Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #26

Status
Not open for further replies.
I said missing or died. So let's start with Tialeigh Palmer and Braxton Slager. Both in foster care, all foster parents named. It has been 3 years for William and the foster parents are still not widely known, or named in media. Why?

Eta: in response to Hbayne and SouthAussie

These people have been named for 2 reasons:

1. The foster child is deceased.
NSW Children and Young Persons act states:
(1A) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until:
(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or​
(b) the child or young person dies,
whichever occurs first.

Qld has similar laws.

2. These foster carers do not have other children in their care.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/view/act/1998/157/chap6/part1/sec105
 
And yet, as I said anyone can google and find her name, dob, photos and the fact she is William's sister etc in a short amount of time.
I have no problem whatsoever with this little girl being protected. I do however in my opinion think that hiding the identities of the three adults who were present/ responsible for him when he "went missing" is not helping this case.

Are you saying you can google Williams sister and get all these personal details.
 
Ok but was wondering about other cases of missing foster children.

I said missing or died. Tialeigh was missing, albeit for a short amount of time. What's the point you are trying to make here?
I don't personally believe that the given reason of not naming the foster parents in order to not identify William's sister as his sister, is a good enough reason given that it's already online and all fb accounts were public and full of info and pics about these kids.

My opinion of course, and it seems other people agree. 😊
 
And yet, as I said anyone can google and find her name, dob, photos and the fact she is William's sister etc in a short amount of time.
I have no problem whatsoever with this little girl being protected. I do however in my opinion think that hiding the identities of the three adults who were present/ responsible for him when he "went missing" is not helping this case.

And you are entitled to your opinion. What you are NOT entitled to do under TOS of Websleuths is Victim Blame.
 
I said missing or died. Tialeigh was missing, albeit for a short amount of time. What's the point you are trying to make here?
I don't personally believe that the given reason of not naming the foster parents in order to not identify William's sister as his sister, is a good enough reason given that it's already online and all fb accounts were public and full of info and pics about these kids.

My opinion of course, and it seems other people agree. ��

I'm not trying to make a point just asking for clarification of your statements
 
Yes, it is entirely bizarre behaviour on the part of MSM and how very often they got it wrong, many times at the expense of BS. BS was not the author of this blog entry, but yet in the article linked, he was brazenly reported to have written it. He, like hundreds of others, merely shared the post to increase awareness of the missing toddler.

yes, youre right, sorry i had forgotten he hadnt actually written it
 
My thoughts are, why should this family be accorded special privilege, which appears to be different from ANY other case in Aus, when they were in fact the very people with the responsibility to keep WT safe? It's okay now for the bio family, who have already LOST custody of their children, and then lost the life of one of them, to have their names dragged through the mud, but yet.. the people who were actually there, in charge, get to remain anonymous and protected by both police and media, for 3 years and counting. jmo.

This. You worded it better than I have.
 
I'm not trying to make a point just asking for clarification of your statements

I don't know how much I can put on here, but it took me less than 10 mins to find. And I am by no means internet or computer savvy. Many people here and on other sites discussing this case are aware of the families(foster and bio) and children etc. Their fb accounts were public when William disappeared.
 
I said missing or died. Tialeigh was missing, albeit for a short amount of time. What's the point you are trying to make here?
I don't personally believe that the given reason of not naming the foster parents in order to not identify William's sister as his sister, is a good enough reason given that it's already online and all fb accounts were public and full of info and pics about these kids.

My opinion of course, and it seems other people agree. ��

Then perhaps you should not state the 'missing' part, or retract it. Because, as far as I know, no foster parents have been named while their foster child has been missing and an active investigation has been ongoing.

Once the child has been found deceased, the situation has changed and certain laws allow the naming of the foster parents in certain instances.
 
The victim is William.
Just my opinion and all that jazz.
<modsnip>

The victims are William, his cleared bio parents, and his cleared foster parents. Please read up on the WS TOS.


Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Sleuthing family members that are not suspected of being involved in the crime or disappearance is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?128924-Rules-Etiquette-and-TOS&styleid=21
 
These people have been named for 2 reasons:

1. The foster child is deceased.
NSW Children and Young Persons act states:
(1A) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until:
(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or​
(b) the child or young person dies,
whichever occurs first.

Qld has similar laws.

2. These foster carers do not have other children in their care.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/view/act/1998/157/chap6/part1/sec105

Actually, Braxton's parents had other children in their care:


"When Braxton came into foster care he was not placed with a family that provided him quality care.

"The placement was overcrowded, there were concerns about the carer's ability to cope and LWB did not provide an effective system for monitoring and support."


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...eft-without-quality-care-report-finds/8850374

And this article mentions it was another child in care who found him and that child cannot be named:

"The inquest heard foster father Greg McBride feared another boy in his care may have opened the pool gate.

Rhondele Mayo, from the contractor Life Without Barriers, told the court that at the hospital, after the boy's death, she spoke to the foster parents Mr McBride and Ms Tarlinton.

Ms Mayo said Ms Tarlinton told her the older boy, who cannot be identified, found Braxton in the pool."

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...t-hears-foster-mother-was-obstructive/8853982

Also

"It can also be revealed that earlier this year, a Supreme Court judge said “tragically” the probability was that the boy was “no longer alive” as the investigation was now being conducted as a homicide."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/2c7909c0e1fe408a0807fc97c14d21c5

If the probablility is that William has died, and the case is being investigated as a homicide, then isn't part b irrelevant? Or does he have to be declared legally dead or found first?

I am genuinely trying to understand, but again, my personal opinion and feeling is that it might help find William if the foster parents were publicly known.
 
Actually, Braxton's parents had other children in their care:


"When Braxton came into foster care he was not placed with a family that provided him quality care.

"The placement was overcrowded, there were concerns about the carer's ability to cope and LWB did not provide an effective system for monitoring and support."


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...eft-without-quality-care-report-finds/8850374

And this article mentions it was another child in care who found him and that child cannot be named:

"The inquest heard foster father Greg McBride feared another boy in his care may have opened the pool gate.

Rhondele Mayo, from the contractor Life Without Barriers, told the court that at the hospital, after the boy's death, she spoke to the foster parents Mr McBride and Ms Tarlinton.

Ms Mayo said Ms Tarlinton told her the older boy, who cannot be identified, found Braxton in the pool."

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...t-hears-foster-mother-was-obstructive/8853982

Also

"It can also be revealed that earlier this year, a Supreme Court judge said &#8220;tragically&#8221; the probability was that the boy was &#8220;no longer alive&#8221; as the investigation was now being conducted as a homicide."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/2c7909c0e1fe408a0807fc97c14d21c5

If the probablility is that William has died, and the case is being investigated as a homicide, then isn't part b irrelevant? Or does he have to be declared legally dead or found first?

I am genuinely trying to understand, but again, my personal opinion and feeling is that it might help find William if the foster parents were publicly known.

Because Williams case is not a homicide it's a missing persons case.
 
Because Williams case is not a homicide it's a missing persons case.

Yet the reason that William was allowed to be named as being in foster care was because it is thought he is deceased. Homicide detectives have been involved in this case too haven't they?
 
IMO no one should be ruled out in a missing child case when there is no clue in what happened to said child and until the case is solved.
 
Yet the reason that William was allowed to be named as being in foster care was because it is thought he is deceased. Homicide detectives have been involved in this case too haven't they?

He was named as soon as he went missing, so your saying it was thought he was deceased that early on ??? Or saying he has now been named as being a foster child as it's believed he is deceased ?
 
IMO no one should be ruled out in a missing child case when there is no clue in what happened to said child and until the case is solved.

Agree and just because the police have said they have ruled out the families doesn't mean that is true either, they speak to the public they are also speaking to the people responsible, and that is by far more important. I'm not going to say that they are involved, but like tom meagher, anyone who is innocent is not going to want to hide anything to get to the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Because Williams case is not a homicide it's a missing persons case.

Also, the children were removed from Braxton's carers IIRC, prior to them being named.

Judge Brereton was determining the case in front of him and suggested the probability that William was deceased, it has not been proven. Therefore it doesn't completely wipe out what the act states.
 
Police have to zero in on POIs with the highest likelihood of involvement. They have to eliminate persons associated with the victim, when they are sure of their whereabouts at the time and their lack of involvement.

It is impossible to have enough resources to watch them all. That spreads the investigators too thin. Does not allow them to concentrate on the person(s) who are likely involved, gather the correct evidence to bring them to court, achieve justice for the victim.

If things change, then they change, and the police focus will be put again on the persons with the highest likelihood of involvement.
 
He was named as soon as he went missing, so your saying it was thought he was deceased that early on ??? Or saying he has now been named as being a foster child as it's believed he is deceased ?

I think earlier on in the threads police in their investigation have alluded to the fact that yes, sadly WT is more than likely deceased.
From what i have read about missing/endangered children if they are not found within the first 24-48 hrs. after they are missing the chances of them being found alive are not good. Especially in a very young child such as WT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
2,391
Total visitors
2,454

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,934
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top