Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #41

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
stormbird said:
This article by Caroline Overington talks about the inquest, and describes what happened at FFC's mother's house on 12 Sep 2014 in the hours before William went missing. The sequence of events seems easier to understand than it is in other MSM reports, in my opinion; I think it's probably shown in chronological order:

"What evil befell William Tyrrell, the little boy in red?" The Australian, 29 March 2019, via the author's tweet.

My notes based on the article:
- FFC woke early and could hear the children up and about.
- She opened the doors onto the verandah about 7am and saw the two cars.
- She went back inside, gave the children some Yakult, and helped William into his Spiderman suit.
- MFC prepared to go to Lakewood for his Skype business call.
- FFC gave the children pens, pencils, and dice to play with. They wanted to make cards to put on the grave of FFC's late father (Opa).
- MFC left the house about 9am.
- The children rode their bikes on the driveway while FFC and FFC's mother supervised. FFC saw the big man in the third car.
- The children got tired of bike-riding. William's sister went back to her work on Opa's card. FFC and William went into the garden and played Mummy Monsters, running and slipping on fallen leaves and twigs.
- FFC lifted William into a good climbing tree, but he thought it was too high. FFC lifted him down, and noticed the two cars again, still parked on the road.
- FFC and William went inside. She made some tea: a cup for her mother and a mug for herself.
- FFC and William went onto the "veranda" [patio?].
- William got bored with drawing. He started a new game, Daddy Tiger, running around the corner of the house then jumping out to yell "RAAR!"
- FFC took some photos, including the familiar Spiderman photo when William was mid-"RAAR!"
- William continued the Daddy Tiger game. FFC heard a roar.
- FFC noticed that William had gone quiet, so she got up and walked around the corner to check on him. She couldn't see him anywhere, and couldn't hear any noises.
- She started searching.
- About five minutes later, MFC arrived home and FFC told him William was missing. MFC started searching.
- FFC continued searching, "collecting neighbours" along the way.
- FFC thought she heard a scream in dry reeds.
- FFC rang triple-0
Click to expand...

If this is the true (& recorded ) sequence of events, I agree with you Stormbird - it's much easier to follow + IMO makes sense.
 
SouthAussie said:
I can't imagine that the t-shirt, or the minor rebellion, are why William was abducted. With evidence of said abduction yet to be presented at the next round of the inquest.
Click to expand...
:) Of course, not - you are right.
 
Warshawski said:
Thanks Stormbird. It's interesting the 'bleeped' especially re William's health.
IMO asthma can have catastrophic implications, yet that was allowed to be public.

What's something to do with a child's health that it's important to not make public in tgi ... maybe incase the 'perpretator' gets wind of that ?? It may be an incrimating factor perhaps ??

Maybe it went something like -

He has ...

Allergies to xx & gets Asthma

Cold at the moment & gets Asthma

Gastric bug at the moment & gets Asthma

Hearing / Sight / Speech impairment & gets Asthma

I wish I knew; I wish I had the answers. I pray & I hope you'll all join me.
Click to expand...

Anaphylaxis is the only other thing I can think of that might be mentioned as more serious than asthma although I cannot understand why that might be bleeped out.
 
When reporting on the March inquest hearing, 7NEWS Sydney showed a different version of the two parked cars: different vehicles, different location, and they're seen from a different part of FFC's mother's property:

image.jpeg

- 7NEWS Sydney, 25 March 2019, via their verified Twitter account.
The cars appear at about 01:20. They're shown near the boundary between No.35 and No.43, I think.

For comparison, here are the cars in "Where is William?", 60 Minutes, 06 September 2015, part 3 (from about 01:30). They're near the boundary between No.31 and No.35.

image.jpeg

And further strangeness: all four cars have hubcaps.
 
stormbird said:
When reporting on the March inquest hearing, 7NEWS Sydney showed a different version of the two parked cars: different vehicles, different location, and they're seen from a different part of FFC's mother's property:

View attachment 189706

- 7NEWS Sydney, 25 March 2019, via their verified Twitter account.
The cars appear at about 01:20. They're shown near the boundary between No.35 and No.43, I think.

For comparison, here are the cars in "Where is William?", 60 Minutes, 06 September 2015, part 3 (from about 01:30). They're near the boundary between No.31 and No.35.

View attachment 189707

And further strangeness: all four cars have hubcaps.
Click to expand...

In the first pic, the grey one looks like it's a 2 door and the second pic is a 4 door.

Who do we believe?
 
stormbird said:
When reporting on the March inquest hearing, 7NEWS Sydney showed a different version of the two parked cars: different vehicles, different location, and they're seen from a different part of FFC's mother's property:

View attachment 189706

- 7NEWS Sydney, 25 March 2019, via their verified Twitter account.
The cars appear at about 01:20. They're shown near the boundary between No.35 and No.43, I think.

For comparison, here are the cars in "Where is William?", 60 Minutes, 06 September 2015, part 3 (from about 01:30). They're near the boundary between No.31 and No.35.

View attachment 189707

And further strangeness: all four cars have hubcaps.
Click to expand...
To me, they seem (kinda) the same.. for the most part.. ie look at the location of that 'pole' in relation to the white vehicle.. seems like it is in roughly the same location in both pics.. however in the one pic, the neighbor's home is not shown, and looks like that area has been replaced with greenery.. I am wondering if the neighbor, or the press, did not feel it was fair or warranted or whatever, to picture that house (since it is so identifiable with its fence right there at the front of the property), so they just replaced the background? Also the basic shape and windows of the grey vehicle seem the same, perhaps FM was unsure however, whether it was a 2-door or 4-door? (although I do seem to remember at the time, the car being referred to as a 'sedan', which would mean a 4-door? - I stand corrected - see bottom description of sedan)

"POLICE from Strike Force Rosann have turned their attention to a number of vehicles that were seen in the area when William Tyrrell went missing.
....
One of the parked cars is described as a dark-grey, old-model, medium-size sedan.

The other is described as an old white station wagon.
....
“There was also another vehicle described as a dark green/ greyish coloured sedan. “This vehicle drove past 48 Benaroon Drive as William was riding his bike on the driveway around 9am on the morning he disappeared.

“In addition, we have received reports of a four wheel drive vehicle driving out of Benaroon Drive around the time William vanished.

”This is of interest to us because we have also received information about a four wheel drive vehicle driving at speed in the Kendall area shortly after."

William Tyrrell: Police seek information on two cars | audio, video
-------
Definition of 'sedan' by 'free dictionary.com'
"an enclosed automobile body having two or four doors and seating four or more persons on two full-width seats."
Definition of sedan | Dictionary.com

ETA: I asked DH how many doors a 'sedan' has, and he immediately said '4'. So I asked what it's called when a car has 2 doors, and he said, a 'coupe'. (He's a vehicle type of person, generally knows his stuff. Maybe it is different elsewhere though? We are in Canada.)
 
Last edited:
deugirtni said:
To me, they seem (kinda) the same.. for the most part.. ie look at the location of that 'pole' in relation to the white vehicle.. seems like it is in roughly the same location in both pics.. however in the one pic, the neighbor's home is not shown, and looks like that area has been replaced with greenery.. I am wondering if the neighbor, or the press, did not feel it was fair or warranted or whatever, to picture that house (since it is so identifiable with its fence right there at the front of the property), so they just replaced the background? Also the basic shape and windows of the grey vehicle seem the same, perhaps FM was unsure however, whether it was a 2-door or 4-door? (although I do seem to remember at the time, the car being referred to as a 'sedan', which would mean a 4-door? - I stand corrected - see bottom description of sedan)

"POLICE from Strike Force Rosann have turned their attention to a number of vehicles that were seen in the area when William Tyrrell went missing.
....
One of the parked cars is described as a dark-grey, old-model, medium-size sedan.

The other is described as an old white station wagon.
....
“There was also another vehicle described as a dark green/ greyish coloured sedan. “This vehicle drove past 48 Benaroon Drive as William was riding his bike on the driveway around 9am on the morning he disappeared.

“In addition, we have received reports of a four wheel drive vehicle driving out of Benaroon Drive around the time William vanished.

”This is of interest to us because we have also received information about a four wheel drive vehicle driving at speed in the Kendall area shortly after."

William Tyrrell: Police seek information on two cars | audio, video
-------
Definition of 'sedan' by 'free dictionary.com'
"an enclosed automobile body having two or four doors and seating four or more persons on two full-width seats."
Definition of sedan | Dictionary.com

ETA: I asked DH how many doors a 'sedan' has, and he immediately said '4'. So I asked what it's called when a car has 2 doors, and he said, a 'coupe'. (He's a vehicle type of person, generally knows his stuff. Maybe it is different elsewhere though? We are in Canada.)
Click to expand...
@deugirtni
Moving the location for privacy reasons would make sense, yes, and the two scenes aren't far apart: about 50 metres/55 yards?
 
sleepinoz said:
In the first pic, the grey one looks like it's a 2 door and the second pic is a 4 door.

Who do we believe?
Click to expand...
@sleepinoz
Re "Who do we believe?" Until I saw the 7NEWS version of the cars, I'd thought the 60 Minutes version was a police sketch. But if it had been, I think all MSM would be using the same picture.

So, yes... Who do we believe?

If the police were looking for the cars, I think it's a bit strange if they let a TV station or two create the only artist's depictions of them shown to the public.
 
Wexford said:
Anaphylaxis is the only other thing I can think of that might be mentioned as more serious than asthma although I cannot understand why that might be bleeped out.
Click to expand...
I agree Wex, yet I don't feel that fits the 'sequence' nor the 'bleeps' - just my opinion.

I do think perhaps FFC could've said ' he's a fostered child & ... '
... Bless her & full marks if she had that presence, as thinking how I'd be in that situation, I doubt I'd be remembering to say ' he's fostered' - I'd be too destraught, more so considering I love this child as my own.

I think I recounted upstream the time my grandson (around that age) & a slightly older neighbour child played an 'awesome' hideyhidey game!

I was at the point of calling the Police, even though I had no idea how he could've possibly been taken by anyone... yet the other part of me said ' I don't know where he is & in those few minutes I didn't actually see him disappear' and I need to pull out all stops to find him.

Thankfully my 'commands & threats of Police coming etc ' brought forth a repentant child ! From a mound of boxes already searched !

I so wish this was the case with William... And that recount wasn't meant to be about ME. It was more about how I found my mind going, the immediate fear, yet the quandary of 'how' - it sticks in my memory how my 'presence of mind' was so massively challenged.

My thoughts, prayers & admiration for their strength & dudiligence continues to be with William's family members, with the assigned investigative members of our Police & Judicial Services, and our awesome sleuth members who help bring the bits that may fill the puzzle.

Truth & Justice will prevail, I'm sure.
 
sleepinoz said:
In the first pic, the grey one looks like it's a 2 door and the second pic is a 4 door.

Who do we believe?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, 'media reports' often seem to have their own Shades of Grey, IMO.

It's just another sad indictment of society today where we can't trust / believe what should be 'accountable & reliable'

Reality is that reporters keep their jobs by the stories they report / that make the headlines.
They're 'sales people' and we all know the stories about the shonks, the 'used car' etc...
( in full disclosure, I work in 'sales')
 
stormbird said:
@sleepinoz
Re "Who do we believe?" Until I saw the 7NEWS version of the cars, I'd thought the 60 Minutes version was a police sketch. But if it had been, I think all MSM would be using the same picture.

So, yes... Who do we believe?

If the police were looking for the cars, I think it's a bit strange if they let a TV station or two create the only artist's depictions of them shown to the public.
Click to expand...
To me, it looks like perhaps they took a photo (existing perhaps?) from a different spot on FFCM's property, where it only showed the bushes in between perhaps, which then showed that area from a slightly different angle across the street.. and then via 'photoshop' or some other photo editing software, plunked in similar vehicles.. you can tell, imho, because of the way the grey car at least, is situated on the road. It does not look like a normal way to park a vehicle.

Also, it would pretty much *have* to be a sketch of some kind (since presumably the cars were not ever there for police to take an actual photo of), and since the sketch was released by police at the time when they released this info about the various vehicles seen (I believe that info was released at the one year mark), I think we would have to presume that it was a police sketch. jmo. I wonder if that particular sketch just wasn't available, or the media did not have express permission to use it at the time the article was written?
 
Warshawski said:
I agree Wex, yet I don't feel that fits the 'sequence' nor the 'bleeps' - just my opinion.

I do think perhaps FFC could've said ' he's a fostered child & ... '
... Bless her & full marks if she had that presence, as thinking how I'd be in that situation, I doubt I'd be remembering to say ' he's fostered' - I'd be too destraught, more so considering I love this child as my own.

I think I recounted upstream the time my grandson (around that age) & a slightly older neighbour child played an 'awesome' hideyhidey game!

I was at the point of calling the Police, even though I had no idea how he could've possibly been taken by anyone... yet the other part of me said ' I don't know where he is & in those few minutes I didn't actually see him disappear' and I need to pull out all stops to find him.

Thankfully my 'commands & threats of Police coming etc ' brought forth a repentant child ! From a mound of boxes already searched !

I so wish this was the case with William... And that recount wasn't meant to be about ME. It was more about how I found my mind going, the immediate fear, yet the quandary of 'how' - it sticks in my memory how my 'presence of mind' was so massively challenged.

My thoughts, prayers & admiration for their strength & dudiligence continues to be with William's family members, with the assigned investigative members of our Police & Judicial Services, and our awesome sleuth members who help bring the bits that may fill the puzzle.

Truth & Justice will prevail, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
I wonder though if they knew he had been hidden away before (I won't say 'taken' as I feel that is the wrong term in this circumstance)...in which case I think as a foster parent perhaps it would be the first thing that you would say as it would be at the forefront of your mind that he could be taken 'back' by his bio family. If they were to be his foster parents at the time they must have known as there would have been some delays that had to be explained.
 
cops gain evidence in all sorts of manner.
they have legal support on what they can utilize and what they cant. and what they acquire and cant utilize is very very frustrating.
this really does feel like a witch hunt imo.:oops:
I bet he isn't the first and I bet there is evidence of sweeping it under the carpet and simply made not admissible in other cases.

moo
 
k-mac said:
cops gain evidence in all sorts of manner.
they have legal support on what they can utilize and what they cant. and what they acquire and cant utilize is very very frustrating.
this really does feel like a witch hunt imo.:oops:
I bet he isn't the first and I bet there is evidence of sweeping it under the carpet and simply made not admissible in other cases.

moo
Click to expand...
It's one thing to acquire information you can't utilize for legal reasons. It's another to acquire what you shouldn't have had at all. It seems they're saying GJ did the latter.
 
deugirtni said:
To me, it looks like perhaps they took a photo (existing perhaps?) from a different spot on FFCM's property, where it only showed the bushes in between perhaps, which then showed that area from a slightly different angle across the street.. and then via 'photoshop' or some other photo editing software, plunked in similar vehicles.. you can tell, imho, because of the way the grey car at least, is situated on the road. It does not look like a normal way to park a vehicle.

Also, it would pretty much *have* to be a sketch of some kind (since presumably the cars were not ever there for police to take an actual photo of), and since the sketch was released by police at the time when they released this info about the various vehicles seen (I believe that info was released at the one year mark), I think we would have to presume that it was a police sketch. jmo. I wonder if that particular sketch just wasn't available, or the media did not have express permission to use it at the time the article was written?
Click to expand...
@deugirtni
I'm guessing you're right about the way the car pictures were created. And you could well be right about the second media company not being able to get permission from the owners of copyright(?) to use the 2015 version of the cars, if that's the way it works.
 
JLZ said:
It's one thing to acquire information you can't utilize for legal reasons. It's another to acquire what you shouldn't have had at all. It seems they're saying GJ did the latter.
Click to expand...
hmmm... it's really difficult for me to comprehend that people within the force "hate" GJ that much that they would sabotage his career or WT's investigation, or internal forces are working within the department to secure a particular outcome for this case...
 
k-mac said:
cops gain evidence in all sorts of manner.
they have legal support on what they can utilize and what they cant. and what they acquire and cant utilize is very very frustrating.
this really does feel like a witch hunt imo.:oops:
I bet he isn't the first and I bet there is evidence of sweeping it under the carpet and simply made not admissible in other cases.

moo
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And ..... all illegal recordings are NOT automatically excluded.

There is a piece here by a Sydney law firm that talks about police (and others) using illegal recordings. It obviously happens. But we don't hear about anyone else getting charged for this.

I am not saying it is necessarily right to do, but I agree that - if true - Jubes wouldn't be the first one to do it.
For all we know, he could have been recording someone on the phone - just hoping they would crack at the time, and he wanted recorded backup to remember what the person said. Or to see if it was admissable in court due to a judge's ruling (see below).


"This article will broadly discuss audio and film recordings by both private individuals, and police......

This means that even though the recording was obtained illegally, it may still be used in court if the desirability of admitting the recording outweighs the undesirability of admitting material obtained in that particular way.

Many factors will be considered when making that decision, but put simply, the court will weigh the gravity of the unlawfulness of the recording against the importance of the evidence in the case.

For example, a person might covertly record a conversation in which they attempt to get another person to admit to doing something illegal, or they might secretly record someone threatening them.

These recordings obtained secretly will often not be admissible as evidence.

However, the court may consider what is said in the recordings, and how important they are to the case.

The recordings may be admissible if the judge considers the importance of the evidence outweighs how it was unlawfully obtained.

It is hard to determine just how the judge will balance out these considerations."

Can Evidence That is Recorded Illegally be Used in Court?

This article also point to a more in-depth analysis, which I haven't read yet.
Criminal Law Survival Kit: Evidence
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 2,860 (members: 196, guests: 2,664)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
2,664
Total visitors
2,860
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,137
Messages
17,963,900
Members
228,697
Latest member
flintinsects
Back
Top