Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #61

[SleepyJoe]

She was only 10yo at the time. IMO FFC wrote it, had her rehearse it and then it was recorded.

I don't think it is particularly important in the grand scheme of things. But IMO it is most likely the FD and FFC sat down to write it together, then rehearsed it and recorded it. It is unlikely that a 10yo child would be left to write and record such a statement by herself. I was a mature and articulate child at that age, but if I had to give an important speech (eg for school or Eisteddfod etc), my mum would help me write it and rehearse it. And giving a statement in a Coroner's Court would IMO warrant having an adult help with writing it.

 

[decsimp]

Ah yes asthma. I forgot.

Speculation here: is it possible he had an asthma attack whilst unsupervised and that's how he met his demise?

It's a possibility, however it once again raises the question why would anyone cover that up? Even if they were trying to hide the fact that he was unsupervised they could easily just say he ran off or was hiding then we found him like this. Rather than hide the body etc

Unless there was something else about him they didn't want others to know. Eg medication in his system or physical signs of abuse.

 

[SleepyJoe]

Why not? We defend all sorts, from the obviously guilty to wrongfully charged. I’ve defended bikies and people charged with not paying parking fines and everything in between. If lawyers decided to pick and choose who they represented based on moral judgments, most defendants would be unrepresented. That’s not justice.

Oh yes, I totally get that! I did part of a law degree before switching to another profession and have friends who are lawyers. My apologies, I didn't mean to offend, was really just being a bit facetious.

 

[Estelle]

Obviously we don’t know much about what has occurred but they have put a dvo order on them subsequently charged - does a charge only happen after police interview or is this normal protocol for domestic violence? (As in no investigation or proof needed initially?)

Apprehended Violence Orders (AVO) - NSW Police Public Site

Do you need evidence for a restraining order?

Evidence to show you need a Restraining Order can be ▪ Details of your own story, ▪ Information about criminal charges ▪ Hospital or doctor's records showing injuries or violence, ▪ Any harassing or threatening text messages ▪ Statements from witnesses who have seen the abuse.

When can someone apply for a DVO?

Any person who is or has been the victim of physical assault, threats of physical harm, stalking, intimidation or harassment and has a reasonable fear to believe that this behaviour will continue.

Who can apply?

A person over the age of 16 or a Police Officer can apply for an AVO. A person can speak to the Court Register at their local court. If the behaviour amounts to a criminal offence, you should report the matter to police, whether or not you have a relationship with the perpetrator. Police will assess your situation, obtain a statement if required and if they belief and suspect that an ADVO is necessary to ensure your safety and protection, they have an obligation to make the application on your behalf.

Conditions

1. The defendant must not do any of the following to <protected people>, or anyone <she/he/they> <has/have> a domestic relationship with:

A) assault or threaten <her/him/them>,

B) stalk, harass or intimidate <her/him/them>, and

C) deliberately or recklessly destroy or damage anything that belongs to <protected people>.

Additional orders can be sought depending on the circumstances, for example:

Restrictions put in place against the Defendant:

• No longer allowed to reside at the family home
• Not allowed to contact the protected person except through the use of a lawyer,
• Not allowed within a certain distance from the protected person/s residence, work or school.
• Not allowed to be in the company of protected person for at least 12 hours after taking alcohol or drugs.
• Not allowed to possess any firearms or prohibited weapons.
• Not allowed to try and locate the Protected Person.

Domestic Violence Liaison Officer (DVLO)
What is their Role?

The DVLO is a specialist police officer, trained in the dynamics of domestic and family violence, child protection procedures, victim support and court AVO processes required for the protection of victims of family violence.

The role of the DVLO is:

• To provide advice to police and victims.
• Assist in referral to appropriate support agencies.
• Maintain close working relationships with all support agencies.
• Review and oversight all domestic and family violence reports and cases.
• Assist victims through the court process for Apprehended Violence Orders (AVOs).
• Monitor repeat victims and perpetrators.

 

[iiiii's]

I totally agree. It has always looked suspicious to me as the FGM had already exchanged contracts and if they really intended to visit the father's grave that weekend, why had they left it seven months for a four hour drive? It never sounded to me as if FFC and FGM were all that close as they would have visited her while she was in hospital. FFC could have driven there alone if MFC was too busy.

I realise I was being a bit cryptic, therefore other members may not have caught my drift, understandable. I was pointing out that other people knew the family were going to Kendall, may have even had the address. I really hope all connections of these social workers have been thoroughly investigated.

It's funny because I have always had suspicion around the FP's and now that we can discuss, I think my suspicion is lowering. If the current POI is involved in WT's disappearance, I do not think it was a cover up accident/death.. MOO

 

[Estelle]

I agree. Not much has been said about that little piece of statement from the FD about William running to wait for Dad's car. And she said it to the female police officer not long after he disappeared. I think there were men in the neighbourhood for another purpose, but when William appeared at the road they took the opportunity to take him.

What do you think? Could the FFC have made a big deal about WT running to wait for MFC's car to FD so that she just repeated it to LE but she did not really see him there?

 

[Trmtrm2]

Blues Clues responded to one of my comments RE a new witness around the early pages of this thread. It was a woman who lived near FA and recalled hearing a child scream.




There is an article further back on the thread detailing a friend of Bio Gran being interviewed due to her connections to one of the neighbours who was considered a suspect at one point.



Or a daughter for her mother.



Absolutely this! Both children deserved so much better.



How do we know FACS told the FC’s that WT’s parents had surrendered him? Hasn’t it been clarified that the FFC wasn’t involved in the adoption discussions via email that morning?



IMO, it’s possible there was a domestic in the video shop and staff/witnesses called Police. Or if the parents were on the run, there was a public report made at some point asking for details on their whereabouts and someone recognised them.

Where a child is involved in a domestic, Police then have a duty to inform child services, particularly if there are historical incidents noted on the system.

If a child is under a protection order or involved with social services and considered at risk of harm due to exposure to domestic abuse, it’s likely IMO that a condition of WT remaining safe in Mum’s care was that she ended her relationship with the perpetrator (in this case Dad). I’m assuming there would have been regular visits to the family where workers picked up on the fact Dad was back in the family home, or it’s possible concerned maternal family members called to report the relationship had resumed. Where a child’s welfare is at risk or believed likely to be at risk, social services can and will act. It’s a legal duty. Mum may well have been a victim of domestic abuse and that’s tragic, but if it was impacting her capacity to parent and keep her children safe then removal must have been deemed appropriate.

The fact that WT’s sister was already looked after when he was removed indicates a history of issues within the family, they were on the radar. The welfare of a child is always paramount.




I don’t think thats excessive. The second stop was for food and its reasonable to make use of facilities whilst there. The third stop was upon realising they’d forgotten to put pull ups on. Definitely not the most suspicious aspect of this case at all.



Same! Possibly due to my job and/or my interest in true crime…when you witness or hear some of the bad in the world, it’s easy to assume the worst.



I’d be interested in this info too as I read something on SM about a tree.



This is why i believe WT has been unsupervised for longer, to have had time to wander off further along the street.

Between 2011 and 2012: DOCS learns William’s biological mother and father are back together and get a court order to have him removed. FACS tells the foster couple William is going to be surrendered from his birth family and come into their care.

William Tyrrell’s doomed life

 

[Estelle]

I realise I was being a bit cryptic, therefore other members may not have caught my drift, understandable. I was pointing out that other people knew the family were going to Kendall, may have even had the address. I really hope all connections of these social workers have been thoroughly investigated.

It's funny because I have always had suspicion around the FP's and now that we can discuss, I think my suspicion is lowering. If the current POI is involved in WT's disappearance, I do not think it was a cover up accident/death.. MOO

I agree with you. I had suspicions from the beginning and lost interest when I could not discuss them.

 

[EllaN1]

How do you know this? Is there an MSM link?

I would think that she might be with a family in the area so she can attend her school and after school activities. I know she is only 11/12 but it's possible she is allowed to stay with a friend . A teenage friend of my daughter lived with us for a while due to DV issues. The police just asked if she has a friend she can live with and we agreed, just like that no further checks required.

 

[Estelle]

I would think that she might be with a family in the area so she can attend her school and after school activities. I know she is only 11/12 but it's possible she is allowed to stay with a friend . A teenage friend of my daughter lived with us for a while due to DV issues. The police just asked if she has a friend she can live with and we agreed, just like that no further checks required.

Yes she will probably be able to attend the same school for the rest of the year if she stays in the same area. Next year she will probably go to high school so she will have to change schools anyway.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I agree.
And I'm not one of the swooners over GJ. I didn't actually see what the fuss was looks wise but to each their own.

However I’m still entitled to my opinion.

 

[vatzjr]

From the 60 Minutes interview (@11:45)

FFC says, "I remember saying, 'Can you see Daddy's car?' And there was no answer."

1) Wouldn't FFC hearing/seeing MFC's car return prompt her asking WT this (mistakenly thinking WT is nearby)?

2) Or could it because she heard WT walking away from decking down the hill, gauged by the dissipating sound of his roaring, she postulated MFC is home and asked WT her question mistakenly thinking he's still close by?

Are either equally possible, or is one greater than the other?

If it's the latter, how much of a coincidence is it that she conjectured MFC was arriving home, and, then, within minutes, he does (my understanding is that she didn't see MFC's warning text until after he arrived).

 

[Gotta have Faith]

I think some of these comments should have a MSM link attached please. A link will help decide if it’s fact and not rumours.

A funeral I attended a 12 yr old delivered a eulogy and her mum stood up next to her and helped her through if she faltered.

I posted the link a thread ago

 

[Estelle]

L

The BM has recently been in trouble with police for spitting on them 3 times, hitting a female officer in the eye. Repeatedly calling them c@$*s in the presence of her other two very young children. She has a long record of assault.
She was pictured yesterday with a beer in her hand in the middle of the day.
WT and LT were removed due to DV by both BPs and drug use.
I wouldn't be quick to return her to the BMs care.

But if the situation is so bad, what I can't understand is why the other two younger children have not been removed from her care.

 

[Trmtrm2]

I would think that she might be with a family in the area so she can attend her school and after school activities. I know she is only 11/12 but it's possible she is allowed to stay with a friend . A teenage friend of my daughter lived with us for a while due to DV issues. The police just asked if she has a friend she can live with and we agreed, just like that no further checks required.

I would assume she is going to an expensive private school that im assuming the FF are paying for, if she is not in their care im sure they will cut all finances, why would the department pay for private school/ horse riding / expensive after school activities, what will happen when children are placed with millionaires living the highest quality of life and they are pulled from this family, maby they can continue the school term if the foster family can't get that money refunded, I doubt a child under the department can stay with a friend, I would think the foster family will fight to get her back or completely cut her off financially

 

[Gotta have Faith]

William Tyrrell search Kendall: The major developments in missing boy case | Daily Mail Online

Twists that changed EVERYTHING we know about William Tyrrell after SEVEN years of false leads and police blunders as the hunt for the three-year-old boy closes in on his remains

 

[Tigerlily75]

Exactly , she was removed from BP because of DV & drug use for her safety . She has been with FP for over 9 years .. they are her main caregivers .. she sees BM for limited time ..

I don’t know where the best place for this little girl will be going forward, but I need to point out that these main caregivers are the ones who literally lost William while unsupervised in their care (and possibly worse, according to the police) and he still hasn’t been found. These same carers are also now facing court next week on charges of assault.

But they’re rich and well-to-do so they get given all the benefit of the doubt and all the “it’s alleged” and “nothing has been proven yet” and and and … that’s all valid, BUT ..

.. the low socioeconomic biological family who were probably dealt a really crap set of cards in life and never caused any actual physical harm to those children - well they get none. None at all.

It’s irritating. Regardless of what one thinks of the biological family, and no I’m sure they’re not perfect, but they did love William. He is their child. They lost a child. And not only did they lose a child, they weren’t even allowed to talk about it for years because of suppression orders. Can you even imagine the heartache? It’s heartbreaking.

 

[1968]

William Tyrrell search Kendall: The major developments in missing boy case | Daily Mail Online

Shows a really good photo I’ve not seen before of the piece of light blue cloth they found at the Batar Creek Road site.

Not sure of the relevance of this colour of fabric...

Possible was originally a darker blue and had faded?

 

[SleepyJoe]

Questions
- if forensic evidence is found that implicates the FFC, and then she comes clean and says it was an accident and she covered it up, then what would she be charged with? I am not familiar with the NSW Criminal Code, but am imagining something like "interfering with a corpse" and "giving false or misleading evidence under oath".
- Would you think, at this late stage in the investigation that it would be difficult to get irrefutable evidence to prove anything more serious like "manslaughter" or "murder" (knowing that all criminal convictions require that evidence must support the conclusion "beyond reasonable doubt"?

I am wondering that even if they find evidence of WT's demise, it may then be another huge challenge to bring a successful case of prosecution against the FFC (if she was somehow involved) for any charges - especially knowing that she has an excellent, clever criminal lawyer in her corner who can use the past failures of the investigation to prove reasonable doubt.

We may never know exactly what happened to poor William and his loved ones never get closure

 

[Milisi]

They sure were , along with Alioop and DS.

A very important special time in my life looking out for one I knew was a gem and had suffered a crap lottery.

not really assuming, just wondering if his sister, lt, is the new witness, mainly because of the police avos issued because of her bruising and her removal from ff etc, i just thought she may have said something to someone?

Ah thanks x I must have read wrongly late at night and thought you had some big news about the witness. My bad