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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am just wondering under what legal circumstances the Foster Parents will be named and identified. It seems to me the fact they can't be identified is a huge disadvantage to the investigation. Always has been . Did I read in an earlier thread the FM made sure this protection was in place before details of William's disappearance was announced to the media? I am sure I read that somewhere????

I am not sure they will be. Because even though LT is removed from their care, outing them will out LT. Serious consideration must be given to protect LTs identity and anonymity.
 
I thought someone mentioned in a prior thread that the orders were lifted but they chose not to identify themselves?
That was Justice Brereton's Ruling in the Supreme Court where they (FFamily) were given an opportunity but argued against it.
His ruling established that Bio's could be known and that William could be identified as a Foster Child.

Subsequent to that ruling, the Coroner applied the suppression orders.

IMO
 
Last edited:
Im worried that the foster family were directing the narrative, the theory of "abduction", the theory of "paedophile" could this be to explain anything that they might discover if the body was actually found back then,

The BS theory, could the foster family hav found out by Facebook that the real grandmother was friends with a woman who is friends with BS's family, were they hoping the narrative would follow that direction

I wonder what ever happened to the washing machine did the foster family blame him from the start and got another washing machine repair man

IMO the FPs tried very hard to set BS up as the patsy.
 
What is that a law or something ?? Please elaborate

Yes it is.

They also can't sleep in the same bedroom with other children who are opposite sex over the age of 5.

Despite claims to the contrary, becoming a foster parent isn't difficult. You just need a working with children check, a criminal background check, a brief course and a few interviews with FACS.

Anyone normal would pass.

But being a foster parent has many restrictions. It's very tightly regulated.
 
100% agree with this. In any circumstance, always get the best lawyer you can afford.

This is very American, but it shows how what you say can be used against you by experts. (He's possibly the fastest talker on the Web.)

Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials.

 
Last edited:
Wasn't with him 4 days a week.
Didn't sleep in same room with him
FF mentioned that William was His world and vice versa
FF did all of the feeding and nappy changing early on
FM talked about giving up on William
FM talks about William as being full of beans and boisterous, rather than quiet and compliant like the FD?

Maybe she didn't like him that much but couldn't give him back because then they would probably want to take the FD too.

Looks like motive to me.

JMO
I think another motivation could be around the adoption process of the sister, if birth mother is on the scene and WT birth perents doesn't want adoption to proceed with him, whats the situation with adoption of the sister if she can't adopt WT dose that mean she can't adopt the sister as they were placed as a sibling unit, im just thinking if the sister is in a situation that she can be adoptable maby the birth mother has lost rights to decide, but the birth mother is still able to be included in WT adoption status, either way I think all the motivation is around being able to keep the sister and proceed to adoption, she has also said that she didn't bond with WT I think that was odd that she even mentioned it

I would love to know what the legal system with the department would be if two sibling placed together, would that mean if the birth mother tried getting one back she would be denied because the sibling unit can't be separate (let's say she lost rights on the first child that that means she can never get the second child back because the department doesn't want to separate a sibling unit)

Let's say for adoption the foster family hav right to adopt the first child but having difficulty adopting the second child because the birth mother has always appeared in court and done every possible to remain in second childs life, is it possible the foster family are now stuck in limbo and will never be able to adopt the first adoptable child because the department hav them listed as a sibling unit and don't want to separate the sibling unit by allowing one to be legally adopted and one to remain foster

I think the motivation could be the situation WT and sister are a sibling unit, birth mother can never get WT back because he is placed with the sister who she may not be able to get back, foster mother can't adopt the sister because she is placed in a sibling unit with WT, department won't stop WT birth mother visits over behaviour and sleep, its looking like its a situation that both children are legally stuck in foster care until they become 18 unless possibly WT doesn't exist anymore then could that end the sibling unit placement with the department
 
Why would misadventure have been covered up?

FGM was in the process of selling the house. A crime scene
IMO, this information is far too specific for NSWPOL just to be shaking the tree. No Cookies | Daily Telegraph


Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I see the FFC has taken legal representation. Is this in relation to the AVO or as a POI or both? Has the MFC secured legal representation re the AVO too?
 
Missing toddler William Tyrrell: 'We hope he is still alive'

"The mother of missing toddler William Tyrrell says she has a vision in her head that somebody "reached over and ... has gone 'clump' on his shoulders, picked him up and moved him on ... because ... that's the only way ... to explain for him not to be there"."

There are probably "hundreds" of alternate ways to explain for William not to be there IMO with many discussions here.

"I had a vision in my head.
I don't know why, but I have a vision in my head, somebody, I'd, I can't explain it..." and then goes on to explain it?

Also noteworthy is the change from past tense "HAD" to present tense "HAVE".

Alternating between tenses raises a Red Flag for me.

Present tense may be indicative of storytelling. IMO.

Great points.
 
Has anyone else noticed the C10 Podcast appears to have been edited since the latest episode dropped?
I can no longer find the portion where FFC talks about looking online for activities to do that day and IIRC mentioned horse riding. She ended with words to the effect of "we had our day planned ".
I spefically wanted to go back over whether it was that morning or the night before that she did the internet search? Can anyone clarify?
 
Does anyone else here think police are just putting forward the ‘balcony fall’ theory as a way to get the FM to admit to a lesser crime (ie hiding a body misleading police etc), and start talking, when they actually think she lashed out in anger and killed him in a blitz attack?
 
Does anyone else here think police are just putting forward the ‘balcony fall’ theory as a way to get the FM to admit to a lesser crime (ie hiding a body misleading police etc), and start talking, when they actually think she lashed out in anger and killed him in a blitz attack?

Yes. IMO they're looking for a murder weapon such as a knife which would explain blood at bottom of balcony and also hand injury and also her throwing something out of the car into the bush.

The shoes he allegedly had on were made from foam and probably would have broken down by now so I doubt they are looking for that.

Speculation. My opinion only.
 
I find that BGM paints a very rosy image of her son constantly and often to me it sounds like she's ignoring things she doesn't want to see. Like anyone, I don't believe everything they say.

Because I've had a lot of experience previously dealing with individuals who struggle with addiction I'm inclined to understand her choice to "paint a rosy picture" my late brother struggled with Opiate addiction after being kicked out of home when he was 14 until his death in his late 40s. (He passed away from cancer after getting his addiction under control. Life is unfair like that sometimes.) I always have spoken about his addictive behaviours the same way another individual might speak about someone with a mental illness. In my experience, reminding a person who suffers from addiction of their positive qualities is a major benefit to their self esteem and their chances of getting clean. I think the BGM is making the right choice to paint a "rosy" picture of her son on national television. He will see it more than likely, and it may prompt him to tackle some demons and reconnect with his family or at least with some support networks to assist with his homelessness.

That's just my opinion based on my own experience with a family member who struggled with similar problems, but I think it is important for us to keep those considerations in mind when we pass our judgement on the bio family and their circumstances and life choices. Addiction is a terrible thing that can change a person wholly and it really should be treated the same way other illnesses are and not stigmatized *to help those struggling with it.

*Edit: Obvs I don't mean to intend everyone has to be comfortable with addiction as a normal part of life or on a personal level!! I more mean as a wider society we've got some really negative view points in society which can be a detriment to folks recovering from addiction
 
What evidence was there of WT being close to the MFC? The FFC talked about it but did anyone else?

I always pictured him losing his temper the morning that he decided to leave to take his Zoom meeting somewhere else. IMO I thought he could have been implicated. I also thought the FGM’s comments about that morning were not at all emotional and seemed to suggest she had little regard for WT.
 
Does anyone else here think police are just putting forward the ‘balcony fall’ theory as a way to get the FM to admit to a lesser crime (ie hiding a body misleading police etc), and start talking, when they actually think she lashed out in anger and killed him in a blitz attack?

In some police interviews i have watched the LE might give the suspect what I have heard been called an "out" to get them to do just that ... Me on the other hand, no idea what LE are doing. I'm trying my best to stay openminded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
4,239
Total visitors
4,395

Forum statistics

Threads
591,846
Messages
17,959,942
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top