Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #63

[Ozgal]

View attachment 323743 View attachment 323742 View attachment 323741

I reckon WT was facing slightly more to the right than your arrow shows. I’ve found some more photos which show there was possibly another chair beside the table, possibly a plant pot and also a washing line attached to the wall so quite a busy corner.

That open gate and lattice attached on the gate, that allows entry for the high balcony is pretty scary.

Was the gate not shut on the day??
Did WT climb up over that lattice??

Certainly not safe with small children IMO

 

[k-mac]

If he really saw that on the day he would have called police on September 12, 2014. I have zero faith in his account and think he either dreamt it, or has exaggerated it with each retelling. Even the way he reported it was strange.

He may well believe it now, doesn’t mean its true.

The very first time he verbalised it was at the pub.

What do we do at the pub??
Few too many bevies.....IMO.

Important information like that no question would have been a 000 call.

Come on now.....months later....maybe I was dreamin??
I think that is the only relevant and truthful part of his statement.

moo

 

[sniffsniffcough]

These are the possibilities still running through my head on what happened to William ...

1. Ran off into bushland became lost and perished, body not found.

2. Ran off into bushland attacked by wild dogs, perished, body not found.

3. Ran off into bushland and opportunistic abduction takes place.

4. Ran onto street and was hit by passing car and body bundled into the boot and hidden by persons unknown.

5. Ran onto street and opportunistic abduction takes place.

6. Had an accident at FGM’s, perished, and body was hidden by FM.

7. Was abused at FGM’s, perished, and body hidden by FM.

8. Deliberate murder at FGM’s, and body hidden by FM.

9. Stalked at FGM’s by persons unknown and taken when opportunity presented itself.

10. Targeted abduction by birth family (or associates), WT taken and hidden, then when the heat became too strong kept away since he couldn’t be returned to them.

11. Targeted abduction by birth family (or associates), WT taken away and hidden then when heat became too strong murdered.

... has anyone got any others, which can be ruled out if any?

I would add a point 12 that being at the time William rode his bike deliberately into the garden bed (as said by FFC article linked upthread) he had knocked his head on a large stone lining the driveway or concrete area of the driveway. I believe William may have been left to play on his own and he made his way through the carport (see photos uploaded today upthread) decided to ride his bike on the driveway unattended by an adult. Had an accident. When FFC eventually found him he had succumbed to his injury which was likely brain trauma with no external bleeding. FGM's car would be more likely parked in the open carport with boot facing street. William was then placed in the boot of the vehicle.

What appears to be remnants of a green plastic-hessian material used in large garden-type refuse bags with handles - see below, has been discovered at the Cobb and Co Road search site recently. When I viewed that live media coverage it appears to me to be similar to a garden refuse back IMO.

On the day of William's disappearance there was a press photo taken showing a tidy mound of garden refuse to the right of the lower driveway (by which the under-house garage is accessed) and adjacent to a NSWPOL onsite command post (I cannot locate the link as the photo does not appear on google images any longer). I doubt FGM would have left the mound of garden refuse in the open to be blown around her yard again. Everything looked as neat as a pin to me when I viewed early media coverage.

I think it possible this garden refuse had been in the green refuse bag and tipped out and the bag used to contain William before being transported in the Mazda vehicle as posited widely this week. All MOO formulated from viewing broadcast coverage and reading articles posted numerous times in the past week upthread.

 

[Estelle]

The 1st 2 seems to be taken by the FFC standing on the deck and the next 3 it looks like she was probably standing on the grass next to the deck getting the camera close to ground level. i don't see anything weird about it or him roaring in the last photo and looking elsewhere. the only thing I find strange is her explanation for how she took that shot. The last 2 shots could be her taking the photo from the grass or sitting in the seat near the FGM and leaning forward. I would still like to see anything would come from the reflection in his eye. Moo

Please disregard photos, Just saw sniffs post

IMO it looks to me as if MFC could have been there and he raws to WT like a tiger and WT raws back at him and FFC takes the photo.

 

[inkpink]

Given FACS requirements re. FP having to notify them if they are going somewhere and then on top of that, the rules associated with visits to the FGM'S Ie. Washing machine working, cat put in boarding kennel plus any addtional requirements we are not privy to then I can see that if an accident occurred, their reaction would be to cover it up in fear of losing LT.

I am also curious as to whether something had happened at FGM'S on a previous visit, maybe an asthma attack due to the cat, which has prompted these requirements or is this normal?

Does FACS inspect the premises of potential homes a child would be visiting?

Maybe part of the conditions to visit FGM'S was that the balconies had to be secured.

 

[Estelle]

What would the poll say .... "IF FM is charged with William's disappearance, what option would you choose for the charges"?

A poll seems like a premature and inflammatory thing, to me.

It was just an idea which has been done in other cases. I have deleted it since. Everyone of those in the list is pure speculation. We are not talking about charges yet.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Just a comment re the AVO-

I’m not in NSW but in all my years of working in foster care and kinship care, I have never heard of an AVO being taken out against a carer when there has been an allegation (of any kind) made against them. I doubt they would have done so if it wasn’t for the backdrop of WT’s disappearance.

What normally would happen in my state at least is that a police special child abuse team would be involved to interview the child, potentially lay charges (though again I have never seen a case where what was alleged to have happened led to charges- the majority of physical abuse allegations I dealt with were smacking which carers are not allowed to do).

The child can be removed regardless of the police’s involvement or subsequent action- the level of evidence required is lower than what is required for court. It’s a matter of determining the ‘likelihood’ that it happened, so Eg. Was there a witness, injuries, do the stories match up etc. the police can also take quite a long time to investigate and lay charges so sometimes it’s a matter of urgency to remove the child before the police get around to doing anything formal. Hypothetically the presence of a bruise and information from the child to indicate that it was caused by a carer would be plenty of evidence to remove a child, so an AVO isn’t generally necessary.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Once the child has been removed, there isn’t a need for an AVO as there is no longer risk of abuse.

You can’t just get an AVO against someone because they have assaulted you in the past. There has to be a need to prevent ongoing abuse, which won’t exist once the child has been removed.

 

[k-mac]

The FGM witness statement makes no mention of her daughter using her car to search for WT.

SBMFF.
This is an interesting contradiction for me too.

moo

 

[SouthAussie]

Given FACS requirements re. FP having to notify them if they are going somewhere and then on top of that, the rules associated with visits to the FGM'S Ie. Washing machine working, cat put in boarding kennel plus any addtional requirements we are not privy to then I can see that if an accident occurred, their reaction would be to cover it up in fear of losing LT.

I am also curious as to whether something had happened at FGM'S on a previous visit, maybe an asthma attack due to the cat, which has prompted these requirements or is this normal?

It is my understanding that it was the foster family's cats that needed to be put into boarding facilities.
FM made the call to make sure the cats could be boarded earlier than planned, as they wanted to leave for FGM's house earlier than expected (on Thursday arvo instead of Friday).

imo

 

[k-mac]

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Once the child has been removed, there isn’t a need for an AVO as there is no longer risk of abuse.

You can’t just get an AVO against someone because they have assaulted you in the past. There has to be a need to prevent ongoing abuse, which won’t exist once the child has been removed.

Its most probable she has talked.

To stop them influencing her statements??

moo

 

[inkpink]

It is my understanding that it was the foster family's cats that needed to be put into boarding facilities.
FM made the call to make sure the cats could be boarded earlier than planned, as they wanted to leave for FGM's house earlier than expected (on Thursday arvo instead of Friday).

imo

Ah I see, so then that would indicate that he didn't have an allergy to cats, given he lived with them!

 

[Awakening]

Thanks for that excellent link!!!!!

I think the cops stuffed up BADLY in not following through on Ronald Chapman's details.

But they did follow up? Ronald Chapman gave details of this at the inquest. He's account has been discussed throughout the threads. If you do a search here on WS and google you will see it, the reasons why some think it's significant and why others think he was well intentioned but mistaken.

 

[Ozgal]

Given FACS requirements re. FP having to notify them if they are going somewhere and then on top of that, the rules associated with visits to the FGM'S Ie. Washing machine working, cat put in boarding kennel plus any addtional requirements we are not privy to then I can see that if an accident occurred, their reaction would be to cover it up in fear of losing LT.

I am also curious as to whether something had happened at FGM'S on a previous visit, maybe an asthma attack due to the cat, which has prompted these requirements or is this normal?

Does FACS inspect the premises of potential homes a child would be visiting?

Maybe part of the conditions to visit FGM'S was that the balconies had to be secured.

The cat's were dropped at a bordering kennel in Sydney. The FP'S owned the cats not FGM.

In regards to the balcony IMO FACS never done an inspection of FGM house for approval that it was a safe place, because if they did...that small gate to the balcony would've been made to have been higher and non climbable for children.

If you have a pool your fence needs to be a certain height and can't be climbed. A high balcony IMO would have similar rules.

 

[Awakening]

FM did state 'my other daughter '. Sorry, can't remember where I heard this.

It's possible the FF have had other foster children in their care, and it wouldn't be something the media could report on.

I say this only because I'm friends with 2 separate foster families. They are in different states. Both have biological children and a long term foster child. One of those families also does short term care (usually a couple of weeks or months. Often to give a bio grandparent a break) and emergency care (sudden removal, short term placement until other arrangements can be made).

So entirely possible this FF could have registered for long term placements, short term placements and emergency placements.

 

[Greenie75]

https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/pol...e/news-story/cead7118c854a92ba362ca3ae176dd88

"As the search for William Tyrrell continues, police have excavated a huge pit, filled with buried household debris – which they reportedly believe could be where the missing toddler's remains are."

It is disturbing to think that William is buried amongst household debris. What is the house/building in the background of this picture?

 

[sniffsniffcough]

View attachment 323743 View attachment 323742 View attachment 323741

I reckon WT was facing slightly more to the right than your arrow shows. I’ve found some more photos which show there was possibly another chair beside the table, possibly a plant pot and also a washing line attached to the wall so quite a busy corner.

Possibly but he was facing in the general direction of my clumsy arrow.

Edit: and the 'white thing' is more likely the sunshining through the treescape in the back garden.

 

[Ozgal]

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Once the child has been removed, there isn’t a need for an AVO as there is no longer risk of abuse.

You can’t just get an AVO against someone because they have assaulted you in the past. There has to be a need to prevent ongoing abuse, which won’t exist once the child has been removed.

An AVO would still be necessary if LE thought there was a possibility of the victim being approached at say school, shopping centre etc etc, via friend's of the victim, phone or internet contact. IMO

 

[sniffsniffcough]

The 1st 2 seems to be taken by the FFC standing on the deck and the next 3 it looks like she was probably standing on the grass next to the deck getting the camera close to ground level. i don't see anything weird about it or him roaring in the last photo and looking elsewhere. the only thing I find strange is her explanation for how she took that shot. The last 2 shots could be her taking the photo from the grass or sitting in the seat near the FGM and leaning forward. I would still like to see anything would come from the reflection in his eye. Moo

Please disregard photos, Just saw sniffs post

In her own words FFC said she was crouching. Refer to 60Minutes video posted link upthread yesterday.

 

[sniffsniffcough]

The cat's were dropped at a bordering kennel in Sydney. The FP'S owned the cats not FGM.

In regards to the balcony IMO FACS never done an inspection of FGM house for approval that it was a safe place, because if they did...that small gate to the balcony would've been made to have been higher and non climbable for children.

If you have a pool your fence needs to be a certain height and can't be climbed. A high balcony IMO would have similar rules.

Were FACS required to approve premises being visited by the children and only if they were straying overnight?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The very first time he verbalised it was at the pub.

What do we do at the pub??
Few too many bevies.....IMO.

Important information like that no question would have been a 000 call.

Come on now.....months later....maybe I was dreamin??
I think that is the only relevant and truthful part of his statement.

moo

I thought the same thing .. he goes to pub, starts the night by telling people he thinks he saw a child being raced through town in a car, by the end of the night it's definitely WT in a spiderman outfit .. I also wondered at his telling the tale to the sister of the PC etc .. just seems like pure pub talk for the sake of pure pub talk to me.