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

 

[Kurve]

No, the new evidence that caused the police to designate the FM the PoI. It was obviously sufficiently substantive that the Police considered that it warranted a major search. Now, with no (publically announced, at least) new evidence discovered during the major new search operation, should we be considering the possibility that the evidence was provided mistakenly? Or by somebody with mental health issues? Or a grudge? And, therefore, should we be reconsidering whether the case for the FM being the sole PoI is possibly not as strong as it seemed a month ago?

No, absolutely not because there's even less evidence for that atm than there is the FM chucked something out the window on Batar Creek Road.

Yes, none of us know anything other than what the Police media department want us (and the perpetrator) to know.

Our discussions are led by the police and the press, that the FM was declared the sole POI isn't on us and we're generally safe to engage within that framing. We've had nothing further from them even if the search appears to have turned up nothing, that we know of.

That's not to say though that it's a green light to assume guilt or to make accusations of guilt.

 

[jason_recliner]

Is that the evidence that triggered the latest search? That somebody saw FM throw something out of her car window? I found that sequence of events/posts/links/transcripts difficult to follow.

I feel that upon balance of probabilities, with the new evidence seeming to lead nowhere, and no charges laid FM on after seven years, that she probably didn't do it. I reckon William was abducted and the perpetrator has been so hard to find because he's far from the crime scene.

 

[Lady O]

No, the new evidence that caused the police to designate the FM the PoI. It was obviously sufficiently substantive that the Police considered that it warranted a major search. Now, with no (publically announced, at least) new evidence discovered during the major new search operation, should we be considering the possibility that the evidence was provided mistakenly? Or by somebody with mental health issues? Or a grudge? And, therefore, should we be reconsidering whether the case for the FM being the sole PoI is possibly not as strong as it seemed a month ago?

I think there is a tonnes of soil to go through. There is always the possibility that there is evidence in that soil or in some of the items they have found and are testing. Yes, they may have hoped something would be found that was a slam dunk, but I don't think that you can assume there has not been any evidence found.

When there is a $1M reward for information, then you can't complain if someone comes forward with evidence that appears to be valid but doesn't solve the case.

Yes, none of us know anything other than what the Police media department want us (and the perpetrator) to know.

......and the Foster Parents and their supporters.

I'm quite new to this, so wasn't considering those former suspects at all. I have biases against some alleged criminals - e.g. I reckon the alleged Brittany Higgins rapist did it, as I cannot imagine anybody making that up (plus the security guard accounts), I was pretty sure about Epstein quite a few years back - but I try to keep an open mind and consider evidence and probabilities as rationally and logically as possible (my line of work requires rational and logical analysis).

I try to keep an open mind also, but that doesn't stop me from speculating on the possibility of various POI's or scenarios when they arise. As has been discussed, some posters zone in on one suspect, and even if it were PROVEN that they were wrong, many would still not believe it, so invested have they become in their theory. I have given a lot of thought to many theories and ideas since WT went missing, this is just the latest.

It's not impossible that the FM did it, but to completely cover her tracks successfully, lie convincingly, and not make one mistake in seven years, for some of which she was the focus of the investigation as the last person to see William alive, strikes me as highly improbable.

I think recent cases have highlighted that you don't need to be a criminal genius to evade detection. If it weren't for "new technology" I doubt the Cleo Smith or Hill & Clay cases would have resulted in arrests. New technology has been used over recent years to catch criminals, especially recently with DNA and Ancestry.com. If we look at historic "cold cases" that have been solved, many have found that the person was interviewed and dismissed or that they were a suspect, but without sufficient evidence.

One comment I wanted to make about your implication that there would be some slander or libel involved and that posters could be subjected to legal action by the foster parents. They have chosen to remain anonymous and in doing so, they have protected their identities from us. Therefore their reputations could not be damaged, as we do not know who they are and even those who do cannot name them. We do not know what they look like. They may be feeling pressure from the investigation, but they are not being personally subjected to any negative comments on this forum as they are "anonymous" to us.

 

[Kurve]

Is that the evidence that triggered the latest search? That somebody saw FM throw something out of her car window? I found that sequence of events/posts/links/transcripts difficult to follow.

I feel that upon balance of probabilities, with the new evidence seeming to lead nowhere, and no charges laid FM on after seven years, that she probably didn't do it. I reckon William was abducted and the perpetrator has been so hard to find because he's far from the crime scene.

The impression I've had and why this is all so confusing, is that under the new lead Detective together with directions from the Coroner there's more than just this 'new information' they're acting on but no clear idea where the suggestion that she might have thrown something out the window came from.

I understand the police think WT was removed from the street by a car but I personally don't like that if it was immediate unless it was by one of the fosters. I think it was either one of the neighbours/a guest responsible or FM had a hand in removing him after an accident in a blind panic (doesn't make her guilty of murder) because I just can't see a random car going in there and getting out unseen. Unless they parked the car at the cemetery and walked the trail that led in to Benaroon Drive, taking him back out the same way.

After all, it may still have been Mr. Savage (if it seems unlikely) and the big stink over some stupid illegal recordings that about nobody would usually care about, is because it compromised a prosecution. Eg, nothing that was gathered as evidence in a case against Mr. Savage can be used.

An abductor imo, probably either lives on the same side as the FGM house on Benaroon Drive or entered Benaroon Drive from the high end, not the low. That's just how I see it and it means bugger all really. To add to all that, the cops should have checked the roof cavities in the neighbouring houses imo.

 

[Lady O]

To add to all that, the cops should have checked the roof cavities in the neighbouring houses imo.

I believe that they would have. I remember a comment about the house belonging to the neighbour across the road that the FGM indicated was a bit odd, they looked in the ceiling and found a fake owl, (the ones used to deter birds).

 

[sprockets]

No, absolutely not because there's even less evidence for that atm than there is the FM chucked something out the window on Batar Creek Road.



Our discussions are led by the police and the press, that the FM was declared the sole POI isn't on us and we're generally safe to engage within that framing. We've had nothing further from them even if the search appears to have turned up nothing, that we know of.

That's not to say though that it's a green light to assume guilt or to make accusations of guilt.

Or harass. I wonder how many forums some people have joined just for this purpose.

 

[sprockets]

I’m not overly confident with law stuff but after reading the Mental Health act sec 14 I took it as though it relates to the defendants, not the victim of alleged assault.
Unless it can also relate to the victim having mental health issues and defendants reacting?
The definitions describe a common assault as being physical in nature or a threat to, where the victim thinks there is a likelihood of physical contact to occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You realise assault can be as 'simple' as a spank on the backside for being naughty or even a warning that it might happen 'if she does it again'? Child tells someone they were spanked and there you go - FP's up on assault charges. I realise spanking's no longer legal but in many people's view it should be, including mine. Does anyone in here really believe they've been punching the child in the face or something equally as abhorrent?

 

[sprockets]

Evidence that the Police have made them POIs? Well, the search at the house - under the balcony, under the house, looking for blood.

Evidence that they have been charged with assault of a child? Apparently this is on the court lists, so I guess that is evidence that they have been charged. As charges were apparently laid by the Homicide police (rather than the local cops), you could reasonably conclude that there is some connection to the WT search by Homicide police.



You're asking the wrong person.



You know, I think you are misinterpreting what you are reading based on your own bias. Did you make these sorts of statements when the other POIs (Spedding, Savage, Abbott, et al) were being discussed and implying that those discussions were against the law?

We are being led by the Police and the media. We aren't making up who they are focusing on or where they are searching.

Were Spedding and other POI's harassed in here like the current POI has been? I'll answer that for you - no.

 

[Lady O]

Or harass. I wonder how many forums some people have joined just for this purpose.

Harass whom? Other posters? How could anyone on this forum harass anyone connected with the case?

 

[sprockets]

The impression I've had and why this is all so confusing, is that under the new lead Detective together with directions from the Coroner there's more than just this 'new information' they're acting on but no idea where the suggestion that she might have thrown something out the window came from.

I understand the police think WT was removed from the street by a car but I personally don't like that if it was immediate unless it was by one of the fosters. I think it was either one of the neighbours/a guest responsible or FM had a hand in removing him after an accident in a blind panic (doesn't make her guilty of murder) because I just can't see a random car going in there and getting out unseen. Unless they parked the car at the cemetery and walked the trail that led in to Benaroon Drive, taking him back out the same way.

After all, it may still have been Mr. Savage (kinda unlikely) and the big stink over some stupid illegal recordings that about nobody would usually care about, is because it compromised a prosecution. Eg, nothing that was gathered as evidence in a case against Mr. Savage can be used.

An abductor imo, probably either lives on the same side as the FGM house on Benaroon Drive or entered Benaroon Drive from the high end, not the low. That's just how I see it and it means bugger all really. To add to all that, the cops should have checked the roof cavities in the neighbouring houses imo.

Really?

 

[Pies1990]

I’m not overly confident with law stuff but after reading the Mental Health act sec 14 I took it as though it relates to the defendants, not the victim of alleged assault.
Unless it can also relate to the victim having mental health issues and defendants reacting?
The definitions describe a common assault as being physical in nature or a threat to, where the victim thinks there is a likelihood of physical contact to occur.

sprockets:

I posted this earlier. I’ve read Section 14 of the Mental Health Act as that’s what the FP’s are potentially using to fight the assault charge.
I even looked into the definition of “common assault” to which they are charged with.

The child could be talking BS, or making it up, or it’s true, but either way the FP’s are using the mental health act to fight the charges

Edit: wrong user tagged

 

[Kurve]

Really?

Really ... when has there ever been such a fuss over not having the right paperwork when a POI has been spoken to by the police (hero lead cop) and recorded?

 

[sprockets]

Harass whom? Other posters? How could anyone on this forum harass anyone connected with the case?

You must be new to the internet.

Start here https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/adult-cyber-abuse

 

[sprockets]

Really ... when has there ever been such a fuss over not having the right paperwork when a POI has been spoken to by the police (hero lead cop) and recorded?

You crack me up. Didn't you tell me just yesterday that open justice is a fundamental? What's the right to privacy then?

 

[sprockets]

sprockets:

I posted this earlier. I’ve read Section 14 of the Mental Health Act as that’s what the FP’s are potentially using to fight the assault charge.
I even looked into the definition of “common assault” to which they are charged with.

The child could be talking BS, or making it up, or it’s true, but either way the FP’s are using the mental health act to fight the charges

Edit: wrong user tagged

And they're entitled to use it!

 

[Kurve]

You crack me up. Didn't you tell me just yesterday that open justice is a fundamental? What's the right to privacy then?

How is this relevant to my post, that you quoted? The principle of open justice and the right to privacy being two totally different things.

 

[Pies1990]

And they're entitled to use it!

Yes they are, but you don’t see the relevance of them using the mental health act to fight it? It seems the assault occurred and they firstly denied and pleaded not guilty, but are now playing a mental health card IMO to get the conviction either quashed or not recorded.

It may seem like we’re hounding the FP’s but considering the child in question, and relevance to other cases it’s why people are asking the questions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sprockets]

How is this relevant to my post, that you quoted? The principle of open justice and the right to privacy being two totally different things.

Cmon... They're both fundamentals and you know it.

 

[Awakening]

I could be wrong but I thought the application under the mental health act was an option only, not that they were necessarily going to use it.

But in order for the case to be ever heard under the mental health act, it had to be lodged before the next court date.

It doesn't mean they are going to plead guilty to assault under the mental health act, it means their lawyer is keeping their options open.

They could still plead not guilty and then if that doesn't work plead guilty but under the mental health act.

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is they will try to get you off a charge whether you are mad bad or innocent. Whether your guilty or not is besides the point to your lawyer, their job is to get the best outcome for you.

 

[Kurve]

Cmon... They're both fundamentals and you know it.

Open justice always trumps the right to privacy, unless you can get a suppression order of course which is a fought for exception, rather than the rule.

 

[sprockets]

Yes they are, but you don’t see the relevance of them using the mental health act to fight it? It seems the assault occurred and they firstly denied and pleaded not guilty, but are now playing a mental health card IMO to get the conviction either quashed or not recorded.

It may seem like we’re hounding the FP’s but considering the child in question, and relevance to other cases it’s why people are asking the questions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regardless, if they're suffering mental health issues not only are they entitled to use it but they should use it.

 

[Awakening]

Yes they are, but you don’t see the relevance of them using the mental health act to fight it? It seems the assault occurred and they firstly denied and pleaded not guilty, but are now playing a mental health card IMO to get the conviction either quashed or not recorded.

It may seem like we’re hounding the FP’s but considering the child in question, and relevance to other cases it’s why people are asking the questions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not having it on their record would also be something a half decent lawyer would be seeking on their behalf so that it doesn't affect their employment opportunities or fostering/adoption opportunities.

I'm also assuming if it's not on their records, this assault charge couldn't be used in any potential court case against them about William.

 

[sprockets]

Open justice always trumps the right to privacy, unless you can get a suppression order of course which is a fought for exception, rather than the rule.

 

[Lady O]

You must be new to the internet.

Start here https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/adult-cyber-abuse

From the link you just posted:

"Types of abusive behaviour that people experience online include:

• being ridiculed, insulted or humiliated because of their physical appearance, religion, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation or political beliefs
• finding their personal contact details have been made public on a social media service or other online platform
• being threatened online or other people online being encouraged to harm them
• being stalked online
• having their social media, bank or email accounts hacked
• being encouraged to harm themselves
• repeatedly being sent obscene messages
• having their intimate images or videos posted online without their consent (this is known as image-based abuse)
• having fake sexually explicit images or videos of them posted online (this is also known as image-based abuse)."

None of this applies to the FP, due to them being ANONYMOUS!

 

[Pies1990]

Not having it on their record would also be something a half decent lawyer would be seeking on their behalf so that it doesn't affect their employment opportunities or fostering/adoption opportunities.

I'm also assuming if it's not on their records, this assault charge couldn't be used in any potential court case against them about William.

Exactly what I’m getting at. If they are guilty of an assault charge, yet due to the way law works and it gets omitted from the WT investigation, this is exactly the technicalities that IMO are frustrating. It has a lot to do with the WT case IMO, with rumours of who the child is, and also reports of injuries to WT before he went missing.
Seems to be arse covering IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk