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

[Kurve]

Continued from PART 1

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

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

TIMELINE

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

Operation Arkstone

 

[LRitz]

Neighbour Paul Savage spoke at the inquest.
He said that around the time when William went missing: “He couldn't recall hearing anyone calling out William's name.”
This would fit with the foster father’s ridiculous police walk-through in which he calls out William’s name in the quietest voice he could possibly muster.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/william-tyrrell-neighbour-adds-new-pieces-to-story-115639391.html

Interesting in that he was one person close by at the time. I understand a regular morning you may not be taking mental notes and there could be some errors, but he seems to be giving his memory of the morning to his best recall. Was he treated as a suspect rather than a witness.

Candace Sutton 2019:

Details of ‘deeply troubling’ police grilling of Tyrrell person of interest

Detectives probing the disappearance of William Tyrrell were so fixated on a pensioner living metres from where the toddler went missing that they mapped his daily early morning walk.

www.news.com.au

He says after 10:37 a neighbour (I think it was AM S) knocks on his door and alerts him to WT missing. He then says he went across the road to speak briefly to the FGM and saw the FF in the house. Could he have been mistaken and seen someone else? But at this stage there are only the neighbours around who you would think he would recognise. And it seems he knows what the FF looked like. Also he...."couldn't recall anyone calling our William's name...." This sounds like he was asked this question and he (and possibly his wife) did not hear either the FM or FF calling our for William. He also says ... " he waved Heather goodbye around 10.37am and “I walked straight back inside after my wife pulled out...." So at 10:37 he is outside his house. This would be when FF was only about 7 minutes into his search but Paul Savage does not hear or note anything unusual.

He told the inquest he'd sat on his veranda with toast and tea "between 9am and 9.30am and could hear children playing". But he does not say he saw any children. Could he have heard other children in the street? Maybe he only heard one child playing and he could not know if it was WT or only LT.

 

[Wallace52]

Following on from what you’ve stated LRitz, imo they managed to discredit two possible male witnesses, Savage and Spedding and set about directing the heat onto them and essentially ruining their lives.

Both had valuable information to offer with regards to the case, but it didn’t necessarily fit with the foster parents’ narrative, and eventually their lives were all but destroyed.

 

[Lady O]

Following on from what you’ve stated LRitz, imo they managed to discredit two possible male witnesses, Savage and Spedding and set about directing the heat onto them and essentially ruining their lives.

Both had valuable information to offer with regards to the case, but it didn’t necessarily fit with the foster parents’ narrative, and eventually their lives were all but destroyed.

What valuable information did Spedding have to offer?

 

[LRitz]

Following on from what you’ve stated LRitz, imo they managed to discredit two possible male witnesses, Savage and Spedding and set about directing the heat onto them and essentially ruining their lives.

Both had valuable information to offer with regards to the case, but it didn’t necessarily fit with the foster parents’ narrative, and eventually their lives were all but destroyed.

Slightly off topic: But it goes to show that you should not judge too hurriedly, or think that somehow YOU KNOW that someone is lying or guilty. The press seemed to go out of their way to publish the worst possible pictures of them. Anything for a story.

The neighbour, in the short interview, sounded like a decent chap. He and his wife enjoyed bush walking, he was caring for his sick relative and going to drive many hours to see him, seeing his wife off to bingo, cleaning the kitchen to help his wife. Immediately giving help in searching.

 

[LRitz]

What valuable information did Spedding have to offer?

Well for one, where he was that morning. Would have saved a lot of police hours and misery if they had checked first. And what was wrong with the washing machine?

 

[Lady O]

Well for one, where he was that morning. Would have saved a lot of police hours and misery if they had checked first. And what was wrong with the washing machine?

Yes, I think that's a stretch to say he had valuable information about the case. Where he was that morning was for the Police to confirm. And the washing machine, what possible value would knowing what was wrong with it add to the investigation?

 

[Wallace52]

Yes, I think that's a stretch to say he had valuable information about the case. Where he was that morning was for the Police to confirm. And the washing machine, what possible value would knowing what was wrong with it add to the investigation?

How do you know it’s a stretch? The police may have recently re-interviewed him for all we know. Wasn’t he at the at the house that week after W went missing? AFAIK the foster family made him come and attend to the washing machine once replacement part had come in.

What did he notice within the family dynamics? What conversations were had? How was he paid?

What was the tone of the foster mother’s voice the day that she called him, around the time that William went missing?

What did he know about the foster grandmother from the community? Was she well-regarded or a trouble maker? Did she have a boyfriend or partner after her husband died?

 

[LRitz]

Yes, I think that's a stretch to say he had valuable information about the case. Where he was that morning was for the Police to confirm. And the washing machine, what possible value would knowing what was wrong with it add to the investigation?

May be not valuable about the case but certainly valuable: Police time costs money and wasted time from more relevant investigations. The payout to him was in $s.
If you don't ask the question you don't get the (possibly valuable) information.

 

[Wallace52]

Definitely Dec 2020. Check on Findagrave.com I won't post a link because of the suppression of names thingy.

I’ll just check the headstone, mate.

 

[Wallace52]

Proposing a fall from the balcony, which is plausible imo, is the best way of encouraging the FM to admit with decreased culpability, that she was involved in removing William from the property, thereby providing the opportunity to find his body and close the case.

Yeah well they clearly didn’t have her profiled first, as this tactic didn’t work at all.

I feel like they have a better understanding of who they’re dealing with now.

There’s also the other possibility: She didn’t do anything, doesn’t know anything about a balcony fall and doesn’t know what happened to William.

 

[LRitz]

There’s also the other possibility: She didn’t do anything, doesn’t know anything about a balcony fall and doesn’t know what happened to William.

Maybe you could phrase it differently with and/ or possibilities:

• She didn’t do anything, and/or
• doesn’t know anything about a balcony fall, and/or
• doesn’t know what happened to William, and/or
• does know what happened

 

[31550]

I’ll just check the headstone, mate.

 

[LRitz]

The FF sent a text message to the FM at around 10:30 to say he would be home in 5 minutes. It was sent possible from the general store when he was buying the newspapers. The FM deleted the text. In her early evidence I think FM says WT went missing minutes before she received this message. This missing time seems to be now thought to be earlier when factoring in the drive to Batar Creek road.

So he sent a text to FM. The reason for the text is to alert FM he will be home soon. Why did he want to alert her of his arrival. Easy answer - he thought she might be thinking he is taking a long time or has been delayed. But..... there did not seem to be discussion that he had to be home at a set time, no plans for the family for that morning, he was not delayed in returning home, he was going to be home in a few minutes any way. He did not ask if he should buy anything at the general store (it even sold mars Bars).

 

[31550]

The FF sent a text message to the FM at around 10:30 to say he would be home in 5 minutes. It was sent possible from the general store when he was buying the newspapers. The FM deleted the text. In her early evidence I think FM says WT went missing minutes before she received this message. This missing time seems to be now thought to be earlier when factoring in the drive to Batar Creek road.

So he sent a text to FM. The reason for the text is to alert FM he will be home soon. Why did he want to alert her of his arrival. Easy answer - he thought she might be thinking he is taking a long time or has been delayed. But..... there did not seem to be discussion that he had to be home at a set time, no plans for the family for that morning, he was not delayed in returning home, he was going to be home in a few minutes any way. He did not ask if he should buy anything at the general store (it even sold mars Bars).

The fosters' narrative around this message was that William liked to greet/surprise FF as some sort of game when he returned home, so the message was sent so FM could prepare William to be waiting for FF in the driveway, or nearby. I don't think there is any evidence which either supports or refutes this narrative. It would be an interesting question to ask William's sister - whether this was a standard practice or not, but too much time has passed now. I don't know if police bothered to ask any of the (Sydney) neighbours of the fosters if they had ever seen William waiting for FF to come home. It might just be a 'convenient' explanation of the message. I still don't think it has been adequately explained why FM would delete this message. With so much going on, looking for William, why take the time to stop and delete an innocuous text message?

 

[LRitz]

The fosters' narrative around this message was that William liked to greet/surprise FF as some sort of game when he returned home, so the message was sent so FM could prepare William to be waiting for FF in the driveway, or nearby. I don't think there is any evidence which either supports or refutes this narrative. It would be an interesting question to ask William's sister - whether this was a standard practice or not, but too much time has passed now. I don't know if police bothered to ask any of the (Sydney) neighbours of the fosters if they had ever seen William waiting for FF to come home. It might just be a 'convenient' explanation of the message. I still don't think it has been adequately explained why FM would delete this message. With so much going on, looking for William, why take the time to stop and delete an innocuous text message?

Another narrative.

So this surprise game is a possible reason to text and alert the FM that he is just about to arrive back home. FF does not say the reason he left the text.

I think (have to check ) that the statement of senior constable WH says on the day she spoke to FM and LT and both say WT was looking for FF to come home.

And yes, why delete the message. Do we know the exact content of the message.?

As an aside> Having a child waiting outside or on a driveway (alone?) to surprise a returning parent does not sound like a good or safe usual practice.

 

[Wallace52]

The FF sent a text message to the FM at around 10:30 to say he would be home in 5 minutes. It was sent possible from the general store when he was buying the newspapers. The FM deleted the text. In her early evidence I think FM says WT went missing minutes before she received this message. This missing time seems to be now thought to be earlier when factoring in the drive to Batar Creek road.

So he sent a text to FM. The reason for the text is to alert FM he will be home soon. Why did he want to alert her of his arrival. Easy answer - he thought she might be thinking he is taking a long time or has been delayed. But..... there did not seem to be discussion that he had to be home at a set time, no plans for the family for that morning, he was not delayed in returning home, he was going to be home in a few minutes any way. He did not ask if he should buy anything at the general store (it even sold mars Bars).

He typically would let her know when he was coming home.

He did that in Sydney also.

 

[Wallace52]

Another narrative.

So this surprise game is a possible reason to text and alert the FM that he is just about to arrive back home. FF does not say the reason he left the text.

I think (have to check ) that the statement of senior constable WH says on the day she spoke to FM and LT and both say WT was looking for FF to come home.

And yes, why delete the message. Do we know the exact content of the message.?

As an aside> Having a child waiting outside or on a driveway (alone?) to surprise a returning parent does not sound like a good or safe usual practice.

IMHO; Good and safe practices were not the strong points of those foster parents.

Examples: They used exclusionary time out on L when she was 2 or 3 years of age. Like they locked her out of the house as a discipline method. When she was a toddler. A representative from FACS has testified to observing this during a home visit.

Also, I mean, look at the balcony height for example at 48 B Drive, and the fact that there was no child safe gate and the fact that there was furniture on the balcony.

Who would bring two young, spirited and vulnerable children there and leave them alone for any length of time?

 

[31550]

He typically would let her know when he was coming home.

He did that in Sydney also.

So we are told. But has that been proven to be a fact? Is there any independent evidence which confirms this?

 

[Wallace52]

So we are told. But has that been proven to be a fact? Is there any independent evidence which confirms this?

I don’t think this part is a lie. I think it’s true. Jmo

 

[LRitz]

IMHO; Good and safe practices were not the strong points of those foster parents.

Who would bring two young, spirited and vulnerable children there and leave them alone for any length of time?

So do you still think the child on parent's shoulders in MacDonalds was for safety?

 

[LRitz]

The fosters' narrative around this message was that William liked to greet/surprise FF as some sort of game when he returned home, so the message was sent so FM could prepare William to be waiting for FF in the driveway, or nearby. I don't think there is any evidence which either supports or refutes this narrative. It would be an interesting question to ask William's sister - whether this was a standard practice or not, but too much time has passed now. I don't know if police bothered to ask any of the (Sydney) neighbours of the fosters if they had ever seen William waiting for FF to come home. It might just be a 'convenient' explanation of the message. I still don't think it has been adequately explained why FM would delete this message. With so much going on, looking for William, why take the time to stop and delete an innocuous text message?

FM receives text after she realises William is missing. So William has been running to towards the street before FM knows that FF is soon to return. (Or has he been playing tigers or peek -a- Boo.) Minor point I know. But it seems that FF and FM had not been in contact before this and she would have been waiting for the usual text to say he was on his way.

Why delete the message? Simple answer is FM said she often deleted messages. Mystery solved.
Sounds like the FF had not deleted the message.
If messages are deleted, is there any evidence left that there was a message deleted? Could there have been other messages between FF and FM that morning that they both deleted.

 

[Wallace52]

FM receives text after she realises William is missing. So William has been running to towards the street before FM knows that FF is soon to return. (Or has he been playing tigers or peek -a- Boo.) Minor point I know. But it seems that FF and FM had not been in contact before this and she would have been waiting for the usual text to say he was on his way.

Yeah so it’s weird that she didn’t reply.

It’s odd that she deleted it. It’s kind of an important morning. You’ve just lost your foster son.

Wouldn’t you text back, can you look for William on your way home? Or is he with you?

Wouldn’t she want her partner to cast his eye over the roads as he drove home? Or even go slowly and make sure you don’t run over William if he’s running on the road somewhere.

There was so much she could have said to her husband.

But instead she presses delete.

 

[Wallace52]

So do you still think the child on parent's shoulders in MacDonalds was for safety?

I don’t think the FF had any idea of what was going to happen the next day. No idea.

So regardless of why he put William on his shoulders, it has no bearing on William going missing.

IMO

 

[31550]

FM receives text after she realises William is missing. So William has been running to towards the street before FM knows that FF is soon to return. (Or has he been playing tigers or peek -a- Boo.) Minor point I know. But it seems that FF and FM had not been in contact before this and she would have been waiting for the usual text to say he was on his way.

Why delete the message? Simple answer is FM said she often deleted messages. Mystery solved.
Sounds like the FF had not deleted the message.
If messages are deleted, is there any evidence left that there was a message deleted? Could there have been other messages between FF and FM that morning that they both deleted.

FM also said she did not notice the message immediately. She was looking for William, and THEN noticed the text. (Not clear whether she had her phone with her or not - perhaps that is shy she didn't get the message immediately?) So, the text was deleted after FF had returned home. This doesn't make sense. After FF returned home, they were supposedly looking for William, talking to neighbours, and then FM phoned police.

My understanding is she called from FGM's cordless phone, not her own mobile phone). Can anyone confirm this? The 000 operator already has the address, so I assume it's the address associated with FGM's phone. This indicates FM doesn't have her mobile phone on her when she calls 000. But she speaks to the 000 operator from the street or driveway (mentions that a neighbour is with her helping her look). I guess the cordless phone works out there. So she went inside the house to get the cordless phone. Why not get her own phone? Possibly because it's turned off so it's quicker to get FGM's phone and call from that.

This seems to indicate to me that FMs phone was possibly turned off, or not connected, and not on FM's person this whole time. Otherwise, she would have got FF's message immediately, and probably responded, "Hurry home I can't find him!" or similar. Also she would have used her own phone to dial 000. But FM used her own phone several hours later to call Ben Attwood - maybe THIS is when she saw the message from FF and deleted it?

Not clear whether this 'text message' (Home in 5) was sent using SMS or some sort of Instant Messaging. FF says he was in the car and used Siri to text FM. So it may have gone via iMessage? An SMS leaves a permanent record, iMessage may not.

The content of SMS messages can be permanently deleted from phones. The fact that an SMS was sent / received cannot be deleted, as the phone carrier will have the message in its records.

The accusation from police that FM deleted text messages from FF on the day of William's disappearance only emerged when FM was declared a POI.

Even if FM was in the habit of deleting text messages, it is still strange to me that she would do this for a message which she did not even see until after William had been missing for some time and everyone was supposedly busy searching for William? I just don't think you stop in the middle of panic and searching for a child to review redundant text messages and delete them.

 

[LRitz]

The accusation from police that FM deleted text messages from FF on the day of William's disappearance only emerged when FM was declared a POI.

Even if FM was in the habit of deleting text messages, it is still strange to me that she would do this for a message which she did not even see until after William had been missing for some time and everyone was supposedly busy searching for William? I just don't think you stop in the middle of panic and searching for a child to review redundant text messages and delete them.

From senior constable WH statement - FM told her on the day William went missing the time he went missing ...."It was just before FF texted me around 1O.30am."
She is not hiding the fact that there was a text. Does her story change later that she did not see the text?
So the police see later that text has been deleted. Does this mean the content of the text is not known and it may have said something else. If FF is unaware that William is missing why would they want to hide the content of the message?