Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #47

Status
Not open for further replies.
A thought occurred to me in regard to Ron Chapman's sighting:

  • -RC saw a younger blonde woman with hair in a bun driving crazily around the corner and down his road with a toddler-sized Spiderman standing unprotected in the back seat, and another vehicle driving also erratically which may have been following crazy-car#1, or not.
  • -RC heard that by whatever means, within a few hours or more, a child dressed as Spiderman from a nearby street was missing and police were asking anyone to come forward with any info, but yet he did not.
  • -We also hear that on RC's same street, on that very same day, yet another Spiderman was visiting one of the street's residents across the road from RC. Media is told however, that this Spiderman could not have been the same one seen by RC.
  • -RC apparently tells piles of people about his sighting, and people were advising him to go to police with his information, but yet he did not, and neither did anyone he had told. Months later, in 2015, RC finally went to some kind of function taking place nearby, where he hoped to find an officer known to him, to whom he could relay his story; instead he found this officer's relative, and so he instead relayed his story to that person, hoping for his information to be passed on to the officer. He never heard any word back from police. He says that he'd been expecting police to come and seek him out, saying he'd heard on the news that police would be door-knocking every resident within 1KM of 48 Benaroon - but that never happened. (Note that it had been also said that RC live 1.6KM from 48B?)
  • -We are told that RC is an upstanding citizen with no reason to lie, etc.
  • -We also find out that RC has made a report in the past about a crime, so why not this time? Nobody can come to terms with why RC wouldn't have done his civic duty and reported directly to police what he'd seen.
  • -What IF RC had quickly discovered that his neighbour had had a young Spiderman visiting, and realized, 'oh dear, it must have been the neighbour's visitor that I saw, and I don't want want to rat them out for driving infractions nor acting irresponsibly by not belting the child into a carseat or a seatbelt at least, afterall, that would make bad neighbours if he were to report them'. Perhaps it was a grandson Spiderman of the neighbour and the neighbour's own daughter driving the vehicle. Perhaps after finding out about the neighbour's Spiderman, he wasn't *certain* which Spiderman he'd seen that day, so he just left it. Afterall, in his neck of the woods, this type of abduction stuff just doesn't happen.
  • -Police finally catch up with this information through the grapevine and seek RC out themselves to question him on it, months later; RC by this time, perhaps knows more particulars about this neighbour and their visiting Spiderman, so when he relayed the info to police, he made sure to make the details NOT fit the neighbour's visitors for reasons stated above. A statement was not apparently taken until sometime in 2016.
  • -Perhaps because RC *may* be trying to protect his neighbour, the whole truth did not come out, and police couldn't get anywhere with the information as given, except there was enough to say 'it was not the neighbour's Spiderman visitor who was seen'; no info was given however, to explain why this other Spiderman was ruled out.
  • -Perhaps RC is 100% certain that he saw Spiderman that day, but he can't say for sure which one of the two it was. Maybe it *was* the neighbour's Spiderman. Maybe not.
  • -Police are left with a big nothingburger.

"Detective Beacroft said further investigations revealed that on the same morning, a mother and her two children were visiting a resident across the road and one of the children, a boy, had a Spider-Man suit.

However. Detective Beacroft said the child Mr Chapman saw in the back seat of the car was not the child visiting the street.

“From the information provided by that child’s mother … it was not that child Mr Chapman saw,” she said."

Man saw child in car wearing Spider-Man suit, Tyrrell inquest hears

edited for formatting
 
Last edited:
No idea why that information was released in regard to PS & the AVO? How long ago was that anyway, and how does it pertain to anything now i wonder?
I find the closed court hearing interesting though. Not sure why they would have to have a closed court hearing with PS? What are the reasons for that? Did he have sensitive information to tell that couldn't be addressed in open court for whatever reason and the Coroner needed further information from him privately?
I wonder if the closed court portion of PS's testimony may have included evidence pertaining to the 4 phonecalls which Jubelin has been accused of illegally recording? Considering the charges are currently unresolved and before the courts, I doubt if they would be able to risk publishing anything about them ahead of time?

I am taking a leap to assume this evidence may have been included somewhere in the 2000-page document given to the Coroner, and that may be how this matter had been discovered to have taken place in the first place - when PS's lawyer received the disclosure, noticed it, and did not find an accompanying waiver signed by PS to allow the recording, asked for it, and it did not exist, along with the absence of a warrant to allow the recording without PS's knowledge or consent?

Although any such evidence may not be admissible at a trial, perhaps if it were included in the Coroner's report, it may be discussed at the inquest, privately? Just guessing that this may be why the closed court for a portion of PS's testimony.

Edited to add: along with the absence of a warrant to allow the recording without PS's knowledge or consent
 
Last edited:
....

Craddock has said the offender will be a sneaky, complex person.

....
RSBM

I don't think Craddock said the offender *will* be a sneaky, complex person, but rather that he *may* be, since Craddock doesn't know who is responsible.

According to one of the reporter's more detailed reports quoting what Craddock said:

Citing statistics about missing children worldwide, Mr Cradock said 97 per cent of the perpetrators of child abduction murders were “family members of acquaintances”.

“(But) there are very few family members who had access to William on ... 12 September 2014,” he said.

“If William was murdered, and that’s a big if, it may be this rare 3 per cent of cases.

“Offenders in child abduction ... come in all shapes, sizes, colours, genders, economic status.”

Mr Craddock said other cases revealed offenders were often “a sneaky complex character who has hidden his or her desires for some time and has chosen to act on those desires.”

----
In the same article, the reporter also says:

Earlier, the inquest heard the boy was most likely abducted by a “sneaky, complex offender” who was a family member, friend, neighbour, person of trust or a stranger unknown, the inquest into the missing boy has heard.

Bones, speargun found in Tyrrell search
 
When Mr Craddock talked about a "sneaky complex offender" he was quoting from a book:
"Investigating Missing Children Cases: A Guide for First Responders and Investigators" by Donald F. Sprague.

There's a preview on Google Books - and I'm sorry if the link won't work, it looks a bit dodgy. From Chapter 3, "The Victim and the Offender", page 27:

"An offender in a runaway (if child is enticed/solicited) or abducted child case can come in all shapes, sizes, colors, genders, economic statuses, and could be the most inconspicuous person. We really do not know who the offender or abductor will be or who has either enticed a child to run away by use of the Internet or other means. It could be the father, the mother, an uncle, an aunt, a family member, the neighbor, a friend (close or slight acquaintance), a person of trust, or a stranger. The offender/abductor may be a person known or unknown. Who really knows? (Only the offender does.)

There is no doubt that everyone in a missing child investigation is a suspect until proven differently. The offender in such crimes is a sneaky complex offender who has hidden his or her desires for some time and has chosen to act on those desires. The following chapters are written to give the responding officer, the investigator, and his or her department some insight and tools to start with and use throughout their investigations of a runaway or missing child in identifying a victim or offender."
 
When Mr Craddock talked about a "sneaky complex offender" he was quoting from a book:
"Investigating Missing Children Cases: A Guide for First Responders and Investigators" by Donald F. Sprague.

There's a preview on Google Books - and I'm sorry if the link won't work, it looks a bit dodgy. From Chapter 3, "The Victim and the Offender", page 27:

"An offender in a runaway (if child is enticed/solicited) or abducted child case can come in all shapes, sizes, colors, genders, economic statuses, and could be the most inconspicuous person. We really do not know who the offender or abductor will be or who has either enticed a child to run away by use of the Internet or other means. It could be the father, the mother, an uncle, an aunt, a family member, the neighbor, a friend (close or slight acquaintance), a person of trust, or a stranger. The offender/abductor may be a person known or unknown. Who really knows? (Only the offender does.)

There is no doubt that everyone in a missing child investigation is a suspect until proven differently. The offender in such crimes is a sneaky complex offender who has hidden his or her desires for some time and has chosen to act on those desires. The following chapters are written to give the responding officer, the investigator, and his or her department some insight and tools to start with and use throughout their investigations of a runaway or missing child in identifying a victim or offender."
@stormbird that is a most interesting find indeed.., so not specific to the WT case at all ...
 
When Mr Craddock talked about a "sneaky complex offender" he was quoting from a book:
"Investigating Missing Children Cases: A Guide for First Responders and Investigators" by Donald F. Sprague.

There's a preview on Google Books - and I'm sorry if the link won't work, it looks a bit dodgy. From Chapter 3, "The Victim and the Offender", page 27:

"An offender in a runaway (if child is enticed/solicited) or abducted child case can come in all shapes, sizes, colors, genders, economic statuses, and could be the most inconspicuous person. We really do not know who the offender or abductor will be or who has either enticed a child to run away by use of the Internet or other means. It could be the father, the mother, an uncle, an aunt, a family member, the neighbor, a friend (close or slight acquaintance), a person of trust, or a stranger. The offender/abductor may be a person known or unknown. Who really knows? (Only the offender does.)

There is no doubt that everyone in a missing child investigation is a suspect until proven differently. The offender in such crimes is a sneaky complex offender who has hidden his or her desires for some time and has chosen to act on those desires. The following chapters are written to give the responding officer, the investigator, and his or her department some insight and tools to start with and use throughout their investigations of a runaway or missing child in identifying a victim or offender."


:cool::cool: excellent find!!
 
When Mr Craddock talked about a "sneaky complex offender" he was quoting from a book:
"Investigating Missing Children Cases: A Guide for First Responders and Investigators" by Donald F. Sprague.

There's a preview on Google Books - and I'm sorry if the link won't work, it looks a bit dodgy. From Chapter 3, "The Victim and the Offender", page 27:

"An offender in a runaway (if child is enticed/solicited) or abducted child case can come in all shapes, sizes, colors, genders, economic statuses, and could be the most inconspicuous person. We really do not know who the offender or abductor will be or who has either enticed a child to run away by use of the Internet or other means. It could be the father, the mother, an uncle, an aunt, a family member, the neighbor, a friend (close or slight acquaintance), a person of trust, or a stranger. The offender/abductor may be a person known or unknown. Who really knows? (Only the offender does.)

There is no doubt that everyone in a missing child investigation is a suspect until proven differently. The offender in such crimes is a sneaky complex offender who has hidden his or her desires for some time and has chosen to act on those desires. The following chapters are written to give the responding officer, the investigator, and his or her department some insight and tools to start with and use throughout their investigations of a runaway or missing child in identifying a victim or offender."

Sounds like a decent book to read.

I would imagine that all of the angles taken in William's case will come from previous true life experiences of various types. Common sense would tell us that.
Just like the statistics that Craddock quoted, with William may well being in the 3%.

I wonder what Dr Yule thought about the sneakiness and complexity of the offender, and what is written in the police brief?
 
Last edited:
A thought occurred to me in regard to Ron Chapman's sighting:

  • -RC saw a younger blonde woman with hair in a bun driving crazily around the corner and down his road with a toddler-sized Spiderman standing unprotected in the back seat, and another vehicle driving also erratically which may have been following crazy-car#1, or not.
  • -RC heard that by whatever means, within a few hours or more, a child dressed as Spiderman from a nearby street was missing and police were asking anyone to come forward with any info, but yet he did not.
  • -We also hear that on RC's same street, on that very same day, yet another Spiderman was visiting one of the street's residents across the road from RC. Media is told however, that this Spiderman could not have been the same one seen by RC.
  • -RC apparently tells piles of people about his sighting, and people were advising him to go to police with his information, but yet he did not, and neither did anyone he had told. Months later, in 2015, RC finally went to some kind of function taking place nearby, where he hoped to find an officer known to him, to whom he could relay his story; instead he found this officer's relative, and so he instead relayed his story to that person, hoping for his information to be passed on to the officer. He never heard any word back from police. He says that he'd been expecting police to come and seek him out, saying he'd heard on the news that police would be door-knocking every resident within 1KM of 48 Benaroon - but that never happened. (Note that it had been also said that RC live 1.6KM from 48B?)
  • -We are told that RC is an upstanding citizen with no reason to lie, etc.
  • -We also find out that RC has made a report in the past about a crime, so why not this time? Nobody can come to terms with why RC wouldn't have done his civic duty and reported directly to police what he'd seen.
  • -What IF RC had quickly discovered that his neighbour had had a young Spiderman visiting, and realized, 'oh dear, it must have been the neighbour's visitor that I saw, and I don't want want to rat them out for driving infractions nor acting irresponsibly by not belting the child into a carseat or a seatbelt at least, afterall, that would make bad neighbours if he were to report them'. Perhaps it was a grandson Spiderman of the neighbour and the neighbour's own daughter driving the vehicle. Perhaps after finding out about the neighbour's Spiderman, he wasn't *certain* which Spiderman he'd seen that day, so he just left it. Afterall, in his neck of the woods, this type of abduction stuff just doesn't happen.
  • -Police finally catch up with this information through the grapevine and seek RC out themselves to question him on it, months later; RC by this time, perhaps knows more particulars about this neighbour and their visiting Spiderman, so when he relayed the info to police, he made sure to make the details NOT fit the neighbour's visitors for reasons stated above. A statement was not apparently taken until sometime in 2016.
  • -Perhaps because RC *may* be trying to protect his neighbour, the whole truth did not come out, and police couldn't get anywhere with the information as given, except there was enough to say 'it was not the neighbour's Spiderman visitor who was seen'; no info was given however, to explain why this other Spiderman was ruled out.
  • -Perhaps RC is 100% certain that he saw Spiderman that day, but he can't say for sure which one of the two it was. Maybe it *was* the neighbour's Spiderman. Maybe not.
  • -Police are left with a big nothingburger.

"Detective Beacroft said further investigations revealed that on the same morning, a mother and her two children were visiting a resident across the road and one of the children, a boy, had a Spider-Man suit.

However. Detective Beacroft said the child Mr Chapman saw in the back seat of the car was not the child visiting the street.

“From the information provided by that child’s mother … it was not that child Mr Chapman saw,” she said."

Man saw child in car wearing Spider-Man suit, Tyrrell inquest hears

edited for formatting

So ... a person goes and speaks with their neighbour. "I saw a 4WD with a boy in it, dressed in a spiderman suit. Wasn't your boy was it? Was just a bit concerned it could have been the lost boy after I saw his face on TV last night, so thought I'd check".

Mr Chapman seems to have talked to quite a few people, except for the right ones. The police, the foster family, the neighbour.
 
I am taking a leap to assume this evidence may have been included somewhere in the 2000-page document given to the Coroner, and that may be how this matter had been discovered to have taken place in the first place - when PS's lawyer received the disclosure, noticed it, and did not find an accompanying waiver signed by PS to allow the recording, asked for it, and it did not exist, along with the absence of a warrant to allow the recording without PS's knowledge or consent?

I think the recordings were unveiled during the internal investigation into Jubes. imo
Which also leads me to think that it was an internal source that informed on Jubes.


Here is one link:
"Following a number of complaints, the Professional Standards Command commenced an investigation in 2018 overseen by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, into the conduct of the officer during the course of his operational duties," police said in a statement on Friday.

"Those inquiries disclosed a number of recordings allegedly made at locations in Parramatta and Kendall in New South Wales."
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...leged-illegal-recordings-20190621-p51zws.html
 
Last edited:
It is hard to say. Savage was arrested and charged with breaching the AVO in February 2014.

She has 'since' left town ... but who knows if it was before 12th September 2014, or after.

Revealed: Man Questioned Over William Tyrrell Breached Restraining Order
We do know that the postie delivering mail on the day was a woman but there doesn't seem much else to go on.

If it was the same postie working on the day, I wonder if PS was aware of the times she delivered to the street. Could he have been hoping to catch a glimpse of her and been drawn outside, possibly placing him out the front around the time William went missing?


The couple both heard a car on Benaroon Drive that Friday before they were told about the missing boy, which they say did a U-turn before it drove off but sounded exactly like the postman.
William Tyrrell inquest: Foster father to describe 'hysterical' search for missing boy

During those inquiries, a couple living on Benaroon Drive shared that they'd heard a car going towards the foster grandmother's home and turning around about the time William went missing.
Sharelle and Peter Crabb said they were on their back verandah when heard the car about 10.05am, the inquest was told.
'Boy in Spiderman suit' seen in car the day William Tyrrell abducted
 
We do know that the postie delivering mail on the day was a woman but there doesn't seem much else to go on.

If it was the same postie working on the day, I wonder if PS was aware of the times she delivered to the street. Could he have been hoping to catch a glimpse of her and been drawn outside, possibly placing him out the front around the time William went missing?


The couple both heard a car on Benaroon Drive that Friday before they were told about the missing boy, which they say did a U-turn before it drove off but sounded exactly like the postman.
William Tyrrell inquest: Foster father to describe 'hysterical' search for missing boy

During those inquiries, a couple living on Benaroon Drive shared that they'd heard a car going towards the foster grandmother's home and turning around about the time William went missing.
Sharelle and Peter Crabb said they were on their back verandah when heard the car about 10.05am, the inquest was told.
'Boy in Spiderman suit' seen in car the day William Tyrrell abducted
BBM, If that testimony by them is accurate doesn't that throw the timeline out as to when WT actually went missing?
And that would also make Sgt. Beacroft's timeline more accurate?
 
Last edited:
BBM, If that testimony by them is accurate doesn't that throw the timeline out as to when WT actually went missing?

No, not really. Postie heard at around 10:05am (probably give or take a few minutes, depending on accuracy of people's watches/recall imo), perhaps Paul Savage watching out to blow kisses at her after or while he was on the phone to his brother. William disappearing within 10 mins after that.

Was Paul Savage inside or outside when he spoke with his brother?

Earlier, the inquest heard evidence from Detective Sergeant Laura Beacroft, who pinpointed the time William disappeared to between 10.05am and 10.15am on the 12th September 2014.
William Tyrrell Inquest: Neighbour Admired Boy's Close Relationship With Foster Dad
 
No, not really. Postie heard at around 10:05am (probably give or take a few minutes, depending on accuracy of people's watches/recall imo), perhaps Paul Savage watching out to blow kisses at her after or while he was on the phone to his brother. William disappearing within 10 mins after that.

Was Paul Savage inside or outside when he spoke with his brother?

Earlier, the inquest heard evidence from Detective Sergeant Laura Beacroft, who pinpointed the time William disappeared to between 10.05am and 10.15am on the 12th September 2014.
William Tyrrell Inquest: Neighbour Admired Boy's Close Relationship With Foster Dad
But from what we have read FFC first noted WT missing at around 10:30 am.
(quote)
September 12, 2014
William Tyrrell disappeared from his grandmother's house on Benaroon Drive in Kendall at 10.30am
Timeline follows disappearance of William Tyrrell
Searched for him for about 20 minutes and called it in to LE at around 10:56 am.
And at what time did Chapman see the vehicle driving erratically with WT in the back from his testimony?
 
:eek:
I noticed that and can’t think of an alternative word. :D :D

Spellcheck at its finest.

It is definitely something in Germany. Maybe FG will explain when back on thread.

After that, Schröder often found himself in under the vehicle - screwing, twisting, oiling, tinkering with the muffler to make the car sound faster, although it really never drove any faster. But when it came to cars, it wasn't really about practicality.
Germany's changing attitudes towards the car | DW | 25.01.2011
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
1,875
Total visitors
1,950

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,977
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top