Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #62

Status
Not open for further replies.

Awakening

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
462
Reaction score
4,622
Heya Sleuthers, have been following this one & been reading these forums, so wanted to share some thoughts (Did have an old account years ago, but forget it now...)

We know foster parents can kill kids in their care & collude to cover it up (Murder of Tialeigh Palmer in QLD by the Thorburn family). Again, the foster parents were the last to see her alive & the entire family had conspired together to conceal the girl's murder :(

From the first few episodes of the Channel 10 "Where's William" podcast these odd instances stood out:

Episode 5 (Strike Force)
- When discussing GJ being assigned the case & at first being suspicious of them FM says it's "good" & how they should keep going back over old evidence (Yet ironically they came out full force to dispute the recent evidence review which focuses squarely on them)
- FM describes having a "chuckle" and "inside giggle" when when GJ was at first sizing them up (Duper's delight?)
- FM describes feeling "excited" when GJ was put on the case (this feels off, feeling relieved/hopeful, but excited?)
- There is a general tone of FM fangirling over GJ & Underbelly, sounds quite proud at this close association

This is a historical account of events, so it's possible at the time they were not feeling this way when he was 1st assigned the case.

OMG it's Bea Smith! You're alive! :p
 

JoeDetective

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
324
Reaction score
308
If she has done this she has managed to snow multiple police and emergency responders, her husband, family, the media etc .. is this likely? Or is it simply because once police were convinced everyone else was convinced too, simply believing that if police had cleared her that was good enough.

Regardless of what happened, I am yet to see evidence that rules the FFC out as a possible suspect, that does not mean she is guilty just that a diligent investigation would never rule her out as a suspect especially considering statistically she is the most likely suspect based on her relationship with the victim.

Nor any evidence that anyone was a more likely suspect than her with the exception of the biological parents who were ruled out with definitive evidence.

Please correct me if I am wrong? The fact that someone didn't hear her confessing on a recording device after interrogation is not proof of innocence.
 

mussopossum

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
1,190
Reaction score
6,134
1


This looks like a Best N Less carry bag from years ago, has the name printed multiple times down the faces. IMO

Your eye sight far better than mine!
 

Estelle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
16,263
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.

Yes IMO it was MFC who probably wanted a family - a girl and a boy. Maybe it was a second marriage when they had not had children before - maybe they tried IVF and it did not work out. Maybe FFC reluctantly agreed with the idea to keep her husband happy.
 
Last edited:

JoeDetective

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
324
Reaction score
308
I don't think we will, I think it will be suppresssed (if that is the right word).
Anything that can possibly be suppressed by the FFC will almost certainly be suppressed or an attempt will be made to suppress it based upon the available evidence of previous actions taken by FFC in this case. Which again does not make FFC guilty of any crime in the court of law.
 

Awakening

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
462
Reaction score
4,622
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 early attempt to "surreptitiously" explore adoption (although 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). But, I also appreciate honesty. Like, 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%. And 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. But, that doesn't exactly 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). Granted, perhaps it ends up being a fool's errand, as we're dealing with two 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" wouldn't really be fair (even if their endgame is to eventually get their children back).

Were fosters invested in the children's ultimate welfare unconditionally? Or were they operating from a place where they saw adoptive rights over the children as being the only good outcome for the children? (i.e. we're financially better off, we're socially more desirable, we don't have drug issues, we don't have issues with the law, WE HAVE PLAYED JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER THAT WE ARE BETTER PEOPLE and can give the children the best lives; and society supports this mentality)

So, was FFC invested in the 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 in 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 the guilty or innocence of the fosters.

The sense of entitlement is off-the-charts.

Great post, and great questions.
 

The gavel

Former Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Messages
122
Reaction score
856
Anything that can possibly be suppressed by the FFC will almost certainly be suppressed or an attempt will be made to suppress it based upon the available evidence of previous actions taken by FFC in this case. Which again does not make FFC guilty of any crime in the court of law.

Hopefully it's refused. The case is a matter of public interest and seeing as though the FF have gone to great pains to remain anonymous so nobody can identify the FD, it should be published under the same anonymity they've been afforded throughout the entire case. IMO
 
Last edited:

Estelle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
16,263
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.

A sense of entitlement is spot on. No empathy for the bio parents. "We are better than you".
 
Last edited:

interested64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
888
Reaction score
4,611
Can some one post the sketch of the cars parked..and what was the make of fgm car...
When it went back to the BPD they were uncleared. Much like when Laidlaw effectively uncleared the FCs.

USA has the Ramseys, UK has the McCanns, now Australia has the Fosters. All the females the focus of police investigations into dead or presumed dead children that were in thei
I'm
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.
Im not sure about that..anyone could have put him there..they will need more than that.
 
Last edited:

ediethedog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
186
Reaction score
670
On a related matter:

NSW Government refuses to budge on cutting support to kids in care at 18

NSW is the only state that stops financially supporting vulnerable children in care on their 18th birthday with the government not planning to join the majority anytime soon.

Every other state supports children in care until they reach the age of 21 in line with other countries including England and Canada — apart from Queensland, which is reviewing its current system of support that ends at 19.

Despite men and women on average leaving home around the age of 23 and 24 in Australia, Create chief executive officer Jacqui Reed said the state government was “not open for discussion” on the topic.

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph
I have a very good friend that wrote much of the legislation in Victoria for children and youth in care ...mostly kids in residential care but also including those who made it into the foster system. She retired 3 years ago due to ptsd .....the kids in our Victorian system are only subsidised until 16. The Resi kids are then either out and working at 16 ...and living in housing comm apartments on own or if a level of care is needed , they are in a living situation in semi subsidised housing together , working if possible and with a social worker who stays over. I will see if I can get more info out of her ....but the article is not actually correct .
 

Seabreeze1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
545
Reaction score
671
Could this fall into the category of Munchausen by proxy by FFC, or is it possible a psychopath can commit such an offence but in their head actually believe a whole different senario, hence seven years of fighting for WT to be found?
 

Trmtrm2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2021
Messages
327
Reaction score
2,073
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 early attempt to "surreptitiously" explore adoption (although 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). But, I also appreciate honesty. Like, 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%. And 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. But, that doesn't exactly 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). Granted, perhaps it ends up being a fool's errand, as we're dealing with two 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" wouldn't really be fair (even if their endgame is to eventually get their 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, was FFC 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 was thinking more down the lines that the foster mother doesn't want the children to hav a relationship with the biological mother because foster mother was sending emails asking that WT see the birth mother less, and she didn’t want to know the birth mother herself, that its creating another job for the salvation army they hav to employ a person to take child from foster mother to the birth mother then back again to foster mother meaning the children can now only see birth mother once ever 2 months, then in the wheres WT book its stated foster mother asked BA from the salvation army to ask birth mother if she can look after the other biological son while the biological mother has the next baby, foster mother wants to look after the other children well im sure if she wanted to know the biological mother thies things may be an option but she has opted out she doesn't want to know the biological mother but she is asking to look after the next child WT brother, I really wonder what dates did she ask to look after the next child when new baby was born and what dates did she send the emails claiming behaviors and sleep problems requesting that WT see the birth mother less or not at all then threaten giving up, I honestly wonder if this was punishment for not being allowed to get her hands on the next child, the birth mother’s hasn't lost that child why would she hand it over to the foster family to hav a brake from it? Especially when the foster family doesn't want to know her and she has to see WT less because the salvation army hav to do a swap over, before foster mother opted out on knowing the birth perents WT got to see his mum every 2 weeks, its like the foster mother is slowly moving forward to hav WT not see him mum at all, first its every 2 weeks, then every 7 to 8 weeks now its asked if WT can see her less because of behaviour and sleeping issues but in the mist of all this the foster mothers is asking if she can look after the other biological child WT brother because the birth mother is having a baby and my need a brake (its almost like she is basically trying to notify the department that hey there is another baby on the way this woman may need a brake and im here to take the next one)
 
Last edited:

Calsterr

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Messages
14
Reaction score
104
Could this fall into the category of Munchausen by proxy by FFC, or is it possible a psychopath can commit such an offence but in their head actually believe a whole different senario, hence seven years of fighting for WT to be found?
Munchausen by Proxy entered my mind as well. I’m sure their friend-circle and family have been very supportive/sympathetic over the years (as well as media). Wouldn’t matter if your identity suppressed or not….there’s been a lot of sympathetic attention.

Also, have been following this thread and finally joined to post
 

silverau

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
369
Reaction score
1,312
Your eye sight far better than mine!
Its not lol. I opened pic and zoomed in, with my eyes super close to my phone screen.

I can't find a similar one online, but I am sure I have one of those bags or three floating around somewhere in the spare room.

But yeah Best&Less printed multiple times down each face, old reusable shopping bags.

Must have been buried pretty quickly when discarded, old bags like that I don't put away and leave out to the elements (when gardening, toting stuff from bunnings, I'm lazy!) get chewed up by some bug or insect IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top