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]

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.

Agree Wallace52. Why not use the reliable land line and phone him. FF may have driven past the person who snatched William. And yes, look out for William as you approach the house. If starting the abduction narrative, wouldn't this be the time to alert the FF?
Perhaps they did not want to be seen to be communicating with each other while FF was away.

 

[Wallace52]

Agree Wallace52. Why not use the reliable land line and phone him. FF may have driven past the person who snatched William. And yes, look out for William as you approach the house. If starting the abduction narrative, wouldn't this be the time to alert the FF?
Perhaps they did not want to be seen to be communicating with each other while FF was away.

Logically: There’s only one reason why she never contacted the husband until he got home. Imo

 

[Wallace52]

Why not use the reliable land line and phone him.

Exactly!

And I think also Kurve hit the nail on the head quite a while back when she suggested that the FM was dreading telling the FF that W was missing and left it until the last possible moment to tell him, which was of course when the FF arrived home.

 

[Wallace52]

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.

It’s more well known now, but GJ had asked her about the deleted texts in the 2016 police interview.

 

[31550]

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?

WH did not arrive at the property until after 1:30pm.
According to WH statement, she asked FM when William went missing ... FM checked her phone and said it was just before FF texted her at 10:30. FM clearly had her phone on her at this time (after 1:30pm) as WH notes the phone rang and FM answered.
So the text message from FF was still on the phone at 1:30pm? Why delete it afterwards? Or was it other text messages which were deleted?
So it could be true that she didn't see the text at 10:30, but did see it before WH arrived, but deleted it and/or other texts from FF on the day William disappeared.

BUT: Looking at WH actual statement, it was not typed up until the 18th September. If you look at Wendy's handwritten notes from the actual day of the disappearance (14th), then there is no mention of the 10:30 text message or time discussion. But there are detailed notes about where everyone was when Wendy spoke to them. So maybe it's possible Wendy was caught up in the 'narrative' and her memory of the 10:30 time and text message is not based on her own immediate observations, but what she was subsequently told?

The handwritten notes say that FM and LT both said William ran off to look for "daddy's car".

 

[LRitz]

WH did not arrive at the property until after 1:30pm.
According to WH statement, she asked FM when William went missing ... FM checked her phone and said it was just before FF texted her at 10:30. FM clearly had her phone on her at this time (after 1:30pm) as WH notes the phone rang and FM answered.
So the text message from FF was still on the phone at 1:30pm? Why delete it afterwards? Or was it other text messages which were deleted?
So it could be true that she didn't see the text at 10:30, but did see it before WH arrived, but deleted it and/or other texts from FF on the day William disappeared.

BUT: Looking at WH actual statement, it was not typed up until the 18th September. If you look at Wendy's handwritten notes from the actual day of the disappearance (14th), then there is no mention of the 10:30 text message or time discussion. But there are detailed notes about where everyone was when Wendy spoke to them. So maybe it's possible Wendy was caught up in the 'narrative' and her memory of the 10:30 time and text message is not based on her own immediate observations, but what she was subsequently told?

The handwritten notes say that FM and LT both said William ran off to look for "daddy's car".

The reason FM deleted the text could be that the first early version time line, including the text, had to be changed because of new evidence. (Not so much because of the content of the text... home in 5)

The way it is said in the statements, it sounds like FM is linking the timeline of William missing, getting the text, and FF arriving back within minutes. If she had not seen the text when sent, how would she have known if it was before or after she was looking for William.
This (early version) timeline is locking in William missing before FF returns. The text gives a real time that can be seen on the phone, not just a vague not sure time. WT must go missing before the FF returns. So the time between FM noticing William missing, looking around the house and FF returning is about 10 minutes. But, as previously discussed, this does not fit in with the new evidence of the drive to Batar Creek Rd. By the time FM does the walkthrough (what day was that?) she has added to drive in the FGM car. So......now the early version of missing just before text is wrong. So is this when she changes the story, deletes the text and hopes no one notices. There is now a new version timeline of William missing earlier and before the drive. Also do I recall the new version timeline, FM did not even notice there was a text on her phone until much later.

FM has the phone when she is with WH (in WH's typed report...FFC "checked her phone" ) She must be thinking it was possible that WH could just ask if she could see the text and was prepared to show the text and time. So maybe not deleted at this stage.

Interesting 31550, the difference in notes and typed reportof WH. Would WH have read the FF statement before her typed report. Of interest, WH says in typed report (but not in the hand written notes) that FM tells her ...."remembered that she had taken photos of William that morning on the deck in his Spiderman outfit and showed me photo's on her camera".....Again FM must have thought it was possible that WH could just ask if she could see more details of the photo. I do not know if it was possible that WH had the powers to take the camera at this time.

 

[31550]

Interesting 31550, the difference in notes and typed reportof WH.

Wendy's handwritten notes are quite detailed. There is a mention of FM being on her phone while Wendy spoke to LT. But there is no mention of the 10:30 time or the text from FF in the handwritten notes. As mentioned in Wendy's statement:

This statement was updated over several days from hand written contemporaneous notes
made daily during this operation

We can see the handwritten notes from Wendy made at the exact time she is referring to speaking to FM and LT for the first time about when William disappeared. So, it's unlikely that Wendy made any other notes at this exact time. So, Wendy did NOT make a note about the 10:30 text message at the time, or in the days that followed.

I can only conclude that the part about 10:30 and the text message has been added into Wendy's typed statement "from memory", and not from any handwritten note taken by Wendy at the time. Maybe Wendy did ask FM about the time but did not bother to write it down? Seems strange that she would omit such a critical piece of information from her notes, when she was quite thorough in documenting lots of other stuff. Another possible explanation is that the story of the "Home in 5" text message was repeated or relayed to Wendy at a later time, and became implanted in her own memory.

 

[Wallace52]

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?

It had a broken part.

 

[LRitz]

It had a broken part.

Yes a broken part. Mystery solved.

The repair man had not just turned up to the FGM's house a few days before foster family arrive. He had been asked to come to the house by the FGM. Easy answer, just a coincidence.

 

[LRitz]

Exactly!

And I think also Kurve hit the nail on the head quite a while back when she suggested that the FM was dreading telling the FF that W was missing and left it until the last possible moment to tell him, which was of course when the FF arrived home.

In the fall from balcony scenario (not proved), what and when does she tell the FF. He arrives and they immediately start looking for William. If I am correct they both go first to neighbours house directly opposite and then split up searching and alerting other neighbours. There has been suggestions that neighbour PS did not hear someone yelling out for William i.e. FF already knows that William has not just wandered off or lost.
If William has had a fall/accident, and if she tells hime immediately, how does she explain in just minutes what has happened.

 

[Wallace52]

In the fall from balcony scenario (not proved), what and when does she tell the FF. He arrives and they immediately start looking for William. If I am correct they both go first to neighbours house directly opposite and then split up searching and alerting other neighbours. There has been suggestions that neighbour PS did not hear someone yelling out for William i.e. FF already knows that William has not just wandered off or lost.
If William has had a fall/accident, and if she tells hime immediately, how does she explain in just minutes what has happened.

Yeah look I think maybe if there was an accident she’s told him immediately when he got home and that’s when he went to the bathroom and was found by officer Chris crying.

 

[31550]

Yeah look I think maybe if there was an accident she’s told him immediately when he got home and that’s when he went to the bathroom and was found by officer Chris crying.

That would not have been 'immediately', though, as Chris did not attend until shortly after 11am. If FF returned home at 10:30 there might have been some 'looking' before FM anecdotally asked, "Should I call the police?", then FF says, "Yes, call the police." If this dialogue is true, then FF would not have 'known' of any accident at this point, or there would have been lengthy discussion. It is possible that FM 'told' FF AFTER the 000 call but before police arrived, and FF was getting himself together in the bathroom when Chris arrived. It's also possible FF had been searching the garden, had hayfever, or needed a comfort break, and was oblivious of any 'accident' at this point.

In my opinion, FF may still be oblivious. He's not smart and seems to be totally under FMs control.

 

[LRitz]

In my opinion, FF may still be oblivious. He's not smart and seems to be totally under FMs control.

FF may still be oblivious.

 

[CodyRose]

FF may still be oblivious.

IMO nope

 

[Wallace52]

In my opinion, FF may still be oblivious. He's not smart and seems to be totally under FMs control.

No way.

 

[shorsky]

Wendy's handwritten notes are quite detailed. There is a mention of FM being on her phone while Wendy spoke to LT. But there is no mention of the 10:30 time or the text from FF in the handwritten notes. As mentioned in Wendy's statement:

This statement was updated over several days from hand written contemporaneous notes
made daily during this operation

We can see the handwritten notes from Wendy made at the exact time she is referring to speaking to FM and LT for the first time about when William disappeared. So, it's unlikely that Wendy made any other notes at this exact time. So, Wendy did NOT make a note about the 10:30 text message at the time, or in the days that followed.

I can only conclude that the part about 10:30 and the text message has been added into Wendy's typed statement "from memory", and not from any handwritten note taken by Wendy at the time. Maybe Wendy did ask FM about the time but did not bother to write it down? Seems strange that she would omit such a critical piece of information from her notes, when she was quite thorough in documenting lots of other stuff. Another possible explanation is that the story of the "Home in 5" text message was repeated or relayed to Wendy at a later time, and became implanted in her own memory.

IMO, the issue here is what’s at the route of the issues with this investigation, and that’s that it was deemed from the start that ‘a little boy simply wandered off ‘ - and the family involved were ‘friends’ ( Grandmother anyway) of Wendy & perhaps other local police, as that’s often how it is in country towns.

So there was no consideration of / no attention paid to gathering evidence in case the situation was different to that reported and possibly something untoward had occurred.

JMO, and I very much doubt that this will be solved any time soon.

 

[Wallace52]

IMO, the issue here is what’s at the route of the issues with this investigation, and that’s that it was deemed from the start that ‘a little boy simply wandered off ‘ - and the family involved were ‘friends’ ( Grandmother anyway) of Wendy & perhaps other local police, as that’s often how it is in country towns.

So there was no consideration of / no attention paid to gathering evidence in case the situation was different to that reported and possibly something untoward had occurred.

JMO, and I very much doubt that this will be solved any time soon.

^

JMO, and I very much doubt that this will be solved any time soon

I feel like there would need to be a trigger. Something big would need to happen to herald a breakthrough in the case.

IMO

 

[31550]

^


I feel like there would need to be a trigger. Something big would need to happen to herald a breakthrough in the case.

IMO

Finding the body would be a start.

 

[LRitz]

IMO, the issue here is what’s at the route of the issues with this investigation, and that’s that it was deemed from the start that ‘a little boy simply wandered off ‘ - and the family involved were ‘friends’ ( Grandmother anyway) of Wendy & perhaps other local police, as that’s often how it is in country towns.

Exactly Shorsky. Fosters were allowed to stay in the house that night after William went missing, having dinner and wine. Cars not examined for days and then it was decided to reexamine FGM's car years later. Early accurate investigation and forensics for finding the guilty, but also for protecting the innocent.

FGM was important as seen as a witness. In her walkthrough (she seems more upset by the messy bedrooms than WT missing IMO) she says she last saw William running around the side of the house. The version of events was repeated by the media nearly as fact - e.g. WT was last seen running around the side of the house in spiderman outfit.... It was not reported as "FGM stated" or "it is alleged". Their story became fact. It was easy to fall into the trap and actually imagine the little boy with lots of energy running around the yard. But maybe none of that happened.

But FGM could have also been the weakest link. She is confused at what time FF left the house. She does mirror the narrative that FF leaves and then the kids have breakfast (and gives us the important detail that WT also had his special orange juice) so FF is "DEFINITELY" not there, and that FF has left without William. And of course the jumping out of his "skull"

 

[LRitz]

I feel like there would need to be a trigger. Something big would need to happen to herald a breakthrough in the case.

Dare I say. Look at the time on the photo.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Agree Wallace52. Why not use the reliable land line and phone him. FF may have driven past the person who snatched William. And yes, look out for William as you approach the house. If starting the abduction narrative, wouldn't this be the time to alert the FF?
Perhaps they did not want to be seen to be communicating with each other while FF was away.

That would not have been 'immediately', though, as Chris did not attend until shortly after 11am. If FF returned home at 10:30 there might have been some 'looking' before FM anecdotally asked, "Should I call the police?", then FF says, "Yes, call the police." If this dialogue is true, then FF would not have 'known' of any accident at this point, or there would have been lengthy discussion. It is possible that FM 'told' FF AFTER the 000 call but before police arrived, and FF was getting himself together in the bathroom when Chris arrived. It's also possible FF had been searching the garden, had hayfever, or needed a comfort break, and was oblivious of any 'accident' at this point.

In my opinion, FF may still be oblivious. He's not smart and seems to be totally under FMs control.

The behaviour is totally incongruous with human nature which has been my point all the way along.

I recall 12 odd years ago I was at work and I received a call from my wife. Our newly purchased puppy spoodle had escaped the house and ran away and she was informing me and asking me to immediately come home and help find her. I did. The point being that IF the child was abducted OR he had had a life threatening accident you wouldn't wait until he came home later. You'd try and seek input what to do immediately. On their story that didn't happen and I simply don't believe it. The obvious explanation to me is that FF was there when it happened earlier and was therefore no need to explain what had already been discussed.

 

[31550]

The behaviour is totally incongruous with human nature which has been my point all the way along.

I recall 12 odd years ago I was at work and I received a call from my wife. Our newly purchased puppy spoodle had escaped the house and ran away and she was informing me and asking me to immediately come home and help find her. I did. The point being that IF the child was abducted OR he had had a life threatening accident you wouldn't wait until he came home later. You'd try and seek input what to do immediately. On their story that didn't happen and I simply don't believe it. The obvious explanation to me is that FF was there when it happened earlier and was therefore no need to explain what had already been discussed.

OK, but consider the scenario where Mrs ARB was responsible for looking after the puppy and caused a fatal injury through some reckless or wanton neglect or abuse. Without casting aspersions on you or Mrs ARB, would not, in some domestic scenarios, it be in line with 'human behaviour' to conceal this fact from ARB, hide the poor puppy's body, and simply make up a story that the puppy escaped or ran off, so a passer-by must have stolen it, even though the puppy was 'not a wanderer' and it was 'totally out of character', and she only turned her back for '5 minutes'. There is nothing Mrs ARB can do to bring the puppy back. Why bring extra grief on herself or ARB by admitting to her actions, if nobody saw, and she can get away with it?

 

[LRitz]

The behaviour is totally incongruous with human nature which has been my point all the way along.
.....The obvious explanation to me is that FF was there when it happened earlier and was therefore no need to explain what had already been discussed.

Puzzling. Posssibilities

• No need to tell hime because he already knew
• They mistakenly left this off their plan of abduction story
• They did not want to be seen to be communicating while FF was away.
• all of the above

 

[Angry Red Bull]

OK, but consider the scenario where Mrs ARB was responsible for looking after the puppy and caused a fatal injury through some reckless or wanton neglect or abuse. Without casting aspersions on you or Mrs ARB, would not, in some domestic scenarios, it be in line with 'human behaviour' to conceal this fact from ARB, hide the poor puppy's body, and simply make up a story that the puppy escaped or ran off, so a passer-by must have stolen it, even though the puppy was 'not a wanderer' and it was 'totally out of character', and she only turned her back for '5 minutes'. There is nothing Mrs ARB can do to bring the puppy back. Why bring extra grief on herself or ARB by admitting to her actions, if nobody saw, and she can get away with it?

Mrs ARB was negligent and irresponsible but still came forward to contact me. Vast majority would. The accidental death if that's what occurred IS an unavoidable fact and has enduring impact. All people know this and because of this and the weight it places on conscience forces you to divulge what happened....especially when there is a bond of trust by marriage. A very small percentage perhaps in single digit figures would seek to keep it secret. That ignores the fact also that an accidental death with inconclusive fatality would necessitate two people's intelligent input not one if only to cover an option you might miss.

 

[31550]

Mrs ARB was negligent and irresponsible but still came forward to contact me. Vast majority would. The accidental death if that's what occurred IS an unavoidable fact and has enduring impact. All people know this and because of this and the weight it places on conscience forces you to divulge what happened....especially when there is a bond of trust by marriage. A very small percentage perhaps in single digit figures would seek to keep it secret. That ignores the fact also that an accidental death with inconclusive fatality would necessitate two people's intelligent input not one if only to cover an option you might miss.

What if Mrs ARB had narcissistic personality disorder, or a similar mental condition which influenced her behaviour / instincts / decision-making ?