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

[Kurve]

Criminal charges the former foster parents currently face as at 15 April 2022 include:

• Apprehended Violence Orders on both (AVOs)
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster mother *Not Guilty
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster father *Not Guilty
• 2 x charges of assault against a child on former foster mother *Guilty
• 1 x charge of assault against a child on former foster father
• Stalking &/or Intimidation on both
• Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty

TIMELINE

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

Operation Arkstone

 

[stormbird]

The tennis club CCTV is discussed in some detail in both Overington and Chumley's books. It is also mentioned in Wendy Hudson's case notes, which I think have been posted earlier in this thread.
Hudson was the tennis club president and had access to the cameras, but it is noted in several sources that one of the tennis club cameras was not actually operational on the day William disappeared. There was also some technical difficulty which led to some delay in retrieving footage from the working camera.
Other than what has been disclosed in the books and Wendy's notes, I am confident that police would know the answers your questions, but I am doubtful they would make the answers publicly available while the case is still in progress.

From what I've seen in this thread you've referred to Wendy Hudson's notes several times but you've posted only a paragraph from a typed statement (post 7,471) and a snippet from her hand-written notes (post 7,493).

If the documents look suitable for public viewing and if you're ever feeling public-spirited, please consider posting them in full.

I'll have another look through the Overington and Chumley books, but I think that neither of them addressed these questions.

 

[31550]

From what I've seen in this thread you've referred to Wendy Hudson's notes several times but you've posted only a paragraph from a typed statement (post 7,471) and a snippet from her hand-written notes (post 7,493).

If the documents look suitable for public viewing and if you're ever feeling public-spirited, please consider posting them in full.

I'll have another look through the Overington and Chumley books, but I think that neither of them addressed these questions.

Here's what Wendy's statement says about the Tennis Club CCTV


In her handwritten notes she also mentions how she contacted someone about extracting the footage from the camera.

I have not posted the whole document here because to do so would breach BF rules (The document contains information subject to a NPO).

 

[stormbird]

Here's what Wendy's statement says about the Tennis Club CCTV
View attachment 1638072

In her handwritten notes she also mentions how she contacted someone about extracting the footage from the camera.

I have not posted the whole document here because to do so would breach BF rules (The document contains information subject to a NPO).

• Could you reveal any details about where that paragraph 15 is from please: is it a witness statement? date, witnessed by, etc?
• Does it give a day or date when they were watching the one hour of CCTV footage at the tennis club? (It's obviously during the first week, because the foster family was still at FGM's and they went home Friday 19 Sep.)
• Does it explain why it was decided that the tennis club camera was the only useful CCTV to be found in the whole of Kendall?
• Was Sergeant Kendell introduced or his presence explained? The Chumley book says he was on a day off on the Friday; was he volunteering or on duty when viewing the CCTV? (The only news reports I've found about him from the years before or after say that he was during those other years working at Manning-Great Lakes Local Area Command, the neighbouring police district to the south.)
• Did Snr Cst Hudson ask someone else to extract the footage or was she asking for advice about how to do it herself?

Thanks.

 

[31550]

• Could you reveal any details about where that paragraph 15 is from please: is it a witness statement? date, witnessed by, etc?
• Does it give a day or date when they were watching the one hour of CCTV footage at the tennis club? (It's obviously during the first week, because the foster family was still at FGM's and they went home Friday 19 Sep.)
• Does it explain why it was decided that the tennis club camera was the only useful CCTV to be found in the whole of Kendall?
• Was Sergeant Kendell introduced or his presence explained? The Chumley book says he was on a day off on the Friday; was he volunteering or on duty when viewing the CCTV? (The only news reports I've found about him from the years before or after say that he was during those other years working at Manning-Great Lakes Local Area Command, the neighbouring police district to the south.)
• Did Snr Cst Hudson ask someone else to extract the footage or was she asking for advice about how to do it herself?

Thanks.

As explained earlier, this is from what I believe to be Wendy Hudson's police statement. Signed and dated 2nd October 2014. I cannot swear to its authenticity, but I believe it is authentic. Someone else posted it in an internet forum and I downloaded it, because I suspected it would subsequently deleted (it was). The front page identifies the document and its purpose. Judging by the text on the top right corner, I believe the source of the document was a fax sent from the Department of Justice. I believe the most likely explanation is that this document formed part of a police brief of evidence which was used in court or perhaps the coronial inquest, and would have been sent to legal representatives of people appearing before the court or inquest. TLDR: probably leaked from a legal office.

The statement appears to be in chronological order.
My assumption from the statement is that she looked at the CCTV footage with Kendell on Sat 14th. That's the sequence of events in her statement.

The statement is just a list of facts and observations, so no, no explanations as to "why" anything was done or not done.

She mentions Kendell and Rowley because they viewed the footage together. She doesn't explain anything.

On SUNDAY 15th she says she went to the tennis club at 11:09am as she had arranged a CCTV technician Dan Hugo to retrieve the footage. "It was taking some time to retrieve ..."

(I have inferred from this that they were able to VIEW some of the footage directly at the tennis club, but a technician was required to DOWNLOAD the footage for further examination and possible forensic analysis.)

 

[stormbird]

Following up 31550's post 7,982, the person who retrieved the footage from the Kendall Tennis Club's CCTV camera had a security licence (you can verify NSW security licences through Service NSW) and had been licensed for years. From the little I can find online it looks like he might have operated a business from home in Lake Cathie - which is not far from Port Macquarie where Senior Constable Hudson's police station was. And it looks like they might have known each other through a sporting organisation (not tennis): a few media reports name both him and one of Snr Cst Hudson's sons as playing in the same team or grade.

So the footage was retrieved by a local licensed security professional. Good.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So to summarize the CCTV evidence the only location from which images could be captured was the Tennis club. Those images were partial images only and not rego numbers. In order to whittle down the cars they held a day where locals were asked to come and identify and eliminate their cars having passed by Tennis club prior to 11am on the 12th. At the end of it there remained a number of cars left unidentified.

One observation of Ronald Chapman evidence was that IF his memory was in tact that those cars ought to have been identified and the fact they weren't raises questions on veracity. We have a number of cars which failed to be identified. Doesn't eliminate what Ronald Chapman saw as being erroneous nor does it identify the mystery cars seen by FM we assume

CCTV evidence doesn't help a great deal then

 

[31550]

There were 2 different matters before the court. The matter that was originally listed to be heard on 24th March 2023, which is now removed from the NSW Online Registry, was a 2019 Case number.

View attachment 1637071

A 2-day hearing for the Appeal has now been set for June 13 and 14.

 

[31550]

So to summarize the CCTV evidence the only location from which images could be captured was the Tennis club. Those images were partial images only and not rego numbers. In order to whittle down the cars they held a day where locals were asked to come and identify and eliminate their cars having passed by Tennis club prior to 11am on the 12th. At the end of it there remained a number of cars left unidentified.

One observation of Ronald Chapman evidence was that IF his memory was in tact that those cars ought to have been identified and the fact they weren't raises questions on veracity. We have a number of cars which failed to be identified. Doesn't eliminate what Ronald Chapman saw as being erroneous nor does it identify the mystery cars seen by FM we assume

CCTV evidence doesn't help a great deal then

It's not true that the tennis club CCTV is/was the only CCTV footage available.

There was of course the CCTV footage from McDonalds the night before William disappeared.

There was also CCTV at Kendall Cellars. It is noted in media reports at the time that the owner, (Rheannon Chapman) was notified about William's disappearance, and was told by police not to delete any CCTV footage. (ref. https://www.news.com.au/national/co...d/news-story/c3b76e8d4fc18401ebc17df61f45a62d)

There was also apparently CCTV from road cameras which may have captured the fosters trip to Kendall. Similarly, there was CCTV footage which may corroborate Ron Porter's deathbed confession about a trip made North by Frank Abbott.

There may be other relevant CCTV footage the police have seen which hasn't yet been made public.

The problem with CCTV footage is that at best it can only confirm that someone WAS in a certain place at a certain time, and only then IF the footage is clear enough to identify the person (or number plate) beyond doubt. The tennis club CCTV footage did not capture any number plates as far as I know. CCTV can sometimes corroborate and sometimes confirm a person's narrative. But if someone said they 'drove a white ute past the tennis club', for example, CCTV cannot really confirm or deny this as fact.

Even if we could identify every car which passed the tennis club (and its occupants) around the time William disappeared (and it appears we cannot), there are several different ways in and out of Benaroon Drive, and not all of them are covered by CCTV.

It's also sadly a bit like the 'Roar' photograph. Even with the digital timestamp, there is conjecture about whether the photograph is 'proof of life' at 9:37am. The same debate could (in theory) ensue about CCTV footage: is it reliable? Has it been tampered with? Is that really FF on the CCTV or an actor paid to look like him? , etc.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It's not true that the tennis club CCTV is/was the only CCTV footage available.

There was of course the CCTV footage from McDonalds the night before William disappeared.

There was also CCTV at Kendall Cellars. It is noted in media reports at the time that the owner, (Rheannon Chapman) was notified about William's disappearance, and was told by police not to delete any CCTV footage. (ref. https://www.news.com.au/national/co...d/news-story/c3b76e8d4fc18401ebc17df61f45a62d)

There was also apparently CCTV from road cameras which may have captured the fosters trip to Kendall. Similarly, there was CCTV footage which may corroborate Ron Porter's deathbed confession about a trip made North by Frank Abbott.

There may be other relevant CCTV footage the police have seen which hasn't yet been made public.

The problem with CCTV footage is that at best it can only confirm that someone WAS in a certain place at a certain time, and only then IF the footage is clear enough to identify the person (or number plate) beyond doubt. The tennis club CCTV footage did not capture any number plates as far as I know. CCTV can sometimes corroborate and sometimes confirm a person's narrative. But if someone said they 'drove a white ute past the tennis club', for example, CCTV cannot really confirm or deny this as fact.

Even if we could identify every car which passed the tennis club (and its occupants) around the time William disappeared (and it appears we cannot), there are several different ways in and out of Benaroon Drive, and not all of them are covered by CCTV.

It's also sadly a bit like the 'Roar' photograph. Even with the digital timestamp, there is conjecture about whether the photograph is 'proof of life' at 9:37am. The same debate could (in theory) ensue about CCTV footage: is it reliable? Has it been tampered with? Is that really FF on the CCTV or an actor paid to look like him? , etc.

I was referring to the time of abduction.

The probability of anyone tampering with CCTV footage is exceedingly low to the point of being irrelevant. Interpreting the images is different.

 

[Ninety Nine]

In the Where's William Tyrrell? podcast, Lia Harris says the police found CCTV cameras at the Kendall bottle shop, op shop, and club, but established that the only camera which could have captured images of vehicles going towards Benaroon Drive was at the tennis club. (transcripts below)

But in Searching for Spiderman, Ally Chumley says the bottle shop "had a security camera that would've captured images of people entering and leaving the General Store. Police emphasised to [Kendall Cellars] the importance of retaining any CCTV footage captured immediately before and after the critical timeframe." (Searching for Spiderman, 2020, p.198)

So, what was the problem with the cameras or images from the bottle shop, the op shop, and club?

If it's correct that the bottle shop camera could see as far as the entrance to the general store - is that correct? - then it should have been able to see vehicles moving along Comboyne Street past the general store, post office, and takeway shop, and potentially to/from Jackson Street and Albert Street and the Community Centre. From that area a vehicle could go to Batar Creek Road via either (1) Jackson St and Laurel St, or (2) Albert St, and then go to Benaroon Drive; or a 4WD could continue down Albert St and get to Benaroon Drive by driving around through Kendall State Forest.

Google Maps Street View in September 2022 from out the front of the current bottle shop (14 Comboyne Street) looking towards the general store down the hill and across the road (9 Comboyne St).

---

From Where's William Tyrrell | Ep. 4 | Aftermath on YouTube, from 8:06 minutes:

Lia Harris: Yeah, so as the hours wore on and still there was no sign of William they did start to consider other possibilities, which included who was coming to and from Benaroon Drive on that day. So, as part of that, two senior constables from the local police attended local businesses and one of those officers, Senior Constable Rowley, actually wrote about it in his police statement. And this is not his real voice:

[Actor as Senior Constable ROWLEY]:
"We then proceeded to check on local businesses in Kendall to see who had CCTV. Those that did were requested to preserve the footage over the last few days. Kendall Bottle Shop, Kendall Op Shop, Kendall Club and Kendall Tennis Club were premises that had CCTV and were going to preserve it."

And from the same episode, from 10:40 minutes:

Natarsha Belling: And what about the security vision - so, police had searched and spoken to a lot of the local businesses and they were able to get some security vision.

Lia Harris: They soon established that the only security camera in the area which could have captured any cars coming towards Benaroon Drive that day was at the local tennis club, which was just around the corner on Orana Street [*no it wasn't; see below]. The camera showed one of two possible routes to Benaroon Drive though, so you can take another route that isn't captured by that camera. And it took them some time to actually get access to that vision, but eventually they did work out how to get the vision from the system. Unfortunately, though, the passing cars that were captured by the camera could only be seen in a small part of the frame and you couldn't actually see any of the licence plates. So all they were able to do was capture images of parts of the vehicles and sort of get a vague description of what those vehicles looked like. And that's why the police actually later asked all the residents in Kendall and anyone who might have been passing through to come forward and identify which one was their car.
(Transcripts by me.)

*Lia had previously reported that in 2014 the tennis club camera was in Graham Street:
Investigators focus on CCTV footage in the search for missing toddler William Tyrell, Daily Telegraph (not paywalled), 15 Nov 2014

This has always bothered me. There seems to have been an assumption made that only a vehicle coming from the direction of Kew would drive out towards Benaroon Drive. Dismissing other cameras means dismissing vehicles coming from the direction of Herons Creek/Logans Crossing, Lorne and Batar Creek. All of which could drive through Kendall without passing the tennis courts on Graham Street.

 

[31550]

I was referring to the time of abduction.

The probability of anyone tampering with CCTV footage is exceedingly low to the point of being irrelevant. Interpreting the images is different.

Yet many people believe the 'roar' photograph has been tampered with. And nobody seems surprised that one of the CCTV cameras at the tennis club (the existence of which seem to have been well-known in the community) happened to be non-operational on the day of William's disappearance, and the working camera was not positioned so that it could capture number plates of vehicles. It's a bit of a coincidence, and lucky for anyone up to mischeif on that day.

 

[stormbird]

It's not true that the tennis club CCTV is/was the only CCTV footage available.

There was of course the CCTV footage from McDonalds the night before William disappeared.

There was also CCTV at Kendall Cellars. It is noted in media reports at the time that the owner, (Rheannon Chapman) was notified about William's disappearance, and was told by police not to delete any CCTV footage. (ref. https://www.news.com.au/national/co...d/news-story/c3b76e8d4fc18401ebc17df61f45a62d)

There was also apparently CCTV from road cameras which may have captured the fosters trip to Kendall. Similarly, there was CCTV footage which may corroborate Ron Porter's deathbed confession about a trip made North by Frank Abbott.

There may be other relevant CCTV footage the police have seen which hasn't yet been made public.

The problem with CCTV footage is that at best it can only confirm that someone WAS in a certain place at a certain time, and only then IF the footage is clear enough to identify the person (or number plate) beyond doubt. The tennis club CCTV footage did not capture any number plates as far as I know. CCTV can sometimes corroborate and sometimes confirm a person's narrative. But if someone said they 'drove a white ute past the tennis club', for example, CCTV cannot really confirm or deny this as fact.

Even if we could identify every car which passed the tennis club (and its occupants) around the time William disappeared (and it appears we cannot), there are several different ways in and out of Benaroon Drive, and not all of them are covered by CCTV.

It's also sadly a bit like the 'Roar' photograph. Even with the digital timestamp, there is conjecture about whether the photograph is 'proof of life' at 9:37am. The same debate could (in theory) ensue about CCTV footage: is it reliable? Has it been tampered with? Is that really FF on the CCTV or an actor paid to look like him? , etc.

CCTV footage can be useful for more than just confirming someone was in a certain place at a certain time, I think. A post on another forum about another case, written by someone claiming to be a former spatial analyst, said that spatial analysts can use data from sources such as CCTV footage and maps to plot out routes which might have been taken to get away from a crime scene. The CCTV footage can be useful for them whether it shows the presence of a vehicle or its absence e.g. if a car is captured at one camera location but not at the next one then it's possible the car stopped or turned off before reaching that second location. The analysts can produce a map showing the only routes that could have been taken according to whatever data they have available.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yet many people believe the 'roar' photograph has been tampered with. And nobody seems surprised that one of the CCTV cameras at the tennis club (the existence of which seem to have been well-known in the community) happened to be non-operational on the day of William's disappearance, and the working camera was not positioned so that it could capture number plates of vehicles. It's a bit of a coincidence, and lucky for anyone up to mischeif on that day.

if you are planning a crime you just avoid CCTV locations. If you have committed a spontaneous crime and want to avoid detection then tampering with photos time would be helpful. Different

I don't think that, as part of planning, you would seek to locate and tamper with CCTV. Just the process of tampering may get you captured on that CCTV. Avoid it.

I would be interested in knowing whether the colour of cars unidentified matched Ronald Chapman's sightings. Two cars one land cruiser gold or brown and a blue sedan. Even if they can't identify registration hopefully they could identify car type and colour. Of course we have no certainty they even passed the Tennis Club but heading down Laurel street that direction they may have.

 

[31550]

if you are planning a crime you just avoid CCTV locations. If you have committed a spontaneous crime and want to avoid detection then tampering with photos time would be helpful. Different

I don't think that, as part of planning, you would seek to locate and tamper with CCTV. Just the process of tampering may get you captured on that CCTV. Avoid it.

I would be interested in knowing whether the colour of cars unidentified matched Ronald Chapman's sightings. Two cars one land cruiser gold or brown and a blue sedan. Even if they can't identify registration hopefully they could identify car type and colour. Of course we have no certainty they even passed the Tennis Club but heading down Laurel street that direction they may have.

Did Chapman's cars turn from Laurel Street into Orara St, or did they turn down Jackson Street, avoiding the tennis club?

The thing about CCTV footage, like most data, is that it's only as good as its analyst. I'm concerned that it still requires human intervention at some point to interpret the data correctly. Just yesterday I received a bill from Linkt which includes a "video matching fee" - because a vehicle identified as mine passed through a toll camera. None of my cars were anywhere near that camera at the time, and all my cars have working eTags fitted - so it has to be 'operator error', and I apparently get to pay for it!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Did Chapman's cars turn from Laurel Street into Orara St, or did they turn down Jackson Street, avoiding the tennis club?

The thing about CCTV footage, like most data, is that it's only as good as its analyst. I'm concerned that it still requires human intervention at some point to interpret the data correctly. Just yesterday I received a bill from Linkt which includes a "video matching fee" - because a vehicle identified as mine passed through a toll camera. None of my cars were anywhere near that camera at the time, and all my cars have working eTags fitted - so it has to be 'operator error', and I apparently get to pay for it!

Just last week I received a text from someone saying I owed a debt relating to toll use and etag. I don't have etag nor do I ever travel to toll roads. So I told the scamming basta*rd to stick it up his a**e.

 

[31550]

Just last week I received a text from someone saying I owed a debt relating to toll use and etag. I don't have etag nor do I ever travel to toll roads. So I told the scamming basta*rd to stick it up his a**e.

Yeah I get them too (scam text messages), but this was an actual charge on my Linkt account. Anyway, off-topic, sorry - just highlighting that CCTV footage (when it goes via a human being) is not infallible evidence.

 

[Ninety Nine]

Did Chapman's cars turn from Laurel Street into Orara St, or did they turn down Jackson Street, avoiding the tennis club?

The thing about CCTV footage, like most data, is that it's only as good as its analyst. I'm concerned that it still requires human intervention at some point to interpret the data correctly. Just yesterday I received a bill from Linkt which includes a "video matching fee" - because a vehicle identified as mine passed through a toll camera. None of my cars were anywhere near that camera at the time, and all my cars have working eTags fitted - so it has to be 'operator error', and I apparently get to pay for it!

There are now two tennis clubs in Kendall. At the time of William's disappearance there was only the one on Graham Street. The tennis club in Orara Street is new since 2014. The CCTV is from Graham Street.

 

[31550]

There are now two tennis clubs in Kendall. At the time of William's disappearance there was only the one on Graham Street. The tennis club in Orara Street is new since 2014. The CCTV is from Graham Street.

So, there is no reasonable expectation that the tennis club CCTV can confirm or deny Chapman's account? Also, many ways in and out of Benaroon Drive without being captured on CCTV from the tennis club?

 

[stormbird]

There's something I think is odd in FM's evidence but it's only odd if her 17 March 2015 witness statement was written in her own words. Does anybody know how witness statements are created? Are they written by the witness or by the police officer? Does a statement directly quote what the witness says or just convey what the police officer thinks was meant?

If FM's written witness statement was in her own words then one paragraph contradicts what she said at the inquest when asked about driving her mother's car to look for William:

"To pinpoint distances and directions, Mr Craddock asked [FM] which way she'd turned onto Batar Creek Road. Initially, she said left, toward the Riding for the Disabled centre. But that landmark lies to the south, a right turn.* [FM] became flustered, telling our learned friend she wasn't good with compass point directions.
Mr Craddock replied in a measured tone, 'I'm simply asking you to indicate whether you turned left or right.'"
- Searching for Spiderman, 2020, page 93

*When William went missing in 2014, the charity/volunteer organisation Riding for the Disabled was hosted on a private property at 158 Batar Creek Road, which is south (or a right turn) when travelling from Benaroon Drive. The book doesn't mention it but by the time of the inquest in 2019 the "riding school" had moved to the Kendall Showground, 23 Batar Creek Road, which is north (or a left turn) from Benaroon Drive. (see links below if you're interested)

The book doesn't give any more details about the left/right question at the inquest, and it doesn't explain whether FM's wrong answer meant anything important or was just a mistake. But I bolded FM's claim that she "wasn't good with compass point directions" because that's what I think is the odd part. Because - see paragraph 24 of her 17 March 2015 witness statement:

"My mother's home at 48 Benaroon Drive, Kendall, NSW, 2439 is a three bedroom brick house on an acre and a quarter block of land. The block of land slopes downwards from the northern boundary down to the southern boundary. [...] The house is on a corner block on the high side of Benaroon Drive with the actual house being in the north western corner of block. [...] My mother's house is built facing a south westerly direction on her block of land. There is a steel wire fence which is about a metre tall that runs from the back of the property in the north east corner of the block, along the eastern boundary line down to Benaroon Drive. [...] There is another steel wire fence, the same as the other one, that runs from the north east corner of the property along the northern property boundary line to a point about two thirds of the way along that boundary. This fence finishes about 4 metres from veranda off mum and dad's bedroom along the northern property boundary."
- excerpts from paragraph 24, PDF pages 8 & 9 of 65, FM's 17 March 2015 witness statement (post 7,341)

Whoever wrote that paragraph doesn't seem to have any problem with using "compass point directions", IMO. So whether it's an odd (and interesting) contradiction or not depends on whose words are in the written statement.

---

Links about Riding for the Disabled locations:

2014: 158 Batar Creek Road, where an open day was planned for Saturday 27 Sep 2014
Kendall Chronicle, volume 11, issue 9, 05 September 2014, page 6 (link goes to a PDF)

by 2017: 23 Batar Creek Road (Kendall Showground)
Riding for the Disabled Association Kendall completes move to Kendall Showground, Camden Haven Courier, 2 August 2017 (paywalled; I've only seen the headline and opening line with photo)

 

[31550]

There's something I think is odd in FM's evidence but it's only odd if her 17 March 2015 witness statement was written in her own words. Does anybody know how witness statements are created? Are they written by the witness or by the police officer? Does a statement directly quote what the witness says or just convey what the police officer thinks was meant?

If FM's written witness statement was in her own words then one paragraph contradicts what she said at the inquest when asked about driving her mother's car to look for William:

"To pinpoint distances and directions, Mr Craddock asked [FM] which way she'd turned onto Batar Creek Road. Initially, she said left, toward the Riding for the Disabled centre. But that landmark lies to the south, a right turn.* [FM] became flustered, telling our learned friend she wasn't good with compass point directions.
Mr Craddock replied in a measured tone, 'I'm simply asking you to indicate whether you turned left or right.'"
- Searching for Spiderman, 2020, page 93

*When William went missing in 2014, the charity/volunteer organisation Riding for the Disabled was hosted on a private property at 158 Batar Creek Road, which is south (or a right turn) when travelling from Benaroon Drive. The book doesn't mention it but by the time of the inquest in 2019 the "riding school" had moved to the Kendall Showground, 23 Batar Creek Road, which is north (or a left turn) from Benaroon Drive. (see links below if you're interested)

The book doesn't give any more details about the left/right question at the inquest, and it doesn't explain whether FM's wrong answer meant anything important or was just a mistake. But I bolded FM's claim that she "wasn't good with compass point directions" because that's what I think is the odd part. Because - see paragraph 24 of her 17 March 2015 witness statement:

"My mother's home at 48 Benaroon Drive, Kendall, NSW, 2439 is a three bedroom brick house on an acre and a quarter block of land. The block of land slopes downwards from the northern boundary down to the southern boundary. [...] The house is on a corner block on the high side of Benaroon Drive with the actual house being in the north western corner of block. [...] My mother's house is built facing a south westerly direction on her block of land. There is a steel wire fence which is about a metre tall that runs from the back of the property in the north east corner of the block, along the eastern boundary line down to Benaroon Drive. [...] There is another steel wire fence, the same as the other one, that runs from the north east corner of the property along the northern property boundary line to a point about two thirds of the way along that boundary. This fence finishes about 4 metres from veranda off mum and dad's bedroom along the northern property boundary."
- excerpts from paragraph 24, PDF pages 8 & 9 of 65, FM's 17 March 2015 witness statement (post 7,341)

Whoever wrote that paragraph doesn't seem to have any problem with using "compass point directions", IMO. So whether it's an odd (and interesting) contradiction or not depends on whose words are in the written statement.

---

Links about Riding for the Disabled locations:

2014: 158 Batar Creek Road, where an open day was planned for Saturday 27 Sep 2014
Kendall Chronicle, volume 11, issue 9, 05 September 2014, page 6 (link goes to a PDF)

by 2017: 23 Batar Creek Road (Kendall Showground)
Riding for the Disabled Association Kendall completes move to Kendall Showground, Camden Haven Courier, 2 August 2017 (paywalled; I've only seen the headline and opening line with photo)

In my experience the police type up a draft statement based on their interview notes, then ask the witness to review, amend and sign it.
It seems to me this paragraph was constructed by police, using FM's testimony overlaid against the map of the property (which is an appendix to the statement). If the FM did not know which end of the property was North, she could have checked against the map. I don't see much use of cardinal point references in the rest of the statement, so I think it was done by police for clarity and accuracy, rather than being a verbatim transcription of what FM actually said.

I am more concerned about her not knowing left from right. Also, she seems to have got the bedrooms where they slept the wrong way around.
But they are (by a long way) not the only discrepancies in her various statements.

More importantly, do we actually know for sure exactly WHEN FM drove to the riding school and back? I think the purpose and timing of this drive is critical to the case. I have been wondering whether the Crabbs (next door) actually heard her leaving or returning (or both), and it was this that they thought might have been the post-person? They said they heard a car reverse out of the driveway. They only reported hearing one car - how could they have heard this car and NOT the FM? If it was the FM the Crabbs heard, then that might shed some light on WHEN the drive took place.

 

[stormbird]

In my experience the police type up a draft statement based on their interview notes, then ask the witness to review, amend and sign it.
It seems to me this paragraph was constructed by police, using FM's testimony overlaid against the map of the property (which is an appendix to the statement). If the FM did not know which end of the property was North, she could have checked against the map. I don't see much use of cardinal point references in the rest of the statement, so I think it was done by police for clarity and accuracy, rather than being a verbatim transcription of what FM actually said.

I am more concerned about her not knowing left from right. Also, she seems to have got the bedrooms where they slept the wrong way around.
But they are (by a long way) not the only discrepancies in her various statements.

More importantly, do we actually know for sure exactly WHEN FM drove to the riding school and back? I think the purpose and timing of this drive is critical to the case. I have been wondering whether the Crabbs (next door) actually heard her leaving or returning (or both), and it was this that they thought might have been the post-person? They said they heard a car reverse out of the driveway. They only reported hearing one car - how could they have heard this car and NOT the FM? If it was the FM the Crabbs heard, then that might shed some light on WHEN the drive took place.

Thanks, 31550. If what you've said about witness statements is correct then the wording of paragraph 24 really didn't matter, so now I'm disappointed.

I don't understand why the timing of FM's drive would be critical to the case. What did you mean, how does the time matter? What if FM doesn't know when the drive was and nobody else heard her or saw her and there'll never be a way to accurately pin the drive to a specific time: what difference would that make?

I've started to wonder if FM even drove the car at all. That's one possible (weird) scenario if her left/right mistake at the inquest happened because she had no idea where the riding school was in 2014. Another possibility: her memory of the riding school's 2014 location had by the time of the inquest been overwritten by memories of its newer location if she'd travelled past the Showground (the newer location) in more recent years. But it's easily possible that FM just gets confused about left and right, or maybe she was too stressed in the witness box to think properly.

 

[31550]

Thanks, 31550. If what you've said about witness statements is correct then the wording of paragraph 24 really didn't matter, so now I'm disappointed.

I don't understand why the timing of FM's drive would be critical to the case. What did you mean, how does the time matter? What if FM doesn't know when the drive was and nobody else heard her or saw her and there'll never be a way to accurately pin the drive to a specific time: what difference would that make?

I've started to wonder if FM even drove the car at all. That's one possible (weird) scenario if her left/right mistake at the inquest happened because she had no idea where the riding school was in 2014. Another possibility: her memory of the riding school's 2014 location had by the time of the inquest been overwritten by memories of its newer location if she'd travelled past the Showground (the newer location) in more recent years. But it's easily possible that FM just gets confused about left and right, or maybe she was too stressed in the witness box to think properly.

See earlier post 7444

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

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...

www.bigfooty.com

The police seem to have renewed their interest in this drive around November 2021 when they obtained FGM car for further forensic analysis, and started new ground searches both on the FGM property and near the (old) riding school location.

There is no mention of this drive in any of the early witness accounts of FM, FF or FGM, and none of the neighbours mentioned it. It seems to have been a piece of evidence added to the narrative much later. FGM never mentions her asking for keys, or asking her to mind William's sister while she takes the car. Strange.

For me, the drive does not fit the other events on the FM timeline, meaning either those events did not happen as FM says, or the drive did not happen as she says. The drive has to be after the tea making at around 10am. But FM says she searched around the house for William, then she went and saw Ms Sharpley, who directed her to the bus stop, then she came back to the house. It wouldn't make sense to drive off before doing a search on foot. How did she have time to drive to the riding school, searching for William, and be back before 10.30am when FF returned? FF reports she told him "He was HERE (on the verandah) 5 minutes ago!". FF reports he could see FM on the street talking to neighbours when he was searching the back yard etc, and he she asked "should I call the police?" - so we know she didn't take the drive between 10:30 and 10:55am. She was in the street when police arrived. So when did this drive actually take place? If it was after FF got home, why take her mothers' car and not the family car? With the child seat? Which William would recognise and come running to? Why take a drive at all if you had come to the conclusion that William had been abducted (as she claims) - he would surely be in an unknown car a long way away by the time she took the drive?

 

[Lady O]

See earlier post 7444

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

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...

www.bigfooty.com

The police seem to have renewed their interest in this drive around November 2022 when they obtained FGM car for further forensic analysis, and started new ground searches both on the FGM property and near the (old) riding school location.

There is no mention of this drive in any of the early witness accounts of FM, FF or FGM, and none of the neighbours mentioned it. It seems to have been a piece of evidence added to the narrative much later. FGM never mentions her asking for keys, or asking her to mind William's sister while she takes the car. Strange.

For me, the drive does not fit the other events on the FM timeline, meaning either those events did not happen as FM says, or the drive did not happen as she says. The drive has to be after the tea making at around 10am. But FM says she searched around the house for William, then she went and saw Ms Sharpley, who directed her to the bus stop, then she came back to the house. It wouldn't make sense to drive off before doing a search on foot. How did she have time to drive to the riding school, searching for William, and be back before 10.30am when FF returned? FF reports she told him "He was HERE (on the verandah) 5 minutes ago!". FF reports he could see FM on the street talking to neighbours when he was searching the back yard etc, and he she asked "should I call the police?" - so we know she didn't take the drive between 10:30 and 10:55am. She was in the street when police arrived. So when did this drive actually take place? If it was after FF got home, why take her mothers' car and not the family car? With the child seat? Which William would recognise and come running to? Why take a drive at all if you had come to the conclusion that William had been abducted (as she claims) - he would surely be in an unknown car a long way away by the time she took the drive?

She mentioned the trip to the riding school in the video with the police. Have you considered that the time he disappeared might not have been "just 5 minutes ago"? Most people seem to believe he had been missing for a while before it was NOTICED he had been gone. It's easier to fit the timeline if you consider the possibility he was missing prior to the tea making.

 

[31550]

She mentioned the trip to the riding school in the video with the police. Have you considered that the time he disappeared might not have been "just 5 minutes ago"? Most people seem to believe he had been missing for a while before it was NOTICED he had been gone. It's easier to fit the timeline if you consider the possibility he was missing prior to the tea making.

I'm not sure which video with police you mean. Do you have a link please? (I thought it was in the 60 minutes interview).

I understand that the "5 minutes" is just an expression. But with tea being made around 10am and FF returning home just after 10:30 why say "He was here 5 minutes ago!"? Wouldn't you say "We haven't seen him since I made tea about 30 minutes ago? I've looked everywhere, even driven to the riding school!"

I'm a bit concerned about someone who doesn't notice their 3YO foster child is missing but has time to make a cup of tea, sit down and start drinking it before noticing he's missing. (I think I read that the cups of tea were half-drunk. FM also relates how she remembered the warm sensation of the teacup in her hand.)

If the tea was made and drunk before William disappeared there doesn't seem to be enough time for her to drive to the riding school and back before FF returned.

 

[Eaglette01]

One thing for sure is the cops didn't lock down the area quick enough or put out immediate Amber Alerts or interrogate all adults separately THAT same day or the sister immediately!!

Or

Impound cars for further analysis quickly

It was assumed the bio parents were involved. Bias investigation to start with...

And all hush hushed to protect the Govt Agency that should have been protecting tiny William.