Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #70

Status
Not open for further replies.

SleepyJoe

Verified - Medical Specialist (Anaesthetist)
Joined
Nov 19, 2021
Messages
209
Reaction score
2,103
But in any case, did the FFC not try to explain the injury as a fall from a horse? Implies physical, if so.
Exactly, which is why I had assumed it was physical.

"William Tyrrell’s foster parents are expected to fight charges of assaulting a child by arguing that the alleged victim may have fallen from a horse."


And there was also mention of the child having bruising in this article.

"Investigators are considering common assault charges after a child was allegedly identified with bruising."

 
Last edited:

JLZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
21,398
But in any case, did the FFC not try to explain the injury as a fall from a horse? Implies physical, if so.
She was asked about bruising but it was never clear--as far as I remember--whether the alleged assault is claimed to have caused the bruising. It could be that the explanations about a horse fall or whatever were accepted. I could see a situation where the child complained of mistreatment, and in seeking corroboration police asked teachers and the like if they'd noticed anything indicative of abuse. And someone said, actually, there was some serious bruising at one time.
 

Chrissy74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
471
Reaction score
2,304
My next sentence said .... "Or if these mental health issues have come on since then, and FM may now be deemed not fit to stand trial."

Maybe that was missed.
Victorian law on unfitness to stand trial is in the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to Be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic). A person may be unfit to stand trial if he or she can’t do one of the following:
° understand the nature of the charge;
° enter a plea to the charge;
° participate in the jury selection and challenge jurors
or

° instruct their lawyer, that is tell them what he or she wants to do in the case.


I can’t see how the FM can prove she falls under any of the above requirements and if the court does deem her unfit to stand trial then who does the accountability fall on? FACS.
BTW where are FACS in all of this? Ah that’s right they’re dissolved
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
138,245
I believe there’s been some misunderstanding as there have been recent discussions re: mental health, so my responses were only ever in relation to them and included my personal take on certain investigation methods plus an attempt to open conversations addressing the reviewal process with case management – for Australian foster care systems – in unique conditions, such as these.
Thought my comments suggested this clearly, therefore apologies SA for causing any confusion as the intent was to highlight (my personal viewpoint) that FACS did a poor job monitoring the situation, given the high media coverage the FP received and the magnitude of the circumstances. I don’t feel it was appropriately handled on a case by case basis. JMO.

Also, thanks to the mods for the clarifying the issue with an earlier post.

Not a problem.

I think I am more looking at the possibility that 7+ years of wondering where her son might be, 7+ years of dealing with harrassment and innuendo .... then to be looked at (again) as a POI ..... might have eventually tipped FM over the edge.

Therefore, her mental health might have been stable up until just prior to the alleged assault.

And now, she may not be fit to stand trial. So, her court (charges) response may fall under the Mental Health Act.
 

JLZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
21,398
Not a problem.

I think I am more looking at the possibility that 7+ years of wondering where her son might be, 7+ years of dealing with harrassment and innuendo .... then to be looked at (again) as a POI ..... might have eventually tipped FM over the edge.

Therefore, her mental health might have been stable up until just prior to the alleged assault.

And now, she may not be fit to stand trial. So, her court (charges) response may fall under the Mental Health Act.
It's been reported that she's making a section 14 application which according to my understanding is quite a different issue to unfitness to plead. Being unfit to plead is really an extreme degree of impairment. There is some information about what level of impairment would qualify for section 14 here: Section 14 Mental Health Application - Astor Legal
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
138,245
It's been reported that she's making a section 14 application which according to my understanding is quite a different issue to unfitness to plead. Being unfit to plead is really an extreme degree of impairment. There is some information about what level of impairment would qualify for section 14 here: Section 14 Mental Health Application - Astor Legal

Thanks. Yes, I have read up about it. It is not a frivolous defence, and the NSW court has its own people who diagnose the level of mental impairment (from links I put up earlier).

From what I can see, it all falls under the Mental Health Act - the new/revised rules of the Act being brought in in (maybe March) 2021 IIRC.
 

Chrissy74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
471
Reaction score
2,304
Innocent until proven guilty, is my motto.
I think FMs lawyers will def use PTSD as part of their defense. But then they would have to prove how serious her ptsd is and for how long she’s been suffering from it, which would require documentation of proof from her doctor. Surely. What’s the likelyhood of developing PTSD esp after such a traumatic event as WT disappearance so many years after the fact? I’m assuming her lawyers will use it as a recent diagnosis for obvious reasons but none the less PTSD isn’t an illness that happens overnight. It’s something that develops to varying degrees over time from reliving the trauma in your mind over and over again. This begs the question why wasn’t Lindsay removed from the care of the FP if this is the case?
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,274
I think FMs lawyers will def use PTSD as part of their defense. But then they would have to prove how serious her ptsd is and for how long she’s been suffering from it, which would require documentation of proof from her doctor. Surely. What’s the likelyhood of developing PTSD esp after such a traumatic event as WT disappearance so many years after the fact? I’m assuming her lawyers will use it as a recent diagnosis for obvious reasons but none the less PTSD isn’t an illness that happens overnight. It’s something that develops to varying degrees over time from reliving the trauma in your mind over and over again. This begs the question why wasn’t Lindsay removed from the care of the FP if this is the case?
What if the PTSD was not very strong, but then new circumstances heightened the symptoms?

What if the Task Force's new efforts to rattle and pressure the Foster Parents did trigger her PTSD?

If she suddenly was named in the press and on TV and radio, as the Guilty party, would that trigger her symptoms?

And if the task force had a conversation with the bio family, saying she buried William in the garden, would that trigger her, given that her foster child would now see her as a child killer?

I would most certainly be having mental health issues if my daughter thought I had killed her little brother years ago. I would be so upset if I was in that situation, where everyone around me mistakenly thought I killed my little boy. I can't imagine how I would cope.
 

seekingjustice**

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
3,480
Are you familiar with FACS and their allegations against families? Have you ever noticed that the children are very often 'in the middle' between two opposing contentious sides, battling each other?

Have you ever noticed that allegations brought by FACS are OFTEN dropped or changed because as facts come in, they are clarified?

It is not about believing or disbelieving---it is about clarifying and validating the actual facts.

When children are in the middle of a situation, where there are birth families, foster families, social workers and LE officers, and each faction has their own agenda, the child can get lost in the wake.
Yes I'm more than familiar with FACS - these specific allegations have resulted in the FC's being charged with a criminal offence. The Police have made the decision to charge the FC's based on evidence collected during the investigation. The Police obviously found enough evidence to lay charges. IMO.
 

seekingjustice**

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
3,480
What if the PTSD was not very strong, but then new circumstances heightened the symptoms?

What if the Task Force's new efforts to rattle and pressure the Foster Parents did trigger her PTSD?

If she suddenly was named in the press and on TV and radio, as the Guilty party, would that trigger her symptoms?

And if the task force had a conversation with the bio family, saying she buried William in the garden, would that trigger her, given that her foster child would now see her as a child killer?

I would most certainly be having mental health issues if my daughter thought I had killed her little brother years ago. I would be so upset if I was in that situation, where everyone around me mistakenly thought I killed my little boy. I can't imagine how I would cope.
She very well may have had PTSD which she could have been managing prior to being named as the POI and yes being under investigation could have triggered a decline in her mental health - however PTSD is not an excuse for violent behaviour whether psychological or physical.

If she does have PTSD then that could have been caused from reliving nightmares in relation to 'harming William'. That would make sense to me. All IMO.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,274
Yes I'm more than familiar with FACS - these specific allegations have resulted in the FC's being charged with a criminal offence. The Police have made the decision to charge the FC's based on evidence collected during the investigation. The Police obviously found enough evidence to lay charges. IMO.
Yes, exactly. The police have made the decision to charge the foster parents. Normally I would not question that decision.

But these exact same police officers had previously rolled out their new investigation of these same two parents for burying William in the garden. They did a very high profile PUBLIC rollout of their new theory, which is that these two are guilty of William's demise.

So I don't have a lot of faith in their credibility in this AVO at this time. I see it in terms of what they did to the Speddings when they did the same thing to them. It is all about shock and awe. Rattle them, pressure them, scare them into a confession.

Did they have enough evidence to lay theses charges? I don't know yet. Maybe they do but maybe they don't.

I do know that FACS have sometimes made allegations against families which did not always turn out to be totally true.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,274
She very well may have had PTSD which she could have been managing prior to being named as the POI and yes being under investigation could have triggered a decline in her mental health - however PTSD is not an excuse for violent behaviour whether psychological or physical.

If she does have PTSD then that could have been caused from reliving nightmares in relation to 'harming William'. That would make sense to me. All IMO.
I have a good friend who has PTSD because of finding her child dead from SIDS. You don't have to be guilty of harming a child to have PTSD from losing them.
 

seekingjustice**

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
579
Reaction score
3,480
I have a good friend who has PTSD because of finding her child dead from SIDS. You don't have to be guilty of harming a child to have PTSD from losing them.
Thanks, yes I completely understand that. I work in mental health and all my client's have PTSD for various reasons, the majority from childhood trauma. I also was was diagnosed many years ago myself from the loss of a child.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,274
Here is where my cynicism towards this Task Force comes from:

They did this huge public roll out, where they named the two foster parents as their prime suspects in this Missing Child case.

And then , after naming them as their only main suspects, they began the huge search of the area, and the digging up of grandma's garden, and the new interviews of the neighbours and the impounding of the family vehicles and the top secret interviews of the Foster Parents and the FACS investigation of the family, and did all of this with news vans filming it all and showing them pieces of old material, and so on and so on.

It feels like they put the cart before the horse. Since when does a task force publicly name their suspect and then begins searching for evidence against them?
 
Last edited:

Chrissy74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
471
Reaction score
2,304
If this is the first time there was an issue then I don't see the problem. How would FACS know there was going to be a problem?

Maybe the task force should have thought of that before they suddenly rolled out this new campaign to name them as guilty before they even had any evidence.
Isn’t it there job to know though? When a child in foster care goes missing and let’s be honest, a fair number do, what programs and procedures are in place, by FACS, to ensure all people involved are adequately looked after and supported on a long term plan? Now that I would like to know because from where I’m standing I can’t see how FACS were not aware of the FP mental state esp when they’re providing the recourses. And this is what happens when things are not done RIGHT the first time.. just my opinion of course
 

KateM

Former Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
448
Reaction score
1,609
I think FMs lawyers will def use PTSD as part of their defense. But then they would have to prove how serious her ptsd is and for how long she’s been suffering from it, which would require documentation of proof from her doctor. Surely. What’s the likelyhood of developing PTSD esp after such a traumatic event as WT disappearance so many years after the fact? I’m assuming her lawyers will use it as a recent diagnosis for obvious reasons but none the less PTSD isn’t an illness that happens overnight. It’s someg that develops to varying degrees over time from reliving the trauma in your mind over and over again. This begs the question why wasn’t Lindsay removed from the care of the FP if this is the case?
I'm sure William's bio parents have PTSD.
 

SleepyJoe

Verified - Medical Specialist (Anaesthetist)
Joined
Nov 19, 2021
Messages
209
Reaction score
2,103
I do know that FACS have sometimes made allegations against families which did not always turn out to be totally true.
Using this reasoning, perhaps the allegations FACS made against the bio parents were also not true and William and his sister should never have been taken from them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top