn't they release this information? Perhaps because it clearly refutes testimony of the FP and at this stage they want to keep their powder dry. Plausible

In my opinion the totality is probably more compelling for 7.37 than not. I most definitely am not yet satisfied about 9.37 no matter how many people insist I should be.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Let's assume for the moment that it was taken 7.37. How can that possibly change scenarios of what happened that day?

Kids were heard playing between 9 and 9.30. But was that both kids or one on say on a bike? If it wasn't WT then the timeline opens right up. FM keeps LT occupied whilst FF is away hiding body and heard as both playing but wasn't.

Accident happens early whilst both FPs there and FF takes body away to hide in National Park. They have heaps of time to deal with emotions and still hide body. The picture being 7.37 DOES show WT looking at FF as some suggest. Accident happens at say 8. That leaves 1 hr to hide body where won't be found and FF to meet his appointments. No sun patches on deck- consistent

FGM lies about where FF was in walk through. "Bouncing out of skull" still a Freudian slip by her.

The FGM lying that FF had already left before 8 is just ridiculous. But she got flustered trying to explain why he had to be elsewhere.

Adds up

FM takes a rock with blood on it away to dispose of it using FGM car

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The photo had a creation time that differed to altered time. Craddock SC at the inquest may have said that the "photo was taken at 9.37 of that we can be certain", but in the 2000 pages brief of evidence submitted was the information about the disparity in times which prompted the Coroner to then order an investigation be done the results of which we don't yet know.

Posters here have also undertaken detailed analysis of sun position including providing dozens of photos all of which supports my solid belief that at 45° 9.37 am the sun would create patches on overhead screen and onto deck whereas at 22° 7.37 am it would not. The picture is consistent with that earlier time. On the day in question nearby it was mostly sun and only partly cloudy. So not overcast as to disrupt sun patches I would expect

I've read elsewhere that a possibility is that edits were done to photo such as cropping or HD or contrast, saturation etc at that later time and the original photo was still on the phone when created. Very few people use a phone camera and accept the photo produced without editing it when you sit down perhaps to a cup of tea. Highly plausible. That of course would mean the original WAS taken at 7.37 and was maybe still on phone unless purposely deleted.

The police at this stage would know you would presume. So why wouldn't they release this information? Perhaps because it clearly refutes testimony of the FP and at this stage they want to keep their powder dry. Plausible

In my opinion the totality is probably more compelling for 7.37 than not. I most definitely am not yet satisfied about 9.37 no matter how many people insist I should be.

Another thought just occurred to me. What if FM sat down at 9.37am and edited ALL her photos taken that morning and yesterday afternoon. She could spend 20-25 minutes doing that all the while thinking WT was running around the corner being safe but wasn't. She won't want to mention she was editing photos rather than monitoring her own son but perhaps the time left unattended was more substantial and was caused by editing photos?

 

[BFew]

FM takes a rock with blood on it away to dispose of it using FGM car

In this accident scenario, could the FF have done this in his vehicle (and not the FM)?

 

[BFew]

Another thought just occurred to me. What if FM sat down at 9.37am and edited ALL her photos taken that morning and yesterday afternoon. She could spend 20-25 minutes doing that all the while thinking WT was running around the corner being safe but wasn't. She won't want to mention she was editing photos rather than monitoring her own son but perhaps the time left unattended was more substantial and was caused by editing photos?

Nice one.

 

[DonnaHayward]

It would need to be a very severe accident with immediate death. The natural reaction otherwise would be to try and revive and help survive. So must have been no chance of medical attention reversing it.

The problem with accident is to my mind the time. It takes time to deal with realisation of death and know he has no chance to even fight for him, recognizing that pre existing injuries represent a danger of abuse detection and then hide where can't be found. Photo at 9.37, heard playing between 9 and 9.30. so accident must be around 9.50am. Can you deal with it, resolve and implement a plan in total 40 mins?.....when the emotional impact is probably the most severe you've ever experienced? then to act alone before even talking to FF.......is problematic. Is he really dead? How do you know for certain? That is a short timeline.

I think we need to take a few things into account here.

FM had a difficult relationship with FGM. We know it was FF who did most of the communicating with the in-laws (this is mentioned in the Lia Harris podcast, sorry can't remember where/what ep).

When you are around your difficult parent/s - especially in their home - you can revert to acting as you did when you were a child. The old power dynamic resumes. Unfortunately I speak from experience.

We know that the FGM was complaining about William's behaviour that morning. Asking if he had ADD. Saying he was 'taking over everything' etc.

It's bloody hard taking kids that age out of their regular environment. And if they are not allowed to be 100% their boisterous selves it's awkward and STRESSFUL for the parents.

IMO there was a LOT of stress going on that morning. It was not the 'completely normal' morning the fosters tried to say it was. In fact, everything was different. The kids hadn't been to see Nan and Pop for months and now Pop wasn't even there.

The house was getting sold. There were disagreements over the best way to sell the house ("they were worried I was going to do the wrong thing"), what to keep, what to throw away, what to sell on gumtree... really hard, emotional stuff.

What if the FM goes searching for William and:

1) discovers he had fatally fallen from the high balcony or
2) finds him digging up FGM's prized flowers or doing something that's going to cause more trouble. She snaps and fatally hits him in the head

Once she realises William is fatally injured and she is responsible - either way, accident or moment of rage - she reverts to child mode.

Cover up her mistake (hide William) and pretend it never happened.

This is what children do all the time.

She was in her mothers home.

The atmosphere was charged.

She didn't have a great bond with William and we know she was 'close to giving up or giving in'.

We don't know what other mental health issues / trauma she may have had.

In that moment of discovering William was unresponsive perhaps she just couldn't face the consequences.

The police mentioned they believed his body was placed in the bush. Doesn't mean it wasn't covered with foliage. Or hidden deep in the bush - where one might get a hand injury pushing their way through.

I can understand her actions if I think through the unique, supercharged context of the situation.

 

[fazacs1]

Let's assume for the moment that it was taken 7.37. How can that possibly change scenarios of what happened that day?

Kids were heard playing between 9 and 9.30. But was that both kids or one on say on a bike? If it wasn't WT then the timeline opens right up. FM keeps LT occupied whilst FF is away hiding body and heard as both playing but wasn't.

Accident happens early whilst both FPs there and FF takes body away to hide in National Park. They have heaps of time to deal with emotions and still hide body. The picture being 7.37 DOES show WT looking at FF as some suggest. Accident happens at say 8. That leaves 1 hr to hide body where won't be found and FF to meet his appointments. No sun patches on deck- consistent

FGM lies about where FF was in walk through. "Bouncing out of skull" still a Freudian slip by her.

The FGM lying that FF had already left before 8 is just ridiculous. But she got flustered trying to explain why he had to be elsewhere.

Adds up

FM takes a rock with blood on it away to dispose of it using FGM

FGM certainly does a lot of hand wringing when explaining about the FF not being there and trying to explain the chemist and conference call

 

[fazacs1]

Just something that has always bothered me from the start, watching all the interviews, listening to podcasts and reading articles, not once have I ever heard the FM accept any responsibility for Williams disappearance, I’ve never heard her say “if only I had been watching William more closely that morning”. IMO most people that have faced a tragedy always have regrets and blame themselves to some degree for their failure to keep the person safe, even when they could not possibly have changed the outcome. And usually treasure the last photograph of the person. Maybe I missed it somewhere, I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve missed it somewhere

 

[JWS2019]

Just something that has always bothered me from the start, watching all the interviews, listening to podcasts and reading articles, not once have I ever heard the FM accept any responsibility for Williams disappearance, I’ve never heard her say “if only I had been watching William more closely that morning”. IMO most people that have faced a tragedy always have regrets and blame themselves to some degree for their failure to keep the person safe, even when they could not possibly have changed the outcome. And usually treasure the last photograph of the person. Maybe I missed it somewhere, I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve missed it somewhere

This is a really great point. As you have noted even when an outcome could not have changed people have regret and tend to hyper focus on what if’s. I haven’t considered that.

 

[JWS2019]

I think we need to take a few things into account here.

FM had a difficult relationship with FGM. We know it was FF who did most of the communicating with the in-laws (this is mentioned in the Lia Harris podcast, sorry can't remember where/what ep).

When you are around your difficult parent/s - especially in their home - you can revert to acting as you did when you were a child. The old power dynamic resumes. Unfortunately I speak from experience.

We know that the FGM was complaining about William's behaviour that morning. Asking if he had ADD. Saying he was 'taking over everything' etc.

It's bloody hard taking kids that age out of their regular environment. And if they are not allowed to be 100% their boisterous selves it's awkward and STRESSFUL for the parents.

IMO there was a LOT of stress going on that morning. It was not the 'completely normal' morning the fosters tried to say it was. In fact, everything was different. The kids hadn't been to see Nan and Pop for months and now Pop wasn't even there.

The house was getting sold. There were disagreements over the best way to sell the house ("they were worried I was going to do the wrong thing"), what to keep, what to throw away, what to sell on gumtree... really hard, emotional stuff.

What if the FM goes searching for William and:

1) discovers he had fatally fallen from the high balcony or
2) finds him digging up FGM's prized flowers or doing something that's going to cause more trouble. She snaps and fatally hits him in the head

Once she realises William is fatally injured and she is responsible - either way, accident or moment of rage - she reverts to child mode.

Cover up her mistake (hide William) and pretend it never happened.

This is what children do all the time.

She was in her mothers home.

The atmosphere was charged.

She didn't have a great bond with William and we know she was 'close to giving up or giving in'.

We don't know what other mental health issues / trauma she may have had.

In that moment of discovering William was unresponsive perhaps she just couldn't face the consequences.

The police mentioned they believed his body was placed in the bush. Doesn't mean it wasn't covered with foliage. Or hidden deep in the bush - where one might get a hand injury pushing their way through.

I can understand her actions if I think through the unique, supercharged context of the situation.

Yes this! Dreaded taking kids away at Williams ages and they were pretty good. All stresses where reflected back on other people....

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Just something that has always bothered me from the start, watching all the interviews, listening to podcasts and reading articles, not once have I ever heard the FM accept any responsibility for Williams disappearance, I’ve never heard her say “if only I had been watching William more closely that morning”. IMO most people that have faced a tragedy always have regrets and blame themselves to some degree for their failure to keep the person safe, even when they could not possibly have changed the outcome. And usually treasure the last photograph of the person. Maybe I missed it somewhere, I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve missed it somewhere

There is something definitely peculiar about her behaviour. I can't quite put my finger on it. She loves to hear herself talk. Goes over and over same territory just to hear herself imo. She has been highly critical of police ( after Jubelin). She seems to defend her actions and claim incredulity than any form of guilt. She is pushing the abduction route (with mysterious car sightings) but the truth is IF it was an abduction there is no way he was left alone a mere few minutes. Much longer imo. There should be immense levels of guilt but if there is she hides it well..Lots of storytelling about how good they were as parents now shown to be fake. The presents (over $2k) bought by bio parents were discarded in order to promote themselves as parents.....red flag right there. Is there a lack of genuine empathy? Perhaps. Hard to pin point. I found myself almost from the start being guarded about her true personality. Something is 'off'.

 

[DonnaHayward]

There is something definitely peculiar about her behaviour. I can't quite put my finger on it. She loves to hear herself talk. Goes over and over same territory just to hear herself imo. She has been highly critical of police ( after Jubelin). She seems to defend her actions and claim incredulity than any form of guilt. She is pushing the abduction route (with mysterious car sightings) but the truth is IF it was an abduction there is no way he was left alone a mere few minutes. Much longer imo. There should be immense levels of guilt but if there is she hides it well..Lots of storytelling about how good they were as parents now shown to be fake. The presents (over $2k) bought by bio parents were discarded in order to promote themselves as parents.....red flag right there. Is there a lack of genuine empathy? Perhaps. Hard to pin point. I found myself almost from the start being guarded about her true personality. Something is 'off'.

I wouldn't be the first to observe she's a touch narcissistic. Explains why the silence in response to her letter to David Laidlaw once Jubes was removed from the case was so triggering for the FM.

She reads out the letter in the Where's William Tyrrell podcast. She's outraged.

The worst thing you can do to a narcissist is ignore them.

 

[DonnaHayward]

Just something that has always bothered me from the start, watching all the interviews, listening to podcasts and reading articles, not once have I ever heard the FM accept any responsibility for Williams disappearance, I’ve never heard her say “if only I had been watching William more closely that morning”. IMO most people that have faced a tragedy always have regrets and blame themselves to some degree for their failure to keep the person safe, even when they could not possibly have changed the outcome. And usually treasure the last photograph of the person. Maybe I missed it somewhere, I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve missed it somewhere

100% agree with this.

It's basic parenting - you don't let a 3 year old out of your sight near an unfenced road. And if you do - that's negligence and you have to take responsibility for letting that happen on your watch.

IMO that's why we heard at first she was inside making a cup of tea, then it was that William and LT were playing hide and seek, eventually we land on the ol' Daddy Tiger story where he was supposed to 'come back' from around the corner on his own.

Not her fault, any of it.

She did at the inquest admit she felt guilty when she enjoyed the silence and sipping her tea. But she's very clever to frame her guilt in a way all parents can relate to - who hasn't enjoyed a moments silence during the toddler years?

It's a big jump to letting your 3 year old run around unsupervised next to a road. She's a very good storyteller.

 

[CodyRose]

I think we need to take a few things into account here.

FM had a difficult relationship with FGM. We know it was FF who did most of the communicating with the in-laws (this is mentioned in the Lia Harris podcast, sorry can't remember where/what ep).

When you are around your difficult parent/s - especially in their home - you can revert to acting as you did when you were a child. The old power dynamic resumes. Unfortunately I speak from experience.

We know that the FGM was complaining about William's behaviour that morning. Asking if he had ADD. Saying he was 'taking over everything' etc.

It's bloody hard taking kids that age out of their regular environment. And if they are not allowed to be 100% their boisterous selves it's awkward and STRESSFUL for the parents.

IMO there was a LOT of stress going on that morning. It was not the 'completely normal' morning the fosters tried to say it was. In fact, everything was different. The kids hadn't been to see Nan and Pop for months and now Pop wasn't even there.

The house was getting sold. There were disagreements over the best way to sell the house ("they were worried I was going to do the wrong thing"), what to keep, what to throw away, what to sell on gumtree... really hard, emotional stuff.

What if the FM goes searching for William and:

1) discovers he had fatally fallen from the high balcony or
2) finds him digging up FGM's prized flowers or doing something that's going to cause more trouble. She snaps and fatally hits him in the head

Once she realises William is fatally injured and she is responsible - either way, accident or moment of rage - she reverts to child mode.

Cover up her mistake (hide William) and pretend it never happened.

This is what children do all the time.

She was in her mothers home.

The atmosphere was charged.

She didn't have a great bond with William and we know she was 'close to giving up or giving in'.

We don't know what other mental health issues / trauma she may have had.

In that moment of discovering William was unresponsive perhaps she just couldn't face the consequences.

The police mentioned they believed his body was placed in the bush. Doesn't mean it wasn't covered with foliage. Or hidden deep in the bush - where one might get a hand injury pushing their way through.

I can understand her actions if I think through the unique, supercharged context of the situation.

Could the injury be caused by lantana? Plenty of that around.

 

[CodyRose]

Just something that has always bothered me from the start, watching all the interviews, listening to podcasts and reading articles, not once have I ever heard the FM accept any responsibility for Williams disappearance, I’ve never heard her say “if only I had been watching William more closely that morning”. IMO most people that have faced a tragedy always have regrets and blame themselves to some degree for their failure to keep the person safe, even when they could not possibly have changed the outcome. And usually treasure the last photograph of the person. Maybe I missed it somewhere, I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve missed it somewhere

Tai Chi?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Could the injury be caused by lantana? Plenty of that around.

Thorns. Yes

 

[stormbird]

Just something that has always bothered me from the start, watching all the interviews, listening to podcasts and reading articles, not once have I ever heard the FM accept any responsibility for Williams disappearance, I’ve never heard her say “if only I had been watching William more closely that morning”. IMO most people that have faced a tragedy always have regrets and blame themselves to some degree for their failure to keep the person safe, even when they could not possibly have changed the outcome. And usually treasure the last photograph of the person. Maybe I missed it somewhere, I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve missed it somewhere

fazacs1, this isn't exactly what you were wondering about - it's FF's view, not FM's - but it's all I could find, so I think you're right that FM didn't express any regrets publicly (other than at the inquest saying she regretted not taking note of the number plates of the two parked cars which only she saw):

From the 2016 interview at police headquarters in Parramatta, where Detective Chief Inspector Jubelin was asking FF about FM:

"Detective Jubelin asked if she had ever 'blamed herself for it'. If there had been any 'emotional discussions between you two about that'.
'I think we both blame, or both have an element of blame in the sense that, you know, why did I go to work that day?' William's foster dad said.
'You know, can you be a helicopter parent? Always making sure he's in sight. We blame ourselves on that level. But you can't ... you can't watch them every second of the day. And it was such a short window of time. And [the foster nana] doesn't blame herself. She blames the person who has most likely got him.'"
- from Missing William Tyrrell, 2021 rev.ed., p.160

 

[stormbird]

What was the legal position of the foster carers - were they employees? contractors? volunteers being compensated for childcare costs?

If FM and FF were something like "employees", maybe FACS or the Young Hope program had to provide legal representation for them? Hypothetically, is it possible they were getting legal advice right from the start e.g. something along the lines of "don't say anything unless it's approved first" and "assume you'll be under police surveillance"? I don't have a clue, I'm just guessing and wondering.

From Missing William Tyrrell (2021 rev.ed.) it sounds like rules were being imposed quite strictly from early on:

• at 12:53 pm on the Friday, 12 Sep 2014, FM rang William's caseworker (p.45);
• at 12:58 pm the caseworker rang the director of William's Young Hope out-of-home care program (p.46);
• the director "immediately called William's foster mum in Kendall" (p.46)
• the director arrived at FGM's "mid-afternoon" on the Saturday, 13 Sep: "One of the first things [the director] had to do was authorise the release of another set of photographs of William. The first one, of William in an orange T-shirt with a gentle smile on his face, had been circulating for several hours, but police were keen to get a more recent one, preferably in the clothes he was wearing, into the public domain." (p.69)
• "She [the director] sent several texts, reminding people of William's - and Lindsay's - right to privacy under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act." (p.70)
• the director said in one text that she'd been informed that FGM had "disclosed" to people in public that William was in foster care, so the director had "immediately" called someone at FACS to "convey the situation" and "The foster carer's sister was also instructed that her mother has not to have these conversations." (p.70)
• When Superintendent Paul Fehon "asked for a representative of the family to be made available to speak to the media" (p.74), the director "understood the importance of the request, of course, but she still had to get permission from FaCS. The law on this point is clear: foster parents are not to be identified in any media without the express consent of the Department, or the responsible minister. William's foster parents were desperate to 'get their faces out there' but permission was denied." So the director asked Nicole and John, friends of the foster parents, to speak, and she even "briefed them on what to say". (p.75)

 

[fazacs1]

fazacs1, this isn't exactly what you were wondering about - it's FF's view, not FM's - but it's all I could find, so I think you're right that FM didn't express any regrets publicly (other than at the inquest saying she regretted not taking note of the number plates of the two parked cars which only she saw):

From the 2016 interview at police headquarters in Parramatta, where Detective Chief Inspector Jubelin was asking FF about FM:

"Detective Jubelin asked if she had ever 'blamed herself for it'. If there had been any 'emotional discussions between you two about that'.
'I think we both blame, or both have an element of blame in the sense that, you know, why did I go to work that day?' William's foster dad said.
'You know, can you be a helicopter parent? Always making sure he's in sight. We blame ourselves on that level. But you can't ... you can't watch them every second of the day. And it was such a short window of time. And [the foster nana] doesn't blame herself. She blames the person who has most likely got him.'"
- from Missing William Tyrrell, 2021 rev.ed., p.160

Thank you for that research stormbird, excellent work, yes I haven’t heard or read any regret from FF anywhere. Good point on the FM only regretting she didn’t get the number plates. I think she also went on to say if it had been in Sydney she would have but not in Kendall where she had never, ever, ever seen cars parked there and for at least 2 hours no less. Haha, because that is so strange I won’t bother taking their number plates here in Kendall.

 

[Tues]

The photo had a creation time that differed to altered time. Craddock SC at the inquest may have said that the "photo was taken at 9.37 of that we can be certain", but in the 2000 pages brief of evidence submitted was the information about the disparity in times which prompted the Coroner to then order an investigation be done the results of which we don't yet know.

Posters here have also undertaken detailed analysis of sun position including providing dozens of photos all of which supports my solid belief that at 45° 9.37 am the sun would create patches on overhead screen and onto deck whereas at 22° 7.37 am it would not. The picture is consistent with that earlier time. On the day in question nearby it was mostly sun and only partly cloudy. So not overcast as to disrupt sun patches I would expect

I've read elsewhere that a possibility is that edits were done to photo such as cropping or HD or contrast, saturation etc at that later time and the original photo was still on the phone when created. Very few people use a phone camera and accept the photo produced without editing it when you sit down perhaps to a cup of tea. Highly plausible. That of course would mean the original WAS taken at 7.37 and was maybe still on phone unless purposely deleted.

The police at this stage would know you would presume. So why wouldn't they release this information? Perhaps because it clearly refutes testimony of the FP and at this stage they want to keep their powder dry. Plausible

In my opinion the totality is probably more compelling for 7.37 than not. I most definitely am not yet satisfied about 9.37 no matter how many people insist I should be.

I thought the photo was taken by a camera, not a phone camera and the excuse for the time edit was that the camera had still been on Bali time from where they had recently holidayed ? No idea about the other photos which were taken the previous evening at Maccas, and still pondering on WHY the sudden impulse to rush 2 cats to a cattery for the weekend and take the kids out of daycare early and travel to the Central Coast a day earlier than planned 'as a surprise for the kids' and why arrive so late, in the dark.

 

[31550]

I thought the photo was taken by a camera, not a phone camera and the excuse for the time edit was that the camera had still been on Bali time from where they had recently holidayed ? No idea about the other photos which were taken the previous evening at Maccas, and still pondering on WHY the sudden impulse to rush 2 cats to a cattery for the weekend and take the kids out of daycare early and travel to the Central Coast a day earlier than planned 'as a surprise for the kids' and why arrive so late, in the dark.

Yes, digital camera, not phone, and yes, the time discrepancy was explained by the purchase of the camera in Bali, and time never being reset to Australian time.

This is how Overington describes the circumstances of the trip:

​

William’s foster parents had been diligent about securing their permissions from the Salvation Army’s Young Hope program, a non-government organisation that had been appointed to manage their file on behalf of FaCS. In recent months, they had gone overseas, to Bali. They had also been able to secure what’s known as a ‘bulk approval’ – like a pack of permission slips, for repeat visits to Kendall – because William’s opa had been so sick, and then he was dying, and then came the funeral, and they had been going up and back quite a lot.​

​

The bulk approval for visits to Kendall was still in place in September 2014, when William’s foster mum heard that her father’s gravestone had, after a short delay, been installed. She checked her calendar against her husband’s, and together they made their plans: they would go on Friday, 12 September 2014.​

​

But then, around 11 a.m. on Thursday, 11 September, William’s foster mum was at home working while the children were at childcare when her phone rang. It was her husband, saying his 2 p.m. meeting had been cancelled, leaving him with just one more appointment, a meeting in Chatswood, at 1 p.m., and then he would be clear for the afternoon.​

​

‘What do you think, should we go up today?’ he said.​

​

William’s foster mum thought yes, because to leave Sydney on a Thursday is so much better than to leave on a Friday, when traffic on the Pacific Highway so often slows to a crawl. There was just one problem: the cats.​

​

William’s foster parents had two cats upon which they doted. They were happy to leave them at home by themselves for up to two nights, but for anything longer than that, they had to get somebody to replace food and water, as well as let them out. They hadn’t arranged for anyone to do that.​

​

‘I’ll have to ring around, see if I can get them in somewhere,’ William’s foster mum said.​

​

‘Let me know, and I’ll come home and help you pack,’ her husband replied.​

​

William’s foster mum phoned three cat-boarding places before landing upon Sydney Pet Boarding at Duffys Forest, who said yes, they could take the cats but they closed at 3 p.m. William’s foster mum called her husband back, and he said: ‘Good, because I’ll be home by two.’​

​

William’s foster mum finished up her work and began to pack clothing and toys, puzzles for the children. William’s foster dad, when he got home, opened the back of the car – he had just a few weeks earlier taken possession of a brand new Land Rover Discovery, to indulge his love of four-wheel driving – and put the kids’ bikes in.​

​

William’s was new. He was born on 26 June 2011, and the bike had been a present for his third birthday.​

​

Lindsay had a new bike, too.​

​

The packing took longer than expected. There’s always one more thing when you’re packing for kids, isn’t there? William’s foster mum called the cattery from the car while they were still in the driveway, just to let them know they were definitely on the way. The folk at the cattery turned out to be nice people, agreeing to stay open an extra fifteen minutes. William’s foster parents arrived at 3.15 p.m., and the owner let William’s foster mum look around to see where her cats would sleep.​

​

She paid the bill in advance: $261.50, for three days’ boarding.​

​

William’s foster parents drove from the cattery to the childcare centre, arriving sometime between 3.45 p.m. and 4 p.m.​

​

The children ran up, excited to see their foster parents.​

​

‘Guess what?’ they said. ‘We’re going up to Nana’s!’​

​

William and Lindsay screamed with delight.​

​

William’s foster mum doesn’t remember telling anyone at the childcare centre where they were headed. It’s entirely possible that somebody saw the packed car with all the bikes in the back and guessed they were going away, but it was not a topic of conversation.​

​

In any case, the family left the childcare centre shortly after 4 p.m., heading north along the Pacific Highway, toward Kendall. They would stop three times on the way up, first at the Caltex Twin Centre near Wyong, but only for five minutes so the children could stretch their legs and use the toilet, and then a second time, for dinner at McDonald’s near Heatherbrae. This was a special treat.​

There are a few things about this story:

• If the children (or indeed the FM) were so close to the foster grandparents, why had they not visited Kendall for seven months (since before Opa died)? Apparently prior to this they made 'regular' visits, but it's hard to reconcile this with William's age and the time he went into foster care. They could not possibly have visited more than a few times, or if they did, why did they stop visiting regularly?
• The reason for the 'early departure' was that FF work schedule opened up on the Thursday afternoon - the trip was originally planned to commence on the Friday. However, FF had a scheduled online sales presentation to give at 9:30 on the Friday. So, they would not have been scheduled to leave until around 10:30 Friday anyway. (Unless they left as early as say 6am, to allow FF to have his online meeting after they arrived in Kendall). This would have put their arrival in Kendall in the early afternoon at best. So a 'planned abduction' or 'planned handover' could not have been arranged for the Friday morning. This really puts the 'planned abduction' theory off the table since nobody outside the close family circle could have known William would be in Kendall at around 10am.
• The change in plans was the FF idea, evidenced by the fact that FM had to phone around to arrange cat boarding. This also indicates they had planned to return on the Sunday some time as the cats were considered ok to be left for no more than 2 nights, but needed to be boarded for longer absences. They paid for 3 days - meaning they intended to pick the cats up on the Sunday. This is unusual - if the boarding cattery closed at 3pm on the Thursday, was it really open for business on a Sunday? Even if they were open until 3pm Sunday, the family would have to leave Kendall on Sunday morning to pick up the cats in time - a very short visit!
• They drove directly from the childcare centre to Kendall, without returning home. Presumably this was to save time and avoid arriving in Kendall too late. This would have required FM and FF to pack all the kids stuff for them. So in the McDonalds CCTV we can assume the kids wearing what they wore to childcare. Has this been verified? If not, when and how did they get changed? This also means that FM or FF 'picked out' the Spiderman suit and Spiderman singlet/T shirt to be worn by William. It wasn't that William insisted on wearing it. FM did not have to pack it for him - she could have packed any of his clothes.
• "Guess what, we're going to Nanas!" - but the kids would have already known they were going to Nanas (albeit the next day). Why does FM go out of her way to describe the kids excitement at going to Nana's? I would hardly expect a 3YO to even remember a place where he hadn't been for 7 months, and had only been a few times.

 

[NRL Fan]

Yes, digital camera, not phone, and yes, the time discrepancy was explained by the purchase of the camera in Bali, and time never being reset to Australian time.

This is how Overington describes the circumstances of the trip:

​

William’s foster parents had been diligent about securing their permissions from the Salvation Army’s Young Hope program, a non-government organisation that had been appointed to manage their file on behalf of FaCS. In recent months, they had gone overseas, to Bali. They had also been able to secure what’s known as a ‘bulk approval’ – like a pack of permission slips, for repeat visits to Kendall – because William’s opa had been so sick, and then he was dying, and then came the funeral, and they had been going up and back quite a lot.​

​

The bulk approval for visits to Kendall was still in place in September 2014, when William’s foster mum heard that her father’s gravestone had, after a short delay, been installed. She checked her calendar against her husband’s, and together they made their plans: they would go on Friday, 12 September 2014.​

​

But then, around 11 a.m. on Thursday, 11 September, William’s foster mum was at home working while the children were at childcare when her phone rang. It was her husband, saying his 2 p.m. meeting had been cancelled, leaving him with just one more appointment, a meeting in Chatswood, at 1 p.m., and then he would be clear for the afternoon.​

​

‘What do you think, should we go up today?’ he said.​

​

William’s foster mum thought yes, because to leave Sydney on a Thursday is so much better than to leave on a Friday, when traffic on the Pacific Highway so often slows to a crawl. There was just one problem: the cats.​

​

William’s foster parents had two cats upon which they doted. They were happy to leave them at home by themselves for up to two nights, but for anything longer than that, they had to get somebody to replace food and water, as well as let them out. They hadn’t arranged for anyone to do that.​

​

‘I’ll have to ring around, see if I can get them in somewhere,’ William’s foster mum said.​

​

‘Let me know, and I’ll come home and help you pack,’ her husband replied.​

​

William’s foster mum phoned three cat-boarding places before landing upon Sydney Pet Boarding at Duffys Forest, who said yes, they could take the cats but they closed at 3 p.m. William’s foster mum called her husband back, and he said: ‘Good, because I’ll be home by two.’​

​

William’s foster mum finished up her work and began to pack clothing and toys, puzzles for the children. William’s foster dad, when he got home, opened the back of the car – he had just a few weeks earlier taken possession of a brand new Land Rover Discovery, to indulge his love of four-wheel driving – and put the kids’ bikes in.​

​

William’s was new. He was born on 26 June 2011, and the bike had been a present for his third birthday.​

​

Lindsay had a new bike, too.​

​

The packing took longer than expected. There’s always one more thing when you’re packing for kids, isn’t there? William’s foster mum called the cattery from the car while they were still in the driveway, just to let them know they were definitely on the way. The folk at the cattery turned out to be nice people, agreeing to stay open an extra fifteen minutes. William’s foster parents arrived at 3.15 p.m., and the owner let William’s foster mum look around to see where her cats would sleep.​

​

She paid the bill in advance: $261.50, for three days’ boarding.​

​

William’s foster parents drove from the cattery to the childcare centre, arriving sometime between 3.45 p.m. and 4 p.m.​

​

The children ran up, excited to see their foster parents.​

​

‘Guess what?’ they said. ‘We’re going up to Nana’s!’​

​

William and Lindsay screamed with delight.​

​

William’s foster mum doesn’t remember telling anyone at the childcare centre where they were headed. It’s entirely possible that somebody saw the packed car with all the bikes in the back and guessed they were going away, but it was not a topic of conversation.​

​

In any case, the family left the childcare centre shortly after 4 p.m., heading north along the Pacific Highway, toward Kendall. They would stop three times on the way up, first at the Caltex Twin Centre near Wyong, but only for five minutes so the children could stretch their legs and use the toilet, and then a second time, for dinner at McDonald’s near Heatherbrae. This was a special treat.​

There are a few things about this story:

• If the children (or indeed the FM) were so close to the foster grandparents, why had they not visited Kendall for seven months (since before Opa died)? Apparently prior to this they made 'regular' visits, but it's hard to reconcile this with William's age and the time he went into foster care. They could not possibly have visited more than a few times, or if they did, why did they stop visiting regularly?
• The reason for the 'early departure' was that FF work schedule opened up on the Thursday afternoon - the trip was originally planned to commence on the Friday. However, FF had a scheduled online sales presentation to give at 9:30 on the Friday. So, they would not have been scheduled to leave until around 10:30 Friday anyway. (Unless they left as early as say 6am, to allow FF to have his online meeting after they arrived in Kendall). This would have put their arrival in Kendall in the early afternoon at best. So a 'planned abduction' or 'planned handover' could not have been arranged for the Friday morning. This really puts the 'planned abduction' theory off the table since nobody outside the close family circle could have known William would be in Kendall at around 10am.
• The change in plans was the FF idea, evidenced by the fact that FM had to phone around to arrange cat boarding. This also indicates they had planned to return on the Sunday some time as the cats were considered ok to be left for no more than 2 nights, but needed to be boarded for longer absences. They paid for 3 days - meaning they intended to pick the cats up on the Sunday. This is unusual - if the boarding cattery closed at 3pm on the Thursday, was it really open for business on a Sunday? Even if they were open until 3pm Sunday, the family would have to leave Kendall on Sunday morning to pick up the cats in time - a very short visit!
• They drove directly from the childcare centre to Kendall, without returning home. Presumably this was to save time and avoid arriving in Kendall too late. This would have required FM and FF to pack all the kids stuff for them. So in the McDonalds CCTV we can assume the kids wearing what they wore to childcare. Has this been verified? If not, when and how did they get changed? This also means that FM or FF 'picked out' the Spiderman suit and Spiderman singlet/T shirt to be worn by William. It wasn't that William insisted on wearing it. FM did not have to pack it for him - she could have packed any of his clothes.
• "Guess what, we're going to Nanas!" - but the kids would have already known they were going to Nanas (albeit the next day). Why does FM go out of her way to describe the kids excitement at going to Nana's? I would hardly expect a 3YO to even remember a place where he hadn't been for 7 months, and had only been a few times.

The problem with using the FPs statements to rule out a planned abduction is that they would be complete fabrications if this was the case. The trip a day early would have been pre-planned, along with the attempt to make it look like a last minute trip with the last minute cattery booking. IMO - The FF walking into the counter at Maccas with WT Up on his shoulders looks like it was done to make sure he is clearly seen on CCTV.

And, that's a good pick up regarding the spiderman suit. If it was a surprise trip then WT could never have picked out the spiderman suit and this conflicting fact increases the planned abduction theory.