Discussion in '2010's Missing' started by Coldpizza, Sep 11, 2016.
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).
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.
Especially near a creek bed. So many things over the years would get tossed out car windows and make their way into the bush.
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.
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.
If they found blood in the FGM car, it can't be random, so depends on the evidence . 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
Yes I agree, but where they naming her as poi before or after thorough results of car examination came through .
This is the current search area.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
This information is very telling to me. IMO. Thank you.
This looks like a Best N Less carry bag from years ago, has the name printed multiple times down the faces. IMO
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.
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.
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