Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #62

[JBowie]

Small pieces of fabric found during William Tyrrell search
Small pieces of fabric have been found during the search for William Tyrrell’s remains.

Kind looks like one those canvas shopping bags

Yep. I'm not going to get excited about anything they find of that nature. Everything they find will need to be examined but, as we know, the bush can contain a lot of people's junk (unfortunately).

 

[JoeDetective]

I think extremely unlikely too.

Hit and run, driver panics and instead of stopping to assist, flees the scene

A fight breaks out in a night club, a victim is killed by a punch, the offender flees the scene.

In those 2 scenarios, the offenders are not stopping to hide the body, or hanging around to tell stories.

Where an "accidental" death involves the hiding of the body, destroying evidence, telling stories there's almost always a history of physical or sexual abuse.

For example: a male "accidentally" kills his female partner and covers it up, but male has a long history of violence against the female.

Sadly, I've read to many cases where a child is found deceased but parents don't seek medical attention because the parents have a history of abusing the child.

I don't know what happened in this case, my observations above are unrelated to this case, a broad observation on accidental deaths.

You are missing a fundamental point in this investigation that differentiates it from the vast majority of missing children cases. The FFC has a strong motive to cover up a potential accidental death, namely if a child died accidentally in her care the other child would likely have been immediately removed from her care pending a full investigation and I can't see anyone within the department putting their career on the line to give another child back to a woman that had already had one child die in her care.
I can't see how the state would allow the FFC to ever have a foster child again, having a child die within your care would almost certainly result in you not meeting the standard required to foster children within Australia, contrast that with the accidental death of a biological child, that will rarely result in the removal of all other children within a guardians care, the standards are not the same.

I have seen other cases where there is a motive for biological parents to coverup an accidental death of their child but it is uncommon and usually to protect their careers, like for example if a doctor had acted in a way that would impact their medical licence with their child(let's say drugging them to sleep) which subsequently resulted in their death that would be a very good motive to cover up an accidental death because you are probably going to lose your medical licence.

 

[mussopossum]

Yep. I'm not going to get excited about anything they find of that nature. Everything they find will need to be examined but, as we know, the bush can contain a lot of people's junk (unfortunately).

Especially near a creek bed. So many things over the years would get tossed out car windows and make their way into the bush.

 

[Thebottomline]

Even if they find Williams body ( sorry ) or evidence of clothes or shoes, does it mean fm responsible ? They must have something concrete , so concrete to be naming her as poi number 1 basically. I just can’t get my head around fm doing this. In one way though a small part of me feels some small comfort that he hasn’t been lost at the hands of someone like FA.

 

[The gavel]

You are missing a fundamental point in this investigation that differentiates it from the vast majority of missing children cases. The FFC has a strong motive to cover up a potential accidental death, namely if a child died accidentally in her care the other child would likely have been immediately removed from her care pending a full investigation and I can't see anyone within the department putting their career on the line to give another child back to a woman that had already had one child die in her care.
I can't see how the state would allow the FFC to ever have a foster child again, having a child die within your care would almost certainly result in you not meeting the standard required to foster children within Australia, contrast that with the accidental death of a biological child, that will rarely result in the removal of all other children within a guardians care, the standards are not the same.

I have seen other cases where there is a motive for biological parents to coverup an accidental death of their child but it is uncommon and usually to protect their careers, like for example if a doctor had acted in a way that would impact their medical licence with their child(let's say drugging them to sleep) which subsequently resulted in their death that would be a very good motive to cover up an accidental death because you are probably going to lose your medical licence.

Yes and in this case, her entire family would be destroyed. Also possibly her marriage. Maybe he was the person who really wanted a family?

That's a huge motive, IMO.

 

[The gavel]

Even if they find Williams body ( sorry ) or evidence of clothes or shoes, does it mean fm responsible ? They must have something concrete , so concrete to be naming her as poi number 1 basically.

If they found blood in the FGM car, it can't be random, so depends on the evidence . IMO

 

[Waverider]

You had said something like ' even if he had been abducted, she should be culpable'.

And I don't believe that allowing your child to run and play in Nana's yard, on a quiet suburban street, is criminal negligence.

So I am saying that if she was culpable, then wouldn't the parents of other kidnapped children be as well? A tent isn't a dwelling, so there could be a case made. I'm just saying it is unfair to point the blame at either of them.

IMO
If a small child is injured by, say, falling off a balcony because a parent wasn’t properly supervising, and a reasonable person would’ve known that there was a foreseeable risk of that happening, then I’m pretty sure it could potentially meet the criteria for negligence.

The same couldn't be said of a child who was abducted from a tent they were sharing with their parents because I’m not sure it’s a foreseeable risk, and the child was being supervised in a sense. MOO

JMO

 

[Thebottomline]

If they found blood in the FGM car, it can't be random, so depends on the evidence . IMO

Yes I agree, but where they naming her as poi before or after thorough results of car examination came through .

 

[JoeDetective]

<modsnip: Removed broken quote>

If anyone can correct me its the road they are now surching I think the pony club is at the show grounds or the over end of batar creek rd, I hav looked quite a bit on google earth batar creek road if you google earth and look at the show grounds or look at the other end of batar creek Rd its a little confusing i think its called Camden haven pony club some things say show grounds other things say different addresse on batar creek Rd

This is the current search area.

 

[Tigerlily75]

She could have sounded calm because (theoretically) it was unlikely WT had gone far - that's if FFC had nothing with the disappearance.

Yes, you just can’t tell much from that call at all I don’t think. You could say that after searching on foot and going for a drive and you still can’t find him, you’d be truly panicked by that point. But you could also say that if she’s lying, you’d think she’d overact and start sobbing or something to “make it seem real”. The call just doesn’t really do anything for me either way.

 

[JBowie]

Even if they find Williams body ( sorry ) or evidence of clothes or shoes, does it mean fm responsible ?

Not automatically, no.

Police always need to convince the DPP that a case will succeed in court, and that usually comes down to whether they have a confession or evidence of guilt that will convince a jury of that guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This is not easy to accomplish. Even so-called water tight cases can come unstuck in court.

 

[StrangerDanger]

Even if they find Williams body ( sorry ) or evidence of clothes or shoes, does it mean fm responsible ? They must have something concrete , so concrete to be naming her as poi number 1 basically. I just can’t get my head around fm doing this. In one way though a small part of me feels some small comfort that he hasn’t been lost at the hands of someone like FA.

it’s going to be pretty mind blowing if they find him/evidence of his death outside the riding school, exactly where FFC said she drove to when searching for him.

 

[Estelle]

When was it mentioned that the FM / family tried to stop William from seeing his Bio parents? I don't remember this?

It used to be more often but FFC had had it reduced to two monthly which means only six times a year and it appeared to me that FFC would have preferred it to have stopped completely. IMO

In fact, I can understand this because when I divorced and my ex had the children every second weekend, he spoiled them rotten and they came back to me as if they had been to Disneyland every weekend. I then had to settle them down and it was difficult to discipline them.

 

[SleepyJoe]

was the beer belly man the same man as the thick necked man who eyeballed her?

I'm sorry, I had to have giggle at this, I remember her saying all these different things - and now that we are putting them together, they just sound ridiculous! But hindsight is a wonderful thing...

 

[Edgar70]

Reading back Frogwell’s comments from the inquest is interesting, especially this:

In regards to listening to different people's testimony and what I find believable, I just would not want to venture an opinion yet until I have heard everyone. I wouldn't be satisfied just following MSM anymore on this case. I am baffled by the FM timeline. I believed the testimony of the bio parents and yet there seems to provide motive. The inquest seems incomplete without the FGM's evidence. I wish someone could corroborate the 2 cars on Benaroon Dr....MOO (Frogwell Mar 28, 2019).

I watched the 60 Minutes episode featuring the FP’s posted earlier, and have been listening to the 10 podcast also featuring the FP’s … and obviously I’m listening in light of this new information, but… I don’t trust FFC. I just don’t. I don’t find her genuine. She’s too wordy, she gives too much detail, she’s too cliché.

Does that make her a killer, no not necessarily. These are just my feelings today.

Her timeline of that morning was too much … I’m a parent. I just don’t find allll the games she played with William all before 9am believable. But who knows, maybe she is the perfect parent she portrays herself to be. I just don’t see how she even had time to go the bathroom.

Is there motive? A few things come to mind. All MOO. Speculation only. FFC appeared to not be coping with William’s behavior. He was being assessed for behavioral issues. She talks in the podcast about how William didn’t take to her, but bonded instantly with MFC. This could invoke all kinds of feelings. Jealousy is one, but also feelings of rejection and inadequacy. She upped his daycare from 2 days to 4 days. She wrote to FACS three days before William’s disappearance that she was thinking of “giving up or giving in” (on the potential adoption). The social workers talked amongst themselves about how a level of dysfunction is normal in foster kids, which may suggest they thought FFC wasn’t understanding, or coping, with that. She was over the visits with the bio family. It appears she had possibly had an easy time with the sister, and then came along boisterous William. I think there’s a lot that indicates she was struggling. Perhaps, she just didn’t want William anymore.

But there was one big problem: MFC adored William. And that’s quite the dilemma.

ALL MOO.

This information is very telling to me. IMO. Thank you.

 

[silverau]

Small pieces of fabric found during William Tyrrell search
Small pieces of fabric have been found during the search for William Tyrrell’s remains.

Kind looks like one those canvas shopping bags
View attachment 323308


https://www.9news.com.au/videos/nat...liam-tyrrell-search/ckwac43rv00010hmup14u1as9

This looks like a Best N Less carry bag from years ago, has the name printed multiple times down the faces. IMO

 

[vatzjr]

... what foster parent would want to stop a foster child from seeing its own mother, to the point the child is now calling its own mother "birth mum" during the last visit, a foster parent is someone giving up their own time to raise someone else's child, it appears in this case the foster parents are trying to adop and stop the child from seeing its own mum, its like they are pretending that they want to foster when in fact they actually want to adopt, its like everyone is thinking what loving people trying to adopt, im looking at the other side that this isn't right the child is in contact with the mother who doesn't want them adopted out and yet the family are gunning for this adoption using behaviour and sleeping as an excuse to stop the child from seeing its own mother while the foster mother is trying to get this adoption to happen

I find it interesting that FFC insists that she wanted foster children to have relationships with bio-parents. Whilst I don't think there is anything "conclusive" to mine in FFC's attempt to "surreptitiously" explore adoption (but I'm not going to fault someone for finding it "suggestive"), I do think it's telling that FFC did not want bio-parents to know about her or her husband's identity, when they had a choice in the matter.

I recognise the complexity in foster/bio parent relationships and being a foster parent (on top of raising a child, raising a child that isn't "yours," managing the impact from the child's relationship with bio-parents, dealing with "the system," etc). I can imagine being a foster parent, eventually wanting full custody, assuming full responsibility on shaping the children without the influence of bio-parents who I might decide are not healthy influences as parents, nor on the foster/bio situation. Like, I GET THAT. 100%. But, if that is what you want, then BE HONEST ABOUT IT.

Or, keep things 100% separate, and allow the kids to have the bond and very limited time they have with bio-parents, and just cope. That doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

For someone to portray themselves as being invested in the foster children having a relationship with bio-parents, I can't help but think that requires some degree of initiating interaction with the bio parents (at least a good will attempt to make the situation "work"). With boundaries, obviously. I would see this as some effort at normalising an awkward and abnormal situation as much as possible, and attempt to show the children that the two sets of parents can get along (won't know unless you try), as well as get to know who these bio-parents are and what qualities they have to offer the children. Granted, perhaps it ends up being a fool's errand, as we're dealing with bio-parents who are volatile people. But, it also appears that these bio-parents were invested in the best interests of their children. To make assumptions that they wouldn't try to make the situation "work" or have qualities they can offer the children they can't, wouldn't really be fair (even if their endgame is to eventually get the children back).

Were fosters invested in the children's ultimate welfare unconditionally? Or were they operating from a place where they saw their adoptive rights over the children as being the only good outcome? (i.e. "we're financially better off, we're socially more desirable, we don't have drug/legal issues, WE HAVE PLAYED JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER THAT WE ARE BETTER PEOPLE and can give the children the better lives")

So, were the fosters "invested" in bio-parents having a relationship with the children? Where's the evidence? All I've read are the bio-parents being left completely in the dark during all of this, with no demonstrated regard for them or what they're going through, which has been entirely brought upon them by the foster parents--regardless of their guilty or innocence.

The sense of entitlement is off-the-charts.

 

[JBowie]

The 000 call shows many Red Flags IMO. Politeness, not expected. Lack of using William's name. Calmness, not expected. A lack of desperation & demanding help, all expected. When a child is missing, time is of the essence and is common knowledge. IMO.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here ...

Different personalities, and people of different upbringings, react in different ways during a crisis.

For example, people in management positions are expected to remain cool, calm and collected in a crisis.

On the other hand, some personalities go to pieces in a crisis and become highly emotional.

Then there are people in between.

From listening to her police interviews, I have formed the impression that the FM is a controlling type personality, who is not easily ruffled, so I am not surprised by the way she sounds in the 000 call.

 

[SleepyJoe]

You'd think this but regarding the tone etc, I think a lot of people (especially those who perform best under pressure) speak calmly to make the situation so. If she isnt guilty, there would be an idea in her mind, william would just appear from around the corner and she was overreracting. I cant say if I would be the same.
In regards to the information, that is different. I honestly need to go back to her recount of the morning because specifically seeing 2 sus cars earlier and suddenly not remembering is weird for me.

A while back, when I was reading about evidence given in the inquest in the MSM, I remember the article talking about a "memory expert" who testified. From what I remember (pardon the pun), this memory expert said that the FFC memory of the 2 cars in the street was "most likely not real". At the time I read this, I fully believed the FFC story, and it was jarring to me that this would be said. I thought at the time "why would they say this" and that it was perhaps a bit unfair - I even discussed this with my husband (who is really not very interested , but I was really perturbed by it at the time). Unfortunately I can't find a link at the moment, but will keep searching. Does anyone else remember this???? Those at the inquest??? I will post a link if I find one.

ETA: found it! William Tyrrell's foster mother could have created false memory about parked cars, inquest told

 

[Awakening]

Heya Sleuthers, have been following this one & been reading these forums, so wanted to share some thoughts (Did have an old account years ago, but forget it now...)

We know foster parents can kill kids in their care & collude to cover it up (Murder of Tialeigh Palmer in QLD by the Thorburn family). Again, the foster parents were the last to see her alive & the entire family had conspired together to conceal the girl's murder

From the first few episodes of the Channel 10 "Where's William" podcast these odd instances stood out:

Episode 5 (Strike Force)
- When discussing GJ being assigned the case & at first being suspicious of them FM says it's "good" & how they should keep going back over old evidence (Yet ironically they came out full force to dispute the recent evidence review which focuses squarely on them)
- FM describes having a "chuckle" and "inside giggle" when when GJ was at first sizing them up (Duper's delight?)
- FM describes feeling "excited" when GJ was put on the case (this feels off, feeling relieved/hopeful, but excited?)
- There is a general tone of FM fangirling over GJ & Underbelly, sounds quite proud at this close association

This is a historical account of events, so it's possible at the time they were not feeling this way when he was 1st assigned the case.

OMG it's Bea Smith! You're alive!