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

 

[sprockets]

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!

But they're not anonymous. And even if they were much of what's been posted in here would cause them harm if they, people that know them or know who they are read it.

EDIT: IT's quite possible the online harassment is responsible for their mental health issues.

 

[Awakening]

I accompanied a family member to their appointments with their lawyer.

The lawyer wasn't particularly interested in their side of the story, the lawyer had a plan, a recommended procedure he advised this family member to follow.

The family member who was innocent wanted to prove to the cops he was innocent. The lawyer laughed at our naivety and said if we didn't want to follow his advice, go find another lawyer.

The family member was interviewed by police and answered in accordance to his lawyers instructions, even though he was desperate to give more information.

The police interviewed other people associated with the accused and the complainant and found no grounds to charge the family member.

It destroyed this family member for many years as he didn't get the opportunity to prove his innocence, prove the complainant was malicious, but he didn't have to prove anything as it didn't even get to the arrest and charge stage.

He wanted to know that the police believed in his innocence but they claimed not to believe him or the complainant because it was irrelevant what police thought, the police said their job was to collect the evidence and there wasn't evidence so that's it.

It was deeply disturbing to him but it wasn't public information so I hate to think what it would of been like for him if it was being discussed everywhere.

 

[Kurve]

But they're not anonymous. And even if they were much of what's been posted in here would cause them harm if they, people that know them or know who they are read it.

EDIT: IT's quite possible the online harassment is responsible for their mental health issues.

What could possibly cause them harm that is outside of what the police and the press have released, in here?

If you see a post that you think crosses the line, put a report in thanks.

 

[Awakening]

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

Yes, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily guilty of the assault or of William's disappearance, it could simply be their lawyers being good lawyers.

The fosters could tell their lawyers we had nothing to do with Williams disappearance and a good lawyer is not going to believe them or not NOT believe them.

What the lawyer believes is irrelevant. The lawyer is coming from a logical place only and to act in their clients best interests.

If my clients are lying to me and were involved in his disappearance and in the future they are arrested and charged, then the best thing I can do as their lawyer is to make sure this assault charge is not on their records.

And if my clients are telling me the truth and are innocent then having it off their record at the least does them no harm and at best still benefits them. No criminal record is better then having one.

 

[Kurve]

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.

If they were acquitted of this assault charge on mental health grounds, I think a good argument could be raised to use it as propensity evidence if there were to be a prosecution in the disappearance of William, both children being in the same circumstances under their care.

 

[Lady O]

But they're not anonymous. And even if they were much of what's been posted in here would cause them harm if they, people that know them or know who they are read it.

EDIT: IT's quite possible the online harassment is responsible for their mental health issues.

They are anonymous. We do not know who they are or if some people think they know their names, they are not permitted to reveal that on the forum. We have not seen their image. We do not know their religion, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation or political beliefs. We do not know where they live except in some Sydney suburb. We do not threaten them, encourage them to harm themselves or send them obscene messages.

If they have sought out forums in order to see what people are saying, and then they don't like what they see, then they can just ignore it. If they have mental health issues, they cannot blame it on something they have chosen to read. It's like a person looking at disturbing images online or watching violent movies and blaming that on them committing crimes due to mental health issues.

 

[jason_recliner]

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.

The key difference between those suspects and the FM (and Ramseys), IMO, is that they were unknown to the victims. They had to be found needle-in-a-haystack style, and then either ruled in or ruled out. The FM and FD, as the last people to see William alive, they were the first suspects to be scrutinised, and have been scrutinised on and off ever since.

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.

It's not so much slander/defamation I am concerned with. It's the hurt and distress that all the speculation, accustations and other comments would cause William's foster parents, if they are innocent, which I think they probably are. And after having been through so much already, it just going on and on and on. I really feel for them. And if they did do it, then I'm wrong and they deserve everything they get.

 

[jason_recliner]

... I just can't see a random car going in there and getting out unseen...

I agree that it's likely a car would be seen. I'm not so sure it would be noticed. I live in a quiet street, I see cars come and go. I would have a hard time describing some of the cars I saw yesterday (i.e. not my neighbours who I see all the time).

 

[BFew]

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!

Except that thousands of people who know/knew them in real life, likely know that they are William and LT's Foster parents.
And thousands of people in NSW and around Australia who don't personally know them, that thanks to the internet, and grapevine, know their real names.
Including potential future employers and potential new friends, acquaintances and potential customers or business partners/colleagues.

 

[jason_recliner]

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

Could it be that they are claiming the daughter has mental health problems and that is the cause of the accusation? (I'm not at all familiar with the Act so no idea if this is possible or not)

 

[BFew]

If they were acquitted of this assault charge on mental health grounds, I think a good argument could be raised to use it as propensity evidence if there were to be a prosecution in the disappearance of William, both children being in the same circumstances under their care.

Except if the common assault, was so minor that it is deemed useless as propensity evidence in anything they might be charged for involving William (apart from a similar common assault of a child).

 

[jason_recliner]

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'd be willing to bet a fair sum that their days of wanting to foster a child are well and truly over.

 

[Awakening]

If they were acquitted of this assault charge on mental health grounds, I think a good argument could be raised to use it as propensity evidence if there were to be a prosecution in the disappearance of William, both children being in the same circumstances under their care.

If they were found guilty of the assault charge but under this mental health act, then I'm not sure if it could be raised in another court case?

I thought that was part of the point of using the mental health act - to not have a crime on your record or used against you in anyway because you were mentally ill and/or cognitive impaired at the time of that crime (not necessarily at the time of any other crime).

These foster carers could have always had a mental illness like depression or anxiety. Those things don't preclude you from fostering.

I believe Section 14 also covers things other then mental illness. Like cognitive impairments?

Then again, the foster parents could have been in perfect physical and mental health at the time of Williams disappearance but his alleged abduction could have caused them to become mentally unwell.

This is not my theory but a theory I read elsewhere: what if as a result of WTs disappearance the carers developed PTSD. Their now 12 year old daughter wants to leave the house by herself to go hang out with friends. Like many pre teens she wants to do her own thing and doesn't want to follow the rules set by her parents so attempts to leave.

The parents attempt to prevent her from leaving, grab her, restrain her, whatever. Perhaps the parents concede they were too physical and over reacted but did so because of PTSD. The trigger being the thought of their daughter disappearing or coming to harm like her brother.

Whether I agree with that scenario or condone it or not, it's still a reasonable theory in my mind.

 

[Lady O]

Except that thousands of people who know/knew them in real life, likely know that they are William and LT's Foster parents.
And thousands of people in NSW and around Australia who don't personally know them, that thanks to the internet, and grapevine, know their real names.
Including potential future employers and potential new friends, acquaintances and potential customers or business partners/colleagues.

Hmmm. nothing to do with this forum though is it?

 

[Kurve]

Except that thousands of people who know/knew them in real life, likely know that they are William and LT's Foster parents.
And thousands of people in NSW and around Australia who don't personally know them, that thanks to the internet, and grapevine, know their real names.
Including potential future employers and potential new friends, acquaintances and potential customers or business partners/colleagues.

One of the reasons why I think a defence on mental health grounds could backfire spectacularly outside the courts.

The FM also is on the record for saying the FD 'probably fell off her horse' as a reason for the bruising and that seems not to have a thing to do with their/her mental health.

 

[Kurve]

I agree that it's likely a car would be seen. I'm not so sure it would be noticed. I live in a quiet street, I see cars come and go. I would have a hard time describing some of the cars I saw yesterday (i.e. not my neighbours who I see all the time).

I lived in a very similar setting to Benaroon Drive for a few years, we'd have noticed a random car by sight or even by hearing it on a still day, straight away and made a mental note that wouldn't have slipped mind in the time it took from William's disappearance to being alerted he was missing.

The only thing that's putting me off someone walking in from the cemetery, is that might seem they knew William was going to be there which I think was ruled out.

 

[Kurve]

Except if the common assault, was so minor that it is deemed useless as propensity evidence in anything they might be charged for involving William (apart from a similar common assault of a child).

I don't believe either of them will face charges of direct involvement with William's disappearance on what I can see so far but for arguments sake, do you think if Carmel Barbagallo was prosecuting she wouldn't try to raise it as propensity evidence, along with the biological mother's evidence that William had a black eye on one visit?

 

[Pies1990]

I don't believe either of them will face charges of direct involvement with William's disappearance on what I can see so far but for arguments sake, do you think if Carmel Barbagallo was prosecuting she wouldn't try to raise it as propensity evidence, along with the biological mother's evidence that William had a black eye on one visit?

Hence why I think the assault charge should be related to the WT investigation IMO. It may not be admissible in a court of law, but in reality, if the FP have assaulted a sister, had history of the child having black eyes, and another child is missing, it doesn’t look good.
This is all of course subject to them being found guilty and other evidence coming out. If not guilty, it’s just a tragic circumstance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Awakening]

I'd be willing to bet a fair sum that their days of wanting to foster a child are well and truly over.

Well it would certainly put you off wouldn't it?

But my understanding is that they were looking at adoption of WT and LT. That they desired permanent long term placements as opposed to people that only foster short term placements.

I can only assume they wanted their own family and through choice or circumstances chose the foster system to make that happen.

So maybe that desire is still there.

Or - I often wondered if they had other foster kids in their care. I seem to recall they had put their hands up for long term short term and emergency placements.

It would also explain in part about the suppression orders. There may be other kids that they previously fostered, fostered at the time or are still fostering.

 

[BFew]

I don't believe either of them will face charges of direct involvement with William's disappearance on what I can see so far but for arguments sake, do you think if Carmel Barbagallo was prosecuting she wouldn't try to raise it as propensity evidence, along with the biological mother's evidence that William had a black eye on one visit?

If the Claremont Killer’s Prosecutor (Barbagallo) was prosecuting either of William’s Foster Carers for crimes related to covering up William having had an accident, and then secretly and wilfully disposing of his body, in an attempt to cover up what happened, and then lying to NSW Police, FACS and the Coroner, rather than immediately seeking medical help for William or calling Emergency Services …..

IMO, Barbagallo would (in any hypothetical pre-trial hearings that the judge might hold to rule any proposed propensity evidence admissible or inadmissible in the hypothectical upcoming trial by jury or judge only)
….. hold it right there
As I’m neither legally qualified or up to speed on the legal use of propensity evidence in WA or NSW.
With any propensity learnings I might have learned from the Claremont Killer case, now a bit COVID foggy in my mind.

 

[BFew]

Tyrrell witness interviews continue

Detectives investigating the disappearance of William Tyrrell are conducting more interviews after a subdued end to their renewed search for the missing boy’s remains.

www.news.com.au

'The $1m reward for information that leads to the recovery of William, and the circumstances surrounding his disappearance, remains in place.

Police continue to urge anyone with information to come forward.'

 

[Kurve]

If the Claremont Killer’s Prosecutor (Barbagallo) was prosecuting either of William’s Foster Carers for crimes related to covering up William having had an accident, and then secretly and wilfully disposing of his body, in an attempt to cover up what happened, and then lying to NSW Police, FACS and the Coroner, rather than immediately seeking medical help for William or calling Emergency Services …..

Yes alright, I probably could have specified a murder/manslaughter case where a history of violence might be relevant because it's probably not in an accident scenario.

 

[kat1234]

Hence why I think the assault charge should be related to the WT investigation IMO. It may not be admissible in a court of law, but in reality, if the FP have assaulted a sister, had history of the child having black eyes, and another child is missing, it doesn’t look good.
This is all of course subject to them being found guilty and other evidence coming out. If not guilty, it’s just a tragic circumstance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The common assault charge might or might not be relevant to WT case.

But it speaks to the character of the person(s) of interest.

A guilty verdict would tarnish their record. It’s like the opposite of a character reference. Probably why the fosters are working so hard to clear their names.

The perfect family and perfect parents mirage that was curated has IMO been shattered already with the charges being laid.

 

[kat1234]

Yes alright, I probably could have specified a murder/manslaughter case where a history of violence might be relevant because it's probably not in an accident scenario.

The more that time goes on I start to doubt the accident theory and it makes me think something more sinister has occurred.

For example: Parent witnesses an accident then just disposes of a body of their child so coldly. It doesn’t fit.

A history of violence on the part of the fosters (if convicted) would make me suspicious that maybe his disappearance wasn’t an accident and violence of some type may have occurred to WT.

 

[Kurve]

The more that time goes on I start to doubt the accident theory and it makes me think something more sinister has occurred.

At this stage, they haven't been convicted of anything and are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

The courts now would view the WT disappearance and the alleged assault on the daughter as completely independent, unconnected events separated by many years.